How difficult is it going to be for those non-household names on the 2009 ATP World Tour (to give the men's game its new, embellished moniker), to make the kind of headway to success that their hours of court time and dedication might merit? This is perhaps the most controversial upshot of the changes in the men's ranking system that come into effect as the bandwagon moves out of first gear this week.

The tennis-dedicated websites of the world have been filled in recent days with confused, worried fans who cannot understand the new system (they are not alone) in that it would appear to severely handicap those lower down the scale, and that a two or even three tier system in men's tennis will be the upshot unless it is hastily reviewed. It has even been suggested that we are on the way to the development of a caste system (i.e. a ranking based more on heredity, and wealth) than on equity and fairness.

The argument goes that that the ATP have neglected in their new points scheme in giving the same increase to the challenger and futures players that it has awarded to those in the highest echelons, such that lower-level tournaments and players that participate in them will be 'unfairly cheated' of points as well as prize money. In other words, the wealthy will be richer while the poor will either stay poor or get poorer.

I offer you this by way of an explanation. All of the points for the grand slam tournaments, and ATP World Tour 1000 and 500 events (compared to the 300 which were previously awarded for non-Slam/Masters tournaments) and those now worth 250 points (compared to the lowest events from last year, the 175s) have been raised. Points for the grand slam events and the old Masters have been doubled, giving the absolute best a real ranking leg-up. In the challengers and futures, from the old to the new system, most players' rankings will either have stayed the same or gone down.

The minutae of such deliberations means that making definitive sense of the system is almost impossible. But once the ATP World Tour decided to go with the titling option preferred of its market research (who asks these questions and more pertinently, who answers them, we are not told) and re-calibrate its tournaments into 1000 point, 500 point and 250 point categories, it had to come up with a ranking system which fell into line.

One upshot referred to time and again is the impact such ranking changes will have on the development of young players and how it makes reaching that crucial first rung of the professional ladder more precarious. For instance, one dismayed correspondent suggests that the new system could "effectively condemn those players with more limited talent to life in the doldrums. Whereas, previously, it might have allowed someone whose true ranking is outside the top 150, for example, to enjoy a short stint in the top 75-100, at the peak of his playing ability (through results largely obtained in challengers). The result of this might be that such players give up on a tennis career earlier than they could have done which, in the cases of the more struggling tennis nations, could be potentially disastrous in their efforts to develop new talent."

Also, it may well become a good deal tougher for the up-and-comers from smaller tennis nations to make it to the ATP level - because a longer time period to gain the points required means an increased financial burden and that potential talent could be lost at an early age. Paradoxically, it could benefit a nation like Britain whose governing body is desperate to have more players higher up the rankings to strike its targets and has the funds available to send these players to places where others cannot afford to go.

What, I ask, of the prospect of enhancing the prize money and ranking points at the lower end of the scale, to tempt more prospective players to give tennis a shot? Would that not be helpful?

All this, and the fact that points will be awarded for those participants in Davis Cup world group and Zone One matches from this year, only adds to the discrepancy. I have yet to find any player who believes that it is right to give ATP ranking points for the Davis Cup, it is more of a sop to the ITF which has long sought to protect and enhance its wonderful championship. This, though, is not the way to do it.

* * * * *

Ana Ivanovic, the Serbian who reached No.1 in the world when she won the French Open title last May, has decided to work apart from the Swiss Sven Groeneveld, formerly coach to Greg Rusedski, who oversaw a squad of players who wear adidas clothing. Ivanovic will continue to work with Scott Byrnes, her fitness trainer, and has no immediate plans to appoint a new coach. Amelie Mauresmo, of France, the former Wimbledon and Australian Open champion, also has a new coach, having split with Loic Courteau, who was in her corner for six years. Mauresmo, who was due to play Australia's Jelena Dokic - looking to re-establish herself on the tour after another period in the wilderness in the first round of the Brisbane International - has turned to Hugo Le Coq, another Frenchman.

* * * * *