PDA

View Full Version : What is the best way to contrive the ranking system...


~ The Leopard ~
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:23 AM
... to ensure that a French lesbian who has not won a slam, but has played better overall than everyone else for 52 weeks, cannot become number 1?

I'd have made a poll, but let's hear all your original ideas instead. :)

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:27 AM
Give a 1000 point bonus for winning a GS. Then watch as you get a number 1 who plays Wimbledon and the USO and somewhere else to get to three tournaments and then goes off to train and relax for the rest of the year.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:27 AM
Grand Slam: 1000 points.

Tier I: 50 points.

ys
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:29 AM
... to ensure that a French lesbian who has not won a slam, but has played better overall than everyone else for 52 weeks, cannot become number 1?

I'd have made a poll, but let's hear all your original ideas instead. :)
As I've already suggested. Separate the concept of "top-ranked player" from a concept of "#1 player". Make "top-ranked player" a prerequisite for "#1 player" and make being "top-ranked" only insignificant by itself. Bind a concept of "#1 player" to doing well in Slams as well. and make "#1 player" important and significant achievement.

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:31 AM
Grand Slam: 1000 points.

Tier I: 50 points.
Might as well complete the logic. Beat numbers 1 3 and 5 at Sydney = 60 quality points. Beat number 27, 18 and 13 to win a GS = 435 quality points.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:33 AM
take them away from the WTA, they are fixing them so they can't be trusted

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:40 AM
Another way, I suppose, would be to give any player called "Capriati" 1000 special bonus points every time she beats a top ten player or a former number 1. That system would suit the WTA pretty well. Better make sure that this happens a few times, though. Give chair umps some special instructions about line calls any time such a player is on court. :devil:

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:42 AM
As I've already suggested. Separate the concept of "top-ranked player" from a concept of "#1 player". Make "top-ranked player" a prerequisite for "#1 player" and make being "top-ranked" only insignificant by itself. Bind a concept of "#1 player" to doing well in Slams as well. and make "#1 player" important and significant achievement.
But as we may find out when they try and find an ITF 2004 World Champion, how would you decide who is the best player?. Lindsay, Nastya, Sveta, Maria, Momo could all have a case made for them and if its left to the media the US votes might go to serena anyway. You can't even decide it on a H2H record - Nastya would beat the people who beat Lindsay in GS but Lindsay might well beat Nastya.

Its not even clear who is best when you do have a player who has the H2H over the others - if you had a dominant player who rarely played and probably owed their dominance to that would they be the "best"? Its certainly not clear when you have 5 now with similar cases and a number 1 ranked player who can't beat a sixth player Elena D in a GS and a number 1 player in the Race who can't get to a GS final..

vogus
Sep 14th, 2004, 05:16 AM
it's pretty simple, just increase the weight of the Grand Slams in the rankings to four times the value of the Tier I's - right now it's what, 400 points to win a Tier I and 800 for a GS. It should be 1600 points for a GS. If they do that, no way we would ever get this embarrassing situation of having Mauresmo at #1 without even a Slam final, much less a Slam victory. Mauresmo and other players who don't perform at Slams would be taken out of the #1 equation by doubling the GS points weighting.

treufreund
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:20 AM
yeah, then everyone can just skip all non-grand slams :haha: :rolleyes:

Tier I's are not that easy to win. :fiery:

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:51 AM
it's pretty simple, just increase the weight of the Grand Slams in the rankings to four times the value of the Tier I's - right now it's what, 400 points to win a Tier I and 800 for a GS. It should be 1600 points for a GS. If they do that, no way we would ever get this embarrassing situation of having Mauresmo at #1 without even a Slam final, much less a Slam victory. Mauresmo and other players who don't perform at Slams would be taken out of the #1 equation by doubling the GS points weighting.
really? then with Zuluaga reaching the semis of the Australian Open, under that system she should earn at least 800-1000 points, that would put her well inside the top 10.

what they have to do is to think a good system, analyze what went wrong with the current one and come with something coherent, not write down how they want it to look and they make a system that just gives them that.

chris whiteside
Sep 14th, 2004, 11:20 AM
it's pretty simple, just increase the weight of the Grand Slams in the rankings to four times the value of the Tier I's - right now it's what, 400 points to win a Tier I and 800 for a GS. It should be 1600 points for a GS. If they do that, no way we would ever get this embarrassing situation of having Mauresmo at #1 without even a Slam final, much less a Slam victory. Mauresmo and other players who don't perform at Slams would be taken out of the #1 equation by doubling the GS points weighting.


Amelie has amassed the points she needs to be the current #1 under the system in place so we all have to accept she deserves it as it stands.

But it is obvious that many of us do not feel happy with the situation and the ranking system. What the answer is would take a greater brain than mine to put in place. However, I don't believe increasing the Slams to 4 times the value of the Tier I's would help because it would really devalue the Tier I's and they are an important part of the tour. It might also encourage those reaching the semis of a Slam to play atournament or two fewer.

Perhaps a compromise on this might be the solution. Give double the current points available to a Slam winner (which would be four times a Tier I) but leave the other points for r/u downwards the same. Maybe, give some bonus points to a ruuner up in a Slam but not the extent of double those currently available.

It's a real dilemma.

Mariangelina
Sep 14th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Roland Garros: 3000 points. :tape:
Other Slams: 600 points.
Other Slams won by blonde players: 1000 points.
Other Slams won by Americans: 1000 points.
OS won by blonde Americans: 1500 points.
OS won by French players: 500 points.
Tier 1s: 50 points.
If player is gay, cut points in half.
When player receives numerical #1 ranking, put her in front of special "#1 Tribunal" composed of straight white male WTA marketing people, George W. Bush, Playboy subscribers, and ys to determine if she REALLY DESERVES to be #1. If not, she can be Number #1 1/2.

With this lovely system (which the WTA really should consider) it is safe to say Amélie will never get near #1.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 11:43 AM
LOL.

Rollo
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:22 PM
I already posted a quite comprehensive answer to your question Leopard:)

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:34 PM
I already posted a quite comprehensive answer to your question Leopard:)
But your system doesn't guarantee what The Leopard is asking for. :)

calabar
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:41 PM
First we need to get rid of the premise that being RANKED #1 and being the best are one in the same. Obviously they are NOT. There is no definitive way or ever determining who is the "best" at anything. And as far as the ranking goes, the only change I would make to the status quo is to get rid of this "best 17" CRAP. EVERY tournament ought to count in one's ranking. Beyond that I would leave the current impirical system in place and let the chips fall where they may. I for one do not buy this nonsense that not winning a slam disqualifies one from being ranked #1.

Just imagine the same player losing in the finals of the 4 slams, Miami, and the WTA Champs to 6 different players. How in the world would that consistency not be ranked above the acheivement of either of the other 6?

Joana
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Cancel the WTA tour and leave only Slams.

Harju.
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:31 PM
A better idea.

"Amelie, you are fired."

Problem solved. ;)

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:38 PM
Mariangelina is the most creative so far. Let's have some more of those good ideas that we can send to the WTA and solve this terrible problem. :)

Rollo
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:39 PM
Nothing in life is a 100% GD-but lets put it this way. I've never had a slamless #1 using my system, so far it's worked 100%:)

Posted by Calabar-First we need to get rid of the premise that being RANKED #1 and being the best are one in the same. Obviously they are NOT. There is no definitive way or ever determining who is the "best" at anything.
Good luck. Not happening. Tennis fans, sports writers, and the players aren't buying that notion Calabar. Sports compretition is about determining who is "best". If it wasn't why bloody bother keeping scores or rankings?

For both tennis and the WTA to promote itself to its fullest potential the notion of "the best" and "number 1" needs to be #1. As long as it isn't the WTA tour and the sport suffers.

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:42 PM
*Noting that some people need to look up the word "contrive".* ;)

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:52 PM
Nothing in life is a 100% GD-but lets put it this way. I've never had a slamless #1 using my system, so far it's worked 100%:)

That's nice. ;) And I guess it's unlikely that this will ever happen.

But I do have a little problem with that reasoning.
You say "a slamless no.1 is a crying shame". Now if you REALLY believe that, you have to use a system where this is impossible by all means.
And in your system, it is not. :) So you still accept the possibility of having a slamless no.1.

nash
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:19 PM
Make points for WINNING a grand slam much higher than RU, SF, QF, etc... and also MUCH HIGHER than Tier 1's, 2's, etc... Then, move back to a system where players are required to play a minimum number of tournaments and their results are AVERAGED using the number of tournaments that they play.

TheBoiledEgg
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:30 PM
why not just give them a public flogging if they get to #1 without a slam :tape:

one idea is JUST give a points bonus if someone wins two slams.
This is what happens in juniors (well 3 Grade A events need to be won)

Rollo
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:30 PM
Nash-my ranking rewards winning above all else-winning tour events as well as slams. The breakdown is:

Win an event: 100%
RU 40
Semi 20
Quarters 10%

Go Dominique:

Now if you REALLY believe that, you have to use a system where this is impossible by all means.
And in your system, it is not. :) So you still accept the possibility of having a slamless no.1. [/QUOTE]
OK GD, I concede-LOL:) I accept the POSSIBILITY of a slamless #1. I also accept the possibility of Princess Diana coming back with Elvis though-slight as it is;)

Ted of Teds Tennis
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:34 PM
it's pretty simple, just increase the weight of the Grand Slams in the rankings to four times the value of the Tier I's - right now it's what, 400 points to win a Tier I and 800 for a GS. It should be 1600 points for a GS. If they do that, no way we would ever get this embarrassing situation of having Mauresmo at #1 without even a Slam final, much less a Slam victory. Mauresmo and other players who don't perform at Slams would be taken out of the #1 equation by doubling the GS points weighting.

If you had done this years ago, Hingis would still have been #1 after Wimbledon 2001

nash
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Rollo - Your system sounds very interesting. For the life of me, I don't understand why the WTA went away from the 'average' system. I've heard all of the reasoning about tour growth, and top players not playing in all events, but to me, it was better the way it used to be in "the good old days".

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:40 PM
OK GD, I concede-LOL:) I accept the POSSIBILITY of a slamless #1. I also accept the possibility of Princess Diana coming back with Elvis though-slight as it is;)
That's all I wanted to hear. ;)

In the end, the WTA made a compromise (which is more in favour of the tour tournaments), and you made a compromise too (which is more in favour of the Grand Slams). And both is fine. :)

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:44 PM
Amelie has amassed the points she needs to be the current #1 under the system in place so we all have to accept she deserves it as it stands.

But it is obvious that many of us do not feel happy with the situation and the ranking system. What the answer is would take a greater brain than mine to put in place. However, I don't believe increasing the Slams to 4 times the value of the Tier I's would help because it would really devalue the Tier I's and they are an important part of the tour. It might also encourage those reaching the semis of a Slam to play atournament or two fewer.

Perhaps a compromise on this might be the solution. Give double the current points available to a Slam winner (which would be four times a Tier I) but leave the other points for r/u downwards the same. Maybe, give some bonus points to a ruuner up in a Slam but not the extent of double those currently available.

It's a real dilemma.
that would give the winner about 200 more points if you just doubled the final round points or another 650 if you gave them a bonus of all the points. The second interpretation makes Myskina not Momo number 1 for a while the first doesn't. The problem still comes back with Lindsay substituting for Momo as the slamless number 1 if Myskina can't defend her Autumn points.

Problem is you could then have a number 1 who performed badly on tour all year (the number 1 who couldn't win) but won 2 GS or the GS specialist who played little else (the absent number 1) or the GS winner who won number 1 because Lindsay had a bad leg (the act of God number 1) or the subvariant of the last one - Lisa Raymond making the AO final and Lindsay breaking a leg in it (the who on earth is she and what amazing luck number 1)

Your idea makes the most sense of any seen so far though. Personally I dont think you can avoid questionable number 1s with 4 GS winners in a year. They all needed to be more consistent. Nastya would have had it with a few points at the YEC and at the Olympics or by defending her ranking at the other GS. Lindsay with a good leg or no letdown at wimbledon, Justine without the virus. Momo had her failures at GS but so did theother contenders too.

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Make points for WINNING a grand slam much higher than RU, SF, QF, etc... and also MUCH HIGHER than Tier 1's, 2's, etc... Then, move back to a system where players are required to play a minimum number of tournaments and their results are AVERAGED using the number of tournaments that they play.
Averaging today still leaves Momo number 1. You would have to invent 500 points for Myskina for her to get it (and she would probably still lose it to Lindsay or Momo in the indoor season so add 1000) . You would also make sure Venus didn't get to the YEC and sharapova did despite Sharapova doing less outside wimbledon. Do you still prefer that system?

Giving more points for winning might solve the problem but it would pose its own problems. Do you really want to give someone 400 points for beating up 3 top 10 players in a tier 1 the week before and then give them 500-whatever for beating Elena D or even Lisa Raymond or Nathalie Tauziat in one match? Why reward Serena for beating Venus easily in a final when her real achievement was beating Justine, Lindsay, Jen or a russian in the 4th rd, QF and SF?

nash
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:03 PM
Averaging today still leaves Momo number 1. You would have to invent 500 points for Myskina for her to get it (and she would probably still lose it to Lindsay or Momo in the indoor season so add 1000) .
As I said, in addition to using averages, also bump up the points for WINNING Grand Slams.

You would also make sure Venus didn't get to the YEC and sharapova did despite Sharapova doing less outside wimbledon. Do you still prefer that system?
Yep... I'm a fan of Venus, but unfortunately, she didn't perform well at the slams this year. Sharapova deserves it for winning Wimbledon.

Giving more points for winning might solve the problem but it would pose its own problems. Do you really want to give someone 400 points for beating up 3 top 10 players in a tier 1 the week before and then give them 500-whatever for beating Elena D or even Lisa Raymond or Nathalie Tauziat in one match?
Yep, if that one match is a Grand Slam final!

Why reward Serena for beating Venus easily in a final when her real achievement was beating Justine, Lindsay, Jen or a russian in the 4th rd, QF and SF?Because the achievement is not in who you beat, it's in becoming a part of history by winning one of the majors.

Ted of Teds Tennis
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:19 PM
We should also remember that for the Men, Agassi had a chance at the year-end #1 in 2002 despite not having won a Slam. And I don't recally anybody bitching about it.

Worse, if Lleyton Hewitt had turned his ankle in the Wimbledon final and had to retire, we'd have had a year-end Top 4 or 5 with no Slam winners:

AO: T. Johansson d. Safin
FO: A. Costa d. Ferrero
W: Nalbandian v. Hewitt
USO: Sampras d. Agassi

Yet the sportswriters seem to think the men's system is wonderful (when in fact it's even worse than what the women have).