I would be quite surprised if the WTA were to conclude the same thing.
To get an answer to peculiar situations like this one, I went to the actual wording of the rules and concluded that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available.
You are mistaken!
On Aug 13, Fran will still have three non-zero P5 results available and the best two of those, 125 & 1, must be used as her "best 2". In addition, the penalty 0 will continue to be included until it expires. I believe 1926 was her correct total all along: 990 from 8 mandatories/slams + 126 from best 2 P5's + penalty 0 + remaining 5 of 16 slots left open for best 5 other results of 280+200+200+70+60. Have I missed something?
Yes! E.g. you
- overlooked that more than some of WTA’s rules let a lot of room for scope of interpretation,
- neglected a reasonable explanation of WTA’s ranking system and
- failed to spot WTA’s continuing interpretation of their Mandatory 0 pointer interpretation (which is always in players’ favor)!
Instead you pegged to the phrase “two (2) best results from P5 tournaments” (and you constantly missed the phrase “if played during the year”) and from that [“1 is higher than (Mandatory) 0”], you constructed that a former Top 10 player has to include (if played) two P5 results and all of her Mandatory 0 pointer earned for missing P5 tournaments she committed to. As you will realize tomorrow for another time, WTA’s ranking system doesn’t work the way you believe!
Thats what i got 1st
Just for the record: You didn’t answer SAISAI-GOAT
’s question two times (see posts # 324
& # 330
) and you still stood silent after he asked you for a third time:
you changed Fran's points from 1985 to 1926 to 1925 ... can you please explain what you count and do not count
whole thing is rather confusing
Looking at your answers after you incorrectly predicted next weeks’ ranking of players within specific situations (e.g. P5 results for new Top 20 player Sabine Lisicki
, Long Term Injury for Top 10 player Andrea Petkovic
), and your false information about mandatory 0 pointer (e.g Serena Williams
) I conclude that you either not prepared to read this few pages of WTA’s ranking system and to ask specific questions or you don’t understand their wording.
[...] On Apr 30 Kvitova was given a total of 7170, which didn't use her best two P5's, rather only included one non-zero P5 and a P5 penalty 0. Exactly the same situation with Fran now. […]
No, as these are two different issues you are mistaken!
- It turns out that Top 10 player Petra Kvitova missed her commitment to P5 Doha and consequently received a Mandatory 0 pointer (”Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.”.
- It’s clearly written that (”A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above”.
- Existing Top 20 player Francesca Schiavone must include her best two P5 results, if any. As she is a former Top 10 player and she didn’t fulfill her commitment to P5 Tokyo 2011, she received a Mandatory 0 pointer for missing this event. Even if “0” is smaller than “1”, WTA counts this as one of her two best P5 results for very good reasons!
- Independently, new Top 20 players (like Petra Kvitova in 2012) has to include her best Premier 5 Tournament within the 52 weeks cycle after she participates in her first Premier 5 event.
[…]It's really just a simple 16 results yielding the highest total (which is already stated at the start of the rankings section), with the proviso that at least two P5's (any two) must be included. […]
This is incorrect (e.g Top 10 & new Top 20 player Andrea Petkovic didn’t play four P5’s and will not receive any Mandatory 0 pointer for missing Doha, Rome, Montreal & Cincinnati).
About Aga Radwanska:
How many points will she need from next week in Cincy to be No. 1, if she lose in the Finals this week (Monday) in Canada?
I doubt that Victoria Azarenka committed to P5 Cincinnati. If so guichard
’s answer (see post # 346
) is false.
If Victoria Azarenka didn’t commit to P5 Cincinnati, she will have accumulated 9,025 points as of 8/20/12 (0 pointer for missing P5 Cincinnati 2011 will be replaced with 280 points from I Luxembourg 2011) while Agnieszka Radwańska’s total points maximum will be 8,790.
[...] Vika in the last year there is not played there, and the rules of WTA said that if the player missed in the last year tournament, then he is required to play the next. [...]
You are misguided!
The rule in question says that a Top 10 player must commit
to four (out of five) P5 tournaments and WTA' interprets lit a of its additional commitment requirements that a Top 10 player has to commit
to the one P5 event she didn't commit
the year before.
Vika Azarenka committed to P5 Cincinnati in 2011, but as she didn't fulfill her commitment, she received a Mandatory 0 pointer for missing the event in question. If she didn't commit to P5 Cincinnati (as WTA doesn't inform the general public about Top 10 players commitment, only those who have access to this kind of information are in the know) she had committed for 2012 to Doha, Rome, Montreal & Tokyo.