[...]Vika must count Doha and Rome ... she is not counting Rome but rather counting 2011 Tokyo
You are spot on: At present, Victoria Azarenka's two best P5 results are 900 (Doha 2012) and 395 points (Tokyo 2011). The latter will anniversary out and can be replaced with 125 points (Rome) or a better result (obviously she has committed to Tokyo 2012).
I am really confused who must count what now
Fran is a 2011 Top 10 player 2012 Top 20 player
she got a 0 for missing 2011 Tokyo
in 2012 she got 1 from Rome and 1 from Cincy
so as of next week her 2 best P5 are 1 and 1 but she gets to use the 0 as a result
Vera is a 2012 Top 10 player
she got 0 for Rome and Cincy
she got 1 for Doha
so she gets to use the 0 and 0 and does not have to use the 1
what about her 620 from 2011 Tokyo
At present, Francesca Schiavone’s two best P5 results are 0 (Tokyo 2011) and 1 (Cincinnati 2012). The mandatory 0 pointer will anniversary out and replaced either with 1 point (Rome 2012) or a better result in Tokyo 2012 (my answer
to your question
fitted, don’t expect the opposite ten days later!).
Until they will anniversary out, Vera Znovareva’s two best P5 results are both 0 (Rome & Cincinnati 2012). At present 620 points from Tokyo 2011 is her best tournament result.
That means at the end of all P5 events been played not half way thru.
You include your best 2 from all 5.
Again, that’s false! After you updated the opener on 8/15/12, 22:04 BST without any notification and showing Vera Zvonareva’s accurate upcoming total of 2,375 points, your realized your blunder (in your update on 8/15/12, 05:36 BST you still failed).
I didn't predict anything at all. I did say the plain reading of the rules leads to 1926 points for Fran not 1985.
No, that’s not what you wrote as you joined this discussion:
I would be quite surprised if the WTA were to conclude the same thing. I had thought about this earlier this year, when I decided it was high time I programmed in the P5 rules into my spreadsheet rather than applying them manually. 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.
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer
[…] At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding
- 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.
- 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) […].
- A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules […].
No, another time you failed (see WTA 2012 Rulebook, p 227-228)! The bullets from section ii. Ranking points treatment
appear in chronological order [= lit (b), (d) and (e)].
It again states "Top 10 Player’s[/b] ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year". It then merely adds clarification that a penalty 0 is first of all treated as a played tournament and that it could in fact be a best two result, "if applicable". It does not say it will automatically be treated as one of the best two. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then it is you who aren't actually reading what they wrote, only reiterating what they do. […]
It goes without saying, that a Top 10 player who didn’t miss at least one of four P5 tournaments she committed to, will not penalized with a mandatory 0 pointer. Consequently for these Top 10 players the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points
) is not applicable.
Common sense has it that the expression in brackets offers additional information, or in other words: skipping this part will lead to different results. If a player missed all four of her P5 commitments, there is no divergence in the outcome. Therefore those who formed this rule had situations in mind where 0 points count as best result although other better results are available. You don’t acknowledge that but I am confident that you realize that people who wrote the program (please mind: we are talking about a computer ranking!) have implemented the rule in question that way a long time ago!
[…]Nowhere have you justified where it says they can use zeroes to satisfy the P5 requirements when there are two or more non-zero P5's. That is the whole point.
Yes, I have on several occasions! Independently, at this stage we should agree to disagree that we don’t find common ground in interpreting the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points