Simply playing in tournaments isn't enough to reach the top of the rankings. The example of Antoine Nicoli, author of 171 padel tournaments in a single seasonThis perfectly illustrates this reality. Despite a massive investment and a perfectly respectable ranking, it remains far from french top 1000This situation serves as a reminder that progress in padel does not depend solely on the volume of competitions.

In recent days, many readers have felt that the current system perhaps places too much emphasis on tournament accumulation, at the expense of performance. The recurring idea is: introduce an element of “meritocracy based on results”, similar to what used to exist in tennis.

Performance, setbacks… and risk-taking

In the old FFT tennis system, good and bad performances influenced rankings. A player who won against a stronger opponent progressed further, while one who lost to a weaker opponent was penalized. Many players believe a similar mechanism could limit the "overvalued" rankings acquired simply through volume of play.

The argument is clear:
"A player who plays 150 tournaments a year but doesn't break into the top 2000 must have lost regularly. These losses should count."

This approach would introduce a notion of risk-taking: if a player is ranked higher than their actual level, they would automatically become exposed to results that would adjust their rank.

The current FFT method: simple, easy to understand… and voluntary

In 2024 already, Padel Magazine mentioned the possibility of inserting a dose of the system ELO within the FFT method, without calling into question the current structure. The ranking system implemented by the Federation has one key advantage: the simplicity.
It also encourages participation: players can engage in competition without fear of “losing points”, which would have a deterrent effect.

In a sport where competition is one of the driving forces of development, this aspect remains essential.

Padel, a sport for two… an often overlooked element

Even if some players appear to be ranked higher than their actual level, this situation has a direct consequence:
finding a partner of the same ranking becomes more difficult.

An overrated player naturally attracts fewer opponents: they are forced to play with those willing to join their team. In the long run, this naturally reduces the gap between theoretical ranking and actual skill level. An implicit mechanism, linked to the collective nature of padel.

The case of Antoine Nicoli: an example, but not a problem

The real question isn't whether Antoine should be ranked lower. He plays a lot, he plays out of passion, and he takes—mathematically speaking—more risks than average. It's a personal approach, which can indeed expose him to more setbacks. But it doesn't, on its own, justify a reform of the system.

Because the issue goes far beyond his case: it concerns all competitors.

Should we go back to the old tennis system?

For many observers, the answer is simple: immense.

Reverting to a system sometimes considered, rightly or wrongly, punitive, would run counter to the current philosophy: facilitating access to competition and maintaining a positive dynamic within clubs. The FFT wanted a clear, accessible framework that aligns with the wishes of players.

Towards a volume/ELO mix? Possible, but not a priority.

A combination of the ELO rating system and the current method seems feasible on paper. However, there is no indication that this is a priority for the FFT.
Besides, is it really necessary to change anything? Many believe that the system, even if imperfect, retains a real overall coherence.

As is often the case, the answer depends on one's state of mind:
Some advocate for a volume-based approach, while others would prefer a ranking more sensitive to raw performance. But no method is perfect.

Franck Binisti

Franck Binisti discovered padel at the Club des Pyramides in 2009 in the Paris region. Since then, padel has been part of his life. You often see him touring France to cover major French padel events.

Tags