ATP rankings - can anyone explain ?

[nutsytvr]

Why has the Fed gone back to #2?
I understand the "rolling total"system, but that doesn't explain todays rankings.

Prior to Cincinatti, the position was
2. Murray 8660
3. Federer 8065

Fed won Cinci last year, so was defending 1000 points. Murray went out in the 1/4's, so was defending 180.

This year Murray goes out in the semi, for 360 points, a net gain of 180 which is exactly reflected in todays rankings - he now has 8840.

On the same basis Fed should remain on 8065 - defending 1000 and winning 1000, a net gain of zero. However the rankings show he has gained 1000.
2. Fed 9065
3. Murray 8840

Now I know Fed gets very favourable treatment, but surely they dont fiddle the rankings for him.

Can anyone explain please?

[nutsytvr]

Thanks for that. Sounds like a reasonable explanation.
Paul

[nutsytvr]

Chippy

Thanks for this, but in my mind still doesn't fully explain.

Murray went to #2 because Fed didn't play Montreal, therefore dropping 600 points (lost in the final last year), and Murray won it for 1000, net gain of circa 850.

After Cinci, if this theory is correct, murray should have a gain of 360 as presumably his 180 points from last year would also have gone the week before, but in fact he only had a net gain of 180.

Any ideas?

Paul