The current system of points scales and access limits to padel tournaments, especially for the P100 et P250, raises questions. These competitions, designed to offer opportunities to players looking for points and experience, seem today, sometimes to miss their objective. Indeed, some P100 display too high a level of play according to some players, calling into question the effectiveness of the current participation criteria.

Too low a limit for P100 and P250?

Currently, to participate in a P100, it is necessary to be classified beyond the french top 2000. This threshold, designed to encourage beginners or intermediate players, would still appear too flexible. Tournaments P100 include players in high competitive level, making access to these competitions difficult for those they are supposed to target.

In addition, the restriction for the P250, which limits participation to players ranked below the top 500, amplifies this imbalance. Between the top 500 and top 2000, we find players of a very good level, but who come up against tournaments P250 sometimes as competitive as higher categories. Result: the best players of P100 hesitate to register for P250, dissuaded by the high level displayed in these tournaments.

A necessary adaptation of restrictions

The initiative of the FFT to establish participation restrictions for P100 et P250 is in itself a relevant approach. The objective of segmenting competitions by level makes it possible to offer balanced tournaments. However, these restrictions, as they are currently defined, no longer take into account the rapid increase in the number of fired and competitive players.

Padel is experiencing strong growth, and the current criteria, in particular the threshold of top 2000 for P100, do not reflect this evolution. This gap creates a concentration of competitive players in tournaments that are supposed to be more accessible, thus creating level differences significant and frustrations among participants.

Readjust for better balance

To maintain the initial objective of these restrictions, it becomes essential to adapt the thresholds according to the current density of players. For example:

  • Raising the access threshold to P100s to a ranking beyond the top 3000, allowing wider participation of beginner or intermediate players.
  • Increase P250 restriction above the top 700, to avoid too much competition in this category.

This is obviously the opinion of a modest padel player, and this demonstration could be qualified. For example, one could argue that the more the number of players involved in competition increases, the more the average level naturally tends to decrease.

We could also highlight the existence of P25, a category that is specifically aimed at players who want to get started in competition. In addition, this opinion may vary from one region to another, as some geographical areas are notoriously more competitive than others.

The proliferation of padel tournaments and the number of clubs inevitably leads to a drop in the overall average level. In other words, a level category seems to have been lost. The P100 yesterday have become the P250 today, and so on.

This raises an important question: should the access limitations to certain categories to preserve a competitive balance?

Benjamin Dupouy

I discovered padel directly during a tournament, and frankly, I didn't really like it at first. But the second time, it was love at first sight, and since then, I haven't missed a single match. I'm even ready to stay up until 3am to watch a final of Premier Padel !

On the same subject

Tags