Should the rankings be changed to reflect who the best players are? - TennisForum.com
View Poll Results: SHOULD the rankings order the players by who's best?
Yes. Why even call them 'rankings', if they don't 'rank' the players? 18 35.29%
No. Having a fair means to determine seeding (and entry into tournaments) is more important 33 64.71%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:20 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
                     
Should the rankings be changed to reflect who the best players are?

The rolling 52 week rankings are a method to insure fair seeding at tournaments. They do that pretty well. What they DON'T do is tell you who's better than who. They don't even tell you who performing the best when they play.

Putting aside the difficulty of finding such a system, SHOULD the rankings order the players by who's best? Or do we just continue to determine that subjectively, juggling perfomance in the big events?

Keep in mind, if you order the players by who's best, the seedings at tournaments are likely to be un-fair. Consider Kim Clijsters being seeded at tournaments last summer when her ranking was outside the top fifty. Obviously she was better than a lot of the seeded players, but would that have been fair?

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:25 PM
Senior Member
 
tennisrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,226
                     
On what basis do you say that a particular player is 'better' than another?Its subjective.

"You know why I didn't go to Chelsea even though they offered more than £55m, because I love football and to play it attractively"
-Ronaldinho

Roman Abramovich-tax cheat Jose Maurinho-Megalomaniac


Proud to be a Gunners fan. We're skint, but proud


tennisrox is offline  
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 139
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
The rolling 52 week rankings are a method to insure fair seeding at tournaments. They do that pretty well. What they DON'T do is tell you who's better than who. They don't even tell you who performing the best when they play.

Putting aside the difficulty of finding such a system, SHOULD the rankings order the players by who's best? Or do we just continue to determine that subjectively, juggling perfomance in the big events?

Keep in mind, if you order the players by who's best, the seedings at tournaments are likely to be un-fair. Consider Kim Clijsters being seeded at tournaments last summer when her ranking was outside the top fifty. Obviously she was better than a lot of the seeded players, but would that have been fair?
Yes

So tell us who is the Best and lets get over it, okay?
Smeagol is offline  
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:29 PM
Senior Member
 
franny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,207
                     
It's subjective but I think that there could be a pretty good overall consensus based on rankings by the media or certain officials. Personally, I would allow a group of journalists to select the rankings, much like they do in college football and such. Obviously, commentators and journalists may be biased, but I think that most of them would take into consideration slam victories and player head to heads, etc.

hunger, desire, fire..........
stength, power, precision.........
talent, court sense, smartness........
no i am not talking about a racket or a squirrel, i am talking about the former and future number 1..............
martina hingis!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good Luck Justine Henin Hardenne, Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova, Mary Pierce, and any of my other favorites that I might have forgotten about at this moment.
franny is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Spunky83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: D´dorf
Posts: 10,846
                     
I am sure somewhere in Timbuktu there´s a woman who has never played tennis but has the most talent to do so if someone gave her a raquet.

The rankings will never reflect the best player, but they reflect who fought their asses off to play and win as many matches as they can without getting injured. Personally I think Justine´s the best tennis player right now but she doesn´t deserve to be ranked higher cause there were a lot of other players who were in fact able to attend the tourneys and play.

In theory, yes...I´d love to see the perfect ranking but I guess that is impossible

Riding the 3AM Rollercoaster

Visit: Anastasia-Myskina.com
Inside-Tennis.net
Justine - Nastya - Ana


M-A2R0T0I6N-A
Spunky83 is offline  
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,164
                     
you can't do things subjectively, there will always be people that have problems, you need something objective, that's why we have computer rankings, the only other option used in major sports currently would be something like what the NCAA does for football and basketball where sports writers/coaches/former players etc etc vote on who is the best, i guess you can vote the top 32 every week and then use those for seeding purposes? even then there are extreme problems since seedings at small events would be problematic

overall, no, they should use the rolling rankings, they do fine, being #1 is no one's priority as every player has said (except when they reach 1 for the first time since they're obligated to say they care) everyone only cares about titles, so let's get over the ranking issues

It will always be Arantxa, hall of famer! and martina hingis and kim clijsters - amazing legends
ana ivanovic and the italian girls, especially pennetta (forza azzurre! RG CHAMP FRANCESCA AND FINALIST SARA!)
aga, vika, sam, na in the next tier
NEVER say "I don't care who wins, I just want good tennis"
FaceyFacem is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,898
                     
great idea, but i already thought of it. The WTA will be calling me every Friday night in 2006 to get a list of who i've decided the 50 best players are that particular week, and they will use the list for their seeding at the following week's tournaments. I'm confident that this will be a far superior system to the current "rankings".
vogus is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 139
                     
Hint #1: The best player has a sister.
Smeagol is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:38 PM
Senior Member
 
A'DAM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,037
                     
I did answer yes but question is how to change it

Agnieszka Radwanska top 3 player
A'DAM is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:43 PM
Senior Member
 
shap_half's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 14,829
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeagol
Hint #1: The best player has a sister.
I have a sister. Is it me?
shap_half is offline  
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 139
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by shap_half
I have a sister. Is it me?
Are you African American?
Smeagol is offline  
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 08:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 139
                     
Hint #2 : Best players are the ones that win slams and bigger events.
Smeagol is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 09:01 PM
Senior Member
 
JulesVerne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 285
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeagol
Hint #1: The best player has a sister.
There is no ideal way of determining who is better than who. For all its faults the computer is probably the best method we have for assessing quality.

There is no evidence to support the view that either Serena or Venus have been the best players in the world since July 2003. If you disagree please provide some evidence.
JulesVerne is offline  
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 09:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,096
                     
After 2005 the argument is plain silly. Subjective judgement means "the one I like" which in turn means " the nice one, the gay one, the cute one, the pretty one, the black one, the green one, the tall one, the fat one, the one who cries a lot...."

The best player in January was Serena. By february it was Maria, By June Serena wouldn't feature in the best 20 and Justine was best. By Julythe best was Venus who barely registered before and vanished afterwards despite playing probably the best tennis of the year for a whole hour. By July Justine had vanished from the calculation. Kim was then best except at the FO and Wimbledon and the YEC - she was probably the best around in 2005 as a whole but still couldn't grab number 1 because she couldn't sustain be best for one extra big tournament. Lindsay was best somewhere enough to be number 1 but not in anything big. Is being best at everything else better than being best at the odd GS when the GS are spread around? Momo won the YEC but was poor in the GS when it mattered and lost the Fed Cup. Mary could beat any SF opponent but lose to any finalist in a big event. Its not even true that there is a relationship between ranking and who beats whom - most of the top players will lose regularly to some top players and beat others equally often - so the subjective concept of "best player" makes even less sense..

Picking players that might be best one week, or one month in a year tells you precisely nothing about who on average can be expected to play well. If you bet on Serena for the other GS after her AO win you didn't make much. Even Kim is now a variable performer. Thats why the rankings are over a year to give an idea of consistency and some idea of performance over the various surfaces.
fammmmedspin is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old Dec 1st, 2005, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 139
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulesVerne
There is no ideal way of determining who is better than who. For all its faults the computer is probably the best method we have for assessing quality.

There is no evidence to support the view that either Serena or Venus have been the best players in the world since July 2003. If you disagree please provide some evidence.
Volcana I need Help here Please
Smeagol 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