Do you think WTA will..... - TennisForum.com

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 12th, 2004, 11:34 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Louisiana USA
Posts: 1,217
                     
Do you think WTA will.....

EVER change the rankings to reflect quality as opposed to quantity? They did it in the days of Evert and Nav. I think Serena and Venus would actually be ranked higher. I think the WTA needs to take a good look at this. The #1 ranking has become a joke.
Shane54 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 12th, 2004, 11:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 28,463
                     
Yeah, I was sure they refuse to gives Mauresmo number one place!

THis is a joke: she has wons no GC and no YEC
Wiggly is offline  
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 12th, 2004, 11:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 1,874
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggly
Yeah, I was sure they refuse to gives Mauresmo number one place!

THis is a joke: she has wons no GC and no YEC
You can't refuse to give someone a ranking

they won't change anything, unless the whole thing becomes a complete joke - which i don't believe it is right now.

Myskina * Henin-Hardenne * Zvonerava

Davenport - Dementieva
Crazy_Fool is offline  
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 12:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,079
                     
The argument is bizarre.

Momo does not benefit from quantity - she has only played 18 tournaments for her ranking. Hardly excessive. Everyone with fewer tournaments has less because they were sick or injured and you wouldn't want a system that made people who were in bed sick for half the year or off pursuing second careers number 1 would you. There is no way and no system that can make Venus and Serena top 2 players again without them playing an awful lot better. Giving the GS more points or reintroducing the old divisor would both produce the same rankings. Increasing GS points even more would also counter your quality argument - a number 1 who was number 1 for beating Lisa Raymond in a GS final would look far less respectable than a number 2 who had a string of tournament wins over top players. Quality is shown by sustained results not one off GS wins.

The reason Momo is number 1 has nothing at all to do with a lack of quality - its everything to do with the fact that she has done better than anyone else outside the GS and the GS winners have not done very well in the other GS. The fact that you did not register her winning tournaments doesn't make it something that never happened. The only alternative to Momo if you want a GS winner with other wins too is Nastya and then people would be pointing to her other 3 GS results and the fact that Momo has more top player wins. Someone has to be number 1 and with no clear candidate Momo's case is as good as any.

The idea that Venus and Serena should be eanked higher on quality is even more illogical and counterfactual - it contradicts the points about quality being needed and the requirement to do well in GS. On the grounds you want to apply to everyone else Serena and Venus would be ranked where they are or lower - precisely because the players above them have done better. The simple reality of mathematics is that if Serena was higher ranked someone would have to be placed lower and it would be pretty odd if it was someone with twice the points, Dementieva with 2 GS finals and better wins, Sveta or Maria with GS or Jennifer who beat serena in 2 GS. There seems no reason to reward the sisters more for playing poorly.
fammmmedspin is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,972
                     
yeap, let's create a system, so that a Miami champion would get to #1 and a Warsaw winner would get to #2 automatically.

Vassilissa is my girl............
tenn_ace is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 12:40 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Louisiana USA
Posts: 1,217
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenn_ace
yeap, let's create a system, so that a Miami champion would get to #1 and a Warsaw winner would get to #2 automatically.
Actually that is the way it is now, Quantity over quality . Thank you for supporting my point
Shane54 is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 12:44 AM
country flag ZAK
Senior Member
 
ZAK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mo-Town
Posts: 3,582
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane54
Actually that is the way it is now, Quantity over quality . Thank you for supporting my point
Mauresmo has only played 18 tournaments. That's not a huge quantity, plus she's had her share of injuries

Tatiana Golovin, Timea Bacsinzky, Petra Kvitova, Kristina Mladenovic, Laura Robson
ZAK is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 12:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21,972
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane54
Actually that is the way it is now, Quantity over quality . Thank you for supporting my point
you don't know much about tennis, do you?

before posting a bs, check out how many tournaments (Tier 1) Momo won and as well as getting to LA Final.

Vassilissa is my girl............
tenn_ace is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Golden State Of Mind
 
StarDuvallGrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,546
                     
I'm not sure there is a system that works or could work especially if you have years like 2004. Amelie may be ranked #1 but she's not the best player in the world. It's too bad distinctions like that must be made in order for the whole thing not to be looked at as a joke.
StarDuvallGrant is offline  
post #10 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 08:10 AM
Bright Like Neon Love
 
Richie77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Twilight World
Posts: 13,666
                     
The rankings look ridiculous this week, but it's just a mirror of what a crazy year it's been for women's tennis. Frankly, the computer is rewarding someone for being No. 1 because it has to. In my mind, there is no No. 1 player for the year 2004. It's been too wide open.

For those who are interested, here is what the Top 12 would look like with an average system. I used a minimum divisor of 12, and no maximum divisor. This includes all of the results that are NOT Best of 17, so the totals are different than on the official rankings

1. Henin-Hardenne 4004/13 = 308.0000
2. Davenport 4057/15 = 270.4667
3. Mauresmo 4528/18 = 251.5556
4. Clijsters 2815/12 = 234.5833 (Kim has 10 tournaments on the computer)
5. Myskina 4240/20 - 212.0000
6. S. Williams 2273/12 = 189.4167 (Serena has nine tournaments on the computer)
7. Capriati 2598/14 = 185.5714
8. V. Williams 2145/13 = 165.0000
9. Dementieva 3373/22 = 153.3182
10. Kuznetsova 3038/21 = 144.6667
11. Sharapova 2571/18 = 142.8333
12. Zvonareva 2321/24 = 96.7083

So the rankings would be strange anyway you sliced it. However, I do think these average results are a little more reflective of reality than what the WTA has right now...even though it means the Wimbledon champion is just below the Top 10!
Richie77 is offline  
post #11 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2004, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Andy_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Goofing on Elvis
Posts: 6,286
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie77
So the rankings would be strange anyway you sliced it. However, I do think these average results are a little more reflective of reality than what the WTA has right now...even though it means the Wimbledon champion is just below the Top 10!
http://www.wtatour.com/players/playe...layerID=310137

Check out her results for the year: aside from her perfect weeks in Wimbledon and Birmingham, and the quarter in Paris, her results are not so impressive... if we except a semifinal in Memphis (Tier III event) and a quarter in San Diego (Tier I), Maria has never gotten past the round of 16 in other 9 tournaments she's entered!

Which means, for sure, that she's been capable of producing some very high quality tennis at certain tournaments, yet she's not managed - and it can be reasonably blamed also on her young age, I suppose - to keep up that level consistently. If the WTA ranking is designed to analyze the overall results of a player along a whole year, then it is understandable that she fails to be there with the most consistent players.

'What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason'


Andy_ is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome