OK. Interesting system. Reminds of the current WTA ranking system, which rewards quality
over quantity. For example, Connolly won 4 majors in one year, which is more than Davenport earned in her entire career! Yes, Lindsay had a longer career. But a Grand Slam, plus 5 other majors, rates less than Lindsay Davenport? Hmmm
Doris Hart, a wonderful player, won 6 majors in singles. Serena has won 13, to date. Twice as many majors, and Serena ranks behind Hart?
Rosie Casals never won a singles major, and won 10 pro singles titles, to Austin's 30 (including 2 majors, and 2 season ending championships).
Unless doubles is factored in, I'll never understand why in a sport like tennis, a rating system should reward quantity over quality.
I take your point ‘quality over quantity’ sounds reasonable – but it’s not that simple.
How much quality and how much quantity and what proportional reward are all factors.
How far do we exalt the slams over normal tournaments? 1x 4x 10x 20x etc? - I went for 6 times on average.
What period of quality? Dan Maskell said while watching Virginia Wade playing Nancy Richey that Wade was playing the best tennis he had ever seen – she lost the match.
The best year makes the best champion? The best 3 years – the best 10 years or the best 20 years?
Would we apply this say to parenthood – oh she was a fantastic mom for a year, but not so good after that ?
Quantity has to count for something – is 4 slams in one year better than 22 slams in a career?
Longevity helps but what REALLY counts is having an extremely successful or if you like quality long career.
I agree that majors are the cream of tennis but other tournament successes should be rewarded proportionately, don’t you think – we cant say all those other wonderful tournaments like the Italian open, Key Biscayne, Indian Wells etc count for next to nothing.
Actually I think my rankings are quite rightly – slam biased (worth on average 6 times a normal tournament)
Misfortune cost Austin, Connolly and Seles a better ranking – unfortunately luck plays a part in the grand scheme of things.
Incidentally, speaking of quality where would you place Suzanne Lenglen who only lost once (due to illness probably) in her career? Navratilova for example lost 200 times!!
I think it’s a little harsh to say I’m rewarding quantity over quality – I would say I’m rewarding highly consistent long-term quality over short term brilliance.
You can rank players according to whatever system you want and my system follows the simple rule that each success should be rewarded proportionally.