PDA

View Full Version : the WTA has really screwed up the rankings now


Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:31 AM
This is beyond ridiculous, they could well go back to the times when journalist just picked the ranking.

it's a completely arbitrary system and has nothing to do with Momo.

By Australian Open time, the WTA decided to reward special ranking point for beating Venus and Serena, the most ridiculous thing in the world because the special seeding where meant to benefit Venus and Serena for the time off.

They rewarded higuer quality points for the Aussie and other tournaments and then they suddenly decided to stop it by French Open time.

Now in the new rankings, they have added those points, but not to the US Open total but they have amended the previous points.

Making it worse, they have only done it for Grand Slams, so, they have changed Myskina, Capriati, Sprem and Sharapova points.

As a result Capriati is # 8 and Sharapova # 9, it does look like a pathetic attempt to get Capriati to qualify for the Chase.

The ranking system has gone beyond a joke with this, and the WTA wonder why they receive critics? they just change it to their liking.

The reason why Mauresmo is # 1 without even a GS final is because of the completely irrational number of points they rewarded for the YEC, now they do this and make the system completely arbitrary, it's just up to Larry Scott to pick how the rankings should be.

They really don't have a fucking clue and at this point my advise it, screw the ranking, completely, they have no meaning whatsoever.

It's absolutely pathetic the WTA does this to benefit american players, especially when 6 out of the top 7 are not americans.

Really, Larry Scott has to go, he has lot all credibility, what else are they going to fix?

Now I really think Mariana Alves was probably following instructions from Scott, only way I can think she didn't see that ball.

And yes, this hurts Venus and Serena more than anyone (and Sharapova that loses one spot), because players get inflated points for beating them.

Really, I think there should be an investigation and the rankings should be taken away from the WTA, they can't even get that right.

ptkten
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:38 AM
It is absurd, Capriati continues to get benefits from the tennis establishment at the expense of everyone else. The ranking system needs to stay put. Either they decide to award the extra bonus points for beating the Williams Sisters or they don't, they can't go changing it around every time someone they like beats a Williams sister :rolleyes:

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:42 AM
I agree that this is BS. "Special seeding" is already nonsense, but this bonus-points thing is too much. The most laughable thing is that Serena has never played like a no.2, so not even her playing level would justify increasing bonus points. :o

Not sure what you meant about the YEC points, Fingon.

SzavayFi
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:52 AM
what i really dont get is Myskina lossing 2nd round and she is number 2......justine got to the round of 16........

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:55 AM
I agree that this is BS. "Special seeding" is already nonsense, but this bonus-points thing is too much. The most laughable thing is that Serena has never played like a no.2, so not even her playing level would justify increasing bonus points. :o

Not sure what you meant about the YEC points, Fingon.
simple, with this system they move Capriati up, they make it more probable that she will qualify.

I am a Masha fan, but I would like her not to qualify to LA, then they would lose one of their marketing strenghts and and I hope LA is a real disaster.

At this point I don't believe anymore the WTA executives are just stupid, I think they are doing it on purpose, they are just tweaking the system, I wonder if they have big bets in place. Simply, they can't be trusted anymore, the WTA is a corporation, when the CEO of a corporation can't be trusted he has to go, Larry Scott's time is over, he will never regain trust, not after fixing the ranking to benefit some americans, not after an umpire makes such a blantant mistake in a key match.

If the same bullshit as when they changed the AER to help Maria, again, I like her but that was unfair when all the other players had to go by the rules.

What's next? if Capriati is hitting long shots they will change the court's dimensions?

whatever, I have lost the little respect I had left for the WTA, they have to rectify this mess and fire the people doing the ranking, and that idiot of Scott.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 12:58 AM
But they gave Raymond the extra points at the Australian...so why shouldn't everyone else get them for the rest of the year?

I think getting the extra points is stupid, but at least it's consistent now instead of arbitrary. It was either this or take away Raymond's bonus points from Australia, and that's not fair to Raymond.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:02 AM
simple, with this system they move Capriati up, they make it more probable that she will qualify.
That's not what I meant. You said "Amelie is no.1 because they gave irrational points for the YEC" and I'm not sure what that means.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:03 AM
One would assume that means that Fingon thinks you get more points than you deserve at the Masters.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:05 AM
what i really dont get is Myskina lossing 2nd round and she is number 2......justine got to the round of 16........
Justine had more points coming off from last year's US Open.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:06 AM
One would assume that means that Fingon thinks you get more points than you deserve at the Masters.
Probably. I wouldn't agree though.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:08 AM
But they gave Raymond the extra points at the Australian...so why shouldn't everyone else get them for the rest of the year?

I think getting the extra points is stupid, but at least it's consistent now instead of arbitrary. It was either this or take away Raymond's bonus points from Australia, and that's not fair to Raymond.
yes of course, but why only the GS? if the WTA considers that beating Serena was woth # 2 points, why is it only the GSs?

and they did rewarded extra point in other tournaments before, but LD's points were unchanged despite her beating Serena.

they can't even cheat properly, they are too stupid for that.

gossipcom
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:10 AM
Plus Myskina is going to lose a hell of a lot of points from Leipzig at the end of the month because the tournament isn't being held this year - so technically during that week, Lindsay won't even have to touch a racquet and she'll go into no 2 spot.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:10 AM
I think the problem with the Masters points is that, since it's round robin, you get too many Quality Points. But one has to note that Clijsters and Mauresmo have excelled at the Masters and have both reached #1 without Slam wins. So if one has a problem with them being #1 -- I personally don't -- one could point at the exorbitant point totals they've received at the Masters as a cause.

And just to clarify, I think it's pretty stupid to reward Quality Points based on people's special seeding as opposed to their real ranking -- I've been saying this since January -- but if you're going to do it one way, you have to do it that way all the time. I think this is the wrong extreme, but like I said, they started it in Melbourne in January so they have to follow that model for the rest of the year, and even though I don't like it, this is more fair than having one method for one Slam and another method for others.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:14 AM
yes of course, but why only the GS? if the WTA considers that beating Serena was woth # 2 points, why is it only the GSs?

It isn't. For instance, they gave Petrova 75 QP for beating Serena in Amelia Island. Perhaps they missed some regular tournaments, or...maybe they didn't. Maybe I'll look at the other Williams losses this year, depending upon whether I feel like it or not. :)

faboozadoo15
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:15 AM
wouldn't lindsay get a lot more points for beating venus twice and serena in her cali slam as well?

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:16 AM
I think the problem with the Masters points is that, since it's round robin, you get too many Quality Points. But one has to note that Clijsters and Mauresmo have excelled at the Masters and have both reached #1 without Slam wins. So if one has a problem with them being #1 -- I personally don't -- one could point at the exorbitant point totals they've received at the Masters as a cause.

yes, Clijster has excelled at the rankings, Mauresmo lost two matches and won over 500 points, what the hell is that?
and the problem is not how well they did there, the problem is the disporportionate amount of points. The YEC is clearly the main distorting factor in the rankings, and it's financially a complete disaster, but it's the WTA's little tournament, it's their baby

And just to clarify, I think it's pretty stupid to reward Quality Points based on people's special seeding as opposed to their real ranking -- I've been saying this since January -- but if you're going to do it one way, you have to do it that way all the time. I think this is the wrong extreme, but like I said, they started it in Melbourne in January so they have to follow that model for the rest of the year, and even though I don't like it, this is more fair than having one method for one Slam and another method for others.
every time the wta tries to fix something they make it worse, one good way to improve the tour would be to revert WTA's decisions, as each and every one have been a complete mess, every time to take something away you will improve the system (not only rankings).

they have an idiotic ranking system, an idiotic schedule, an idiotic marketing campaign, really, couldn't they find someone less stupid than Larry Scott?

and don't get me started with the bullshit of rewarding points for the olympics (and my favourite player benefited from it).

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:17 AM
wouldn't lindsay get a lot more points for beating venus twice and serena in her cali slam as well?
nope, they are changing only the slams points (talk about arbitrary), and Venus didn't have an special ranking by US Open time.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:18 AM
I think the problem with the Masters points is that, since it's round robin, you get too many Quality Points. But one has to note that Clijsters and Mauresmo have excelled at the Masters and have both reached #1 without Slam wins. So if one has a problem with them being #1 -- I personally don't -- one could point at the exorbitant point totals they've received at the Masters as a cause.
Okay but Amelie only won two matches at the Masters (118 bonus points which is not that much).
You get more points for reaching the final at the YEC than for winning a tier I. But, if there were only few points to gain at the Masters, it would be pointless to have it.

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:20 AM
yes, Clijster has excelled at the rankings, Mauresmo lost two matches and won over 500 points, what the hell is that?
She lost three matches. ;)

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:21 AM
Okay but Amelie only won two matches at the Masters

Heh, fair enough...but that makes the points she got from it even more absurd, don't you think? ;)

Anyway, she must have gotten more than 118 QP because she beat #1 Henin -- that's 100 points right there.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:24 AM
nope, they are changing only the slams points (talk about arbitrary), and Venus didn't have an special ranking by US Open time.

But but but...did you see my post where Nadia got Serena's #2 QP at Amelia Island? Have they been doing it right all year at Tour events? One would think I'd remember if they have, since I do up the rankings every week, but I don't retain anything :D

Fingon, you're the Dementieva expert; did she get extra points for beating Venus in Miami? Don't make me look ;)

GoDominique
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:25 AM
Heh, fair enough...but that makes the points she got from it even more absurd, don't you think? ;)

Anyway, she must have gotten more than 118 QP because she beat #1 Henin -- that's 100 points right there.
I have that stat from this page: http://vlmark.webpark.sk/best17lr.txt

As far as I remember Justine was still no.2 during the Masters and only became no.1 by reaching the semi.
So 75 points for beating Justine and 43 points for beating Elena = 118 points.

And yeah, 458 points for winning two matches is a lot, but that's how Round Robin works, and as I voted for having Round Robin, I have to accept this too. ;)

gossipcom
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:26 AM
he he isn't Amelia Island a Tier I tournament?

If that's the case maybe they've changed WTA Champs, GS' and Tier I?

Also if that is what has happened, Lindsay would be entitled to the additional points against Serena and Venus because didn't they occur at a Tier I or II tournaments?

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:26 AM
So Serena is such a good player that Jen deserves lots more points for beating her so often.............

I have no problem with a YEC carrying lots of points but it should have 16 players. Letting someone into a roundrobin to pile up QP when they might be within only a few points of number 12 in the rankings is unfair. Your narrow lead can easily grow by hundreds of points for no real reason. Number 16 has an advantage over number 17 true but number 16 is less likely to do well than number 9 might.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:27 AM
I have that stat from this page: http://vlmark.webpark.sk/best17lr.txt

As far as I remember Justine was still no.2 during the Masters and only became no.1 by reaching the semi.
So 75 points for beating Justine and 43 points for beating Elena = 118 points.


Oh, you're right, you're right...it feels like Justine had been #1 forever :D

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:28 AM
Also, I looked, and YES, Dementieva did get the extra QP for beating Venus in Miami...soooo...

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:29 AM
he he isn't Amelia Island a Tier I tournament?

If that's the case maybe they've changed WTA Champs, GS' and Tier I?

Also if that is what has happened, Lindsay would be entitled to the additional points against Serena and Venus because didn't they occur at a Tier I or II tournaments?

They only changed the French and Wimbledon because it appears to me that those were the only two tournaments in which they didn't award Quality Points based on Venus and Serena's Special Seedings.

I have not checked the summer hardcourt totals, though.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:35 AM
They only changed the French and Wimbledon because it appears to me that those were the only two tournaments in which they didn't award Quality Points based on Venus and Serena's Special Seedings.

I have not checked the summer hardcourt totals, though.
they changed those to be able to benefit Capriati, I bet if Amelie has beaten Venus or Serena they would not change a thing.

fammmmedspin
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:35 AM
nope, they are changing only the slams points (talk about arbitrary), and Venus didn't have an special ranking by US Open time.You can see a fevered brain working....."We got it wrong we gave them for some GS but not others:eek: "....."Well give them for all the GS or we will get blamed..:rolleyes: " "Ok, but that means we have to redo all the points from all the other tournaments and then check that any player who beat them got the right ranking and that any player who beat those players got the right QP for that new ranking and so on....:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: " "Oh my God - too difficult, lets pretend that there isn't a problem.......:angel: ." " I know lets invent a new rule...:worship:


:mad: :mad: ":eek:

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:39 AM
You guys...in Amelia Island and Miami they gave the extra points too. All they did was make the French and Wimbledon like EVERY other tournament, not just the Australian.

Maybe they wouldn't have changed it if it didn't benefit Capriati the most, it's true, but at least they did, and now they have done one thing all year*, which is fair.

*Again, I haven't checked the summer hardcourt season so I don't know if they have to change those as well to make it consistent.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:45 AM
You guys...in Amelia Island and Miami they gave the extra points too. All they did was make the French and Wimbledon like EVERY other tournament, not just the Australian.

Maybe they wouldn't have changed it if it didn't benefit Capriati the most, it's true, but at least they did, and now they have done one thing all year*, which is fair.

*Again, I haven't checked the summer hardcourt season so I don't know if they have to change those as well to make it consistent.
the thing is, they can't change it retroactively, there are legal implications.

Some contracts are based on rankings, what are they gonna do with that?

what about the seedings? according to wta rules they go by rankings, if the rankings change retroactively then what about the seedings? how will they compensate players that got an unfair seeding?

to start, if they realize they made a mistake, why didn't they make it right, not more wrong? take away the extra points rewarded before not screw it up more to be consistently stupid.

Second, if they make a change, any change, do an adjustment to the latest ranking, don't redo things that are in the past.

As I said before, every time the wta tries to fix something the make it worse, I have never known of such stupidity in any corporation, if they make money it must be the best business in the world, because really Larry Scott couldn't manage a convenience store.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 01:54 AM
the thing is, they can't change it retroactively, there are legal implications.

Some contracts are based on rankings, what are they gonna do with that?

what about the seedings? according to wta rules they go by rankings, if the rankings change retroactively then what about the seedings? how will they compensate players that got an unfair seeding?

But the point is that clearly this is what the WTA thinks is MORE correct, whether we agree with them or not. If that's the case, then yes, it is better to "correct" it ASAP than to leave it "incorrect" for 8-12 more months. At least that way "correct" rankings will be issued until this time next year and so these should be the rankings used for contract bonuses and the like -- according to the WTA.

to start, if they realize they made a mistake, why didn't they make it right, not more wrong? take away the extra points rewarded before not screw it up more to be consistently stupid.

As I said before, is that fair to Lisa Raymond? And to Petrova and Dementieva? They did it this way in Melbourne, Amelia, Miami, now Flushing -- again, this is the way they WANT to do it, so if they were planning on correcting it, this is how they would correct it.

Second, if they make a change, any change, do an adjustment to the latest ranking, don't redo things that are in the past.

Well, this is pretty simple. The points they added weren't earned this week, they were earned the weeks they beat those players. If anything you should be FOR that, since you think this is stupid -- now these extra points you don't approve of won't stay on till this time next year; they'll come off when the French or Wimbledon points come off.

As I said before, every time the wta tries to fix something the make it worse, I have never known of such stupidity in any corporation, if they make money it must be the best business in the world, because really Larry Scott couldn't manage a convenience store.

The entire Special Seeding system is a fiasco, and I have been saying this since January 1, 2004; I'm sure you're aware of that. But they have a system and these are their rules and at least now every tournament I've looked at has followed those rules to the letter, and that is better than their previous method, which was to award or not award Quality Points based upon Special Seedings willy-nilly. This is more fair and actually more professional because they are sticking to a system, not throwing darts at a dartboard determining whether or not to award more QP at a particular tournament. Whether you like the system or not -- and I hate it as much as you do -- you have to admit that.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:10 AM
But the point is that clearly this is what the WTA thinks is MORE correct, whether we agree with them or not. If that's the case, then yes, it is better to "correct" it ASAP than to leave it "incorrect" for 8-12 more months. At least that way "correct" rankings will be issued until this time next year and so these should be the rankings used for contract bonuses and the like -- according to the WTA.
this is the problem, the system is really stupid, it's meaningless. There isn't actually a way to fix it. Actually, if a players got less money because the wta didn't calculate the rankings properly, they should pay the difference (and not, they shouldn't get the difference if someone was paid more, they can't be rewarded for being stupid).


As I said before, is that fair to Lisa Raymond? And to Petrova and Dementieva? They did it this way in Melbourne, Amelia, Miami, now Flushing -- again, this is the way they WANT to do it, so if they were planning on correcting it, this is how they would correct it.

that's the problem, a ranking shouldn't be the way they WANT it, it's supposed to measure performance, not the WTA's taste. I couldn't care less if it's fair to Raymond, I was actually for changing the points, but taking away Raymond, Dementieva's etc. not screwing it up further.


Well, this is pretty simple. The points they added weren't earned this week, they were earned the weeks they beat those players. If anything you should be FOR that, since you think this is stupid -- now these extra points you don't approve of won't stay on till this time next year; they'll come off when the French or Wimbledon points come off.

what difference does it make? the previous rankings published by the WTA were wrong, this ranking is wrong, what difference does it make which column is wrong?

the extra points will stay for a year, so for a year the rankings will be screwed up, not because time will correct things it will be right, it's still wrong.

It's like to say it's ok to beat somebody up because later they will heal.


The entire Special Seeding system is a fiasco, and I have been saying this since January 1, 2004;

the WTA is a fiasco, I've been saying that since that idiot of Larry scott took over

I'm sure you're aware of that. But they have a system

not they don't, they change it on the fly, that's not a system, if it was a system you could predict what it would be in the future, you can't.

and these are their rules and at least now every tournament

that's the problem, the WTA board of directors can't make the rules and apply them, there should be a body above it making the rules and larry scott should not be allowed to change them when it suits him. Remember, it's not only the rankings, I mentioned how they change the AER to benefit Sharapova (who I like).

I've looked at has followed those rules to the letter,

it's easy to follow the rules when you change them every time it suits you, those rules are IMO not valid because they are arbitrary.

and that is better than their previous method, which was to award or not award Quality Points based upon Special Seedings willy-nilly.

that's still how they do that

This is more fair and actually more professional because they are sticking to a system,

they are not, it's not anywhere in the ranking rules that they should apply special seeding to calculate quality points, again, there is not a system when they can change it whenever they want to introduce arbitrary new rules that are not even written. It's about credibility, Larry scott and the WTA have zero.

not throwing darts at a dartboard determining whether or not to award more QP at a particular tournament. Whether you like the system or not -- and I hate it as much as you do -- you have to admit that.
nope, they are just changing when it benefits americans, that's the first change I would make, move the wta out of the US because it's obviously partial to american players, how can it be that a body that manages a worldwide sport is managed entirely by (mediocre) americans? and it's nothing against americans, only that the WTA has not credibility at all and when that happens I think it's time to step down.

Probably the media haven't picked this up but they are the laughing stock already with Amelie # 1 without even a GS final, it's disaster after disaster, they don't only need to change the ranking system, they need to change Larry Scott, he hasn't done anything right, not one thing, as I said before, he isn't even qualified to run a hotdog stand, only the wta can have such an idiot as CEO (get in touch with your feminine side my ass)

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:15 AM
Fingon, what it boils down to is that you want it one way but they do it another way. My response: Sorry.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:16 AM
Shockingly, I agree. It does LOOK like that. But realistically, such a move would be unnecessary, if that were their goal. It's also unlikely that they'd shaft their new glamour girl just to get Capriati into the YEC.

Sharapova is not the WTA's glamour girl, they are too stupid to realize her marking potential, she is the media glamour girl, IMG's glamour girl, the WTA hasn't used her properly, as they never used Anna, or Martina, or Serena, somebody that directs a campaign to a public made mostly of straight male with "get in touch with your feminine side" what can you expect?

Four players are really in contention for the final two spots. (Yes Venus and Vera have outside chances, but they are OUTSIDE chances.

they don't want Venus, they don't want Vera, they want Capriati, why? don't ask me.

Serena is ranked the lowest, but since she only has nine tournaments, and defends nothing the rest of the year, she can pretty much make it if she wants to. Only who can imagine Serena playing eight tournaments in two months?
until US Open I would have said they wanted Serena, I am not sure now after the Capriati match.

Clijsters only has ten tournaments, but has to defend points.
14 Capriati

it doesn't matter, the entry will be based on this year's results only, not including last year's YEC (that is unless the WTA changes the "rules")

Sharapova has 18 tournaments, so she'll have to give up a couple points every tournament she plays.

doesn't apply to the race

Volcana
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:20 AM
Shockingly, I agree. It does LOOK like that. But realistically, such a move would be unnecessary, if that were their goal. It's also unlikely that they'd shaft their new glamour girl just to get Capriati into the YEC.

Four players are really in contention for the final two spots. (Yes Venus and Vera have outside chances, but they are OUTSIDE chances.

Serena is ranked the lowest, but since she only has nine tournaments, and defends nothing the rest of the year, she can pretty much make it if she wants to. Only who can imagine Serena playing eight tournaments in two months?

Clijsters only has ten tournaments, but has to defend points.
14 Capriati
Sharapova has 18 tournaments, so she'll have to give up a couple points every tournament she plays.

Jenn only has 14 tournaments, so she can add three tournaments worth of points for nothing. Even if they'd made no changes, she'd still likely have made the YEC, given that she's in a virtual tie for the eight spot with Sharapova, and the #7 player, Kim, is defending more than a few points. If Sharapova doesn't make the YEC, it'll be because Serena beats her out for the final spot.Every sentence in this post is stupid. Well, not the part about Sharapova as a 'glamour girl'. But the rest is assinine. I must be off my meds. I'm deleting the post and retiring for the night.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Fingon, what it boils down to is that you want it one way but they do it another way. My response: Sorry.
of course they won't do it, my way would be back to the average system, half the points for the YEC and no round robin (or if there is one no quality point for it).

My way would be to redo the entire schedule, you wouldn't even recognize it when I am done.

My way would be to burn the stupid t-shirt that the wta used for its stupid marketing campaign and hire someone that actually understands marketing.

my way would be not to reward points for the olympics.

I didn't expect for a second that the wta would do anything right, and I really think they look like they are not in control, when that happens sooner or laters somebody will take advantage. I think the WTA won't survive long with this structure and I will really enjoy when Larry Scott gets fired. He might find a job cleaning the locker rooms

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 02:27 AM
But the point is that you want it CORRECT. Well, it is CORRECT for the first time all year and will be CORRECT for twelve months after that.

...according to THEM, not according to FINGON.

Don't start complaining about them doing this now, because these rankings are CORRECT if you've given into the system. Clearly you haven't. Good. But this is the best and most fair way thing to do given their rules.

what difference does it make? the previous rankings published by the WTA were wrong, this ranking is wrong, what difference does it make which column is wrong?

the extra points will stay for a year, so for a year the rankings will be screwed up, not because time will correct things it will be right, it's still wrong.

Yes and that has nothing to do with THE FIX. If you have a problem with the new rankings, then you have a problem with their system and NOT their "correction." Which is fine, which I agree with.

vogus
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:08 AM
the rankings have always been a problem, because the Grand Slams have always been under-weighted relative to their importance in the sport. Winning a GS should be worth four times as many points as winning a Tier 1 tournie, instead it is only worth twice as many. The YEC in its current format is stacked in favor of a player like Mauresmo who underperforms at Slams but then cleans house in a round robin when the rest of the tour is burned out and ready to go on vacation - no way they should award quality points in a round robin event. As somebody said they ought to go back to a 16 draw, regular tournie format.

I'm flabbergasted that the WTA decided to award quality points on the basis of the Williams sisters special seedings instead of on the basis of their actual ranking. Because that is ridiculous. That is one step shy of hacking into the WTA computer and gratuitously adding free points to this or that player's total.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 04:46 AM
But the point is that you want it CORRECT. Well, it is CORRECT for the first time all year and will be CORRECT for twelve months after that.

...according to THEM, not according to FINGON.

Don't start complaining about them doing this now, because these rankings are CORRECT if you've given into the system. Clearly you haven't. Good. But this is the best and most fair way thing to do given their rules.

again, it's not the system, this is not in the rules, read them, they just published they were going to do that in that stupid net cords magazine, the rules don't say anything about special rankings.


Yes and that has nothing to do with THE FIX. If you have a problem with the new rankings, then you have a problem with their system and NOT their "correction." Which is fine, which I agree with.
for me "correct" is to make things right, not wrong, if they have taken away the points wrongly awarded, according to their own rules I wouldn't say anything, but instead of doing it right them make it wrong all the way.

It's like they beat someone up and then they fix it by beating everything up, clearly Larry Scott and the wta have no clue whatsoever of what they are doing.

why didn't they include this points when they have to, according to their "rules" in the first place? two GS is too much to just not realize it.

It's not the first time they just mess up, several times they have to republish the ranking because they forget something, really, they can't be more stupid.

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 05:11 AM
this is taken from the WTA Official rules for 2004, not my rules, the WTA rules

5. Singles

a. Players are awarded Round points for the highest round

they reach as well as Quality points for each win over a

player ranked in the Top 500. Quality points are awarded

according to the losing players’ ranking current at the time

the Tournament is played. Quality points awarded for

Grand Slams are set forth in the Singles and Doubles

Quality Points chart on page 221.

e. Weekly rankings are not published during the mid-week of

any two-week event, therefore the most current rankings

will be used to calculate quality points for those events.


and more important

Special rankings rules

k. Quality Points awarded for defeating a Special Ranking

player will be based on that player's Actual Ranking, not

on her Special Ranking.

as you can see, the WTA does NOT follow its own rules.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 05:19 AM
again, it's not the system, this is not in the rules, read them, they just published they were going to do that in that stupid net cords magazine, the rules don't say anything about special rankings.

I know, that's why I was vehemently against this since that Notes and Netcords announcement. They have NEVER given QP because of Special Rankings or Seedings.


for me "correct" is to make things right, not wrong, if they have taken away the points wrongly awarded, according to their own rules I wouldn't say anything, but instead of doing it right them make it wrong all the way.

It's like they beat someone up and then they fix it by beating everything up, clearly Larry Scott and the wta have no clue whatsoever of what they are doing.

why didn't they include this points when they have to, according to their "rules" in the first place? two GS is too much to just not realize it.

It's not the first time they just mess up, several times they have to republish the ranking because they forget something, really, they can't be more stupid.

But, again, this is the point. You have a problem with their system? Fine. But this is the only fair thing to do UNDER THEIR SYSTEM. You can't whine about the "correction." They did what is fair under their shitty system.

No kidding they always screw up the addition and subtraction. But this was the right move under the initial wrong move.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 05:20 AM
this is taken from the WTA Official rules for 2004, not my rules, the WTA rules

5. Singles

a. Players are awarded Round points for the highest round

they reach as well as Quality points for each win over a

player ranked in the Top 500. Quality points are awarded

according to the losing players’ ranking current at the time

the Tournament is played. Quality points awarded for

Grand Slams are set forth in the Singles and Doubles

Quality Points chart on page 221.

e. Weekly rankings are not published during the mid-week of

any two-week event, therefore the most current rankings

will be used to calculate quality points for those events.


and more important

Special rankings rules

k. Quality Points awarded for defeating a Special Ranking

player will be based on that player's Actual Ranking, not

on her Special Ranking.

as you can see, the WTA does NOT follow its own rules.


Yes, I know, Fingon. But they changed this rule for the Williams sisters, which I railed against forever, and then they neglected to follow that rule consistently. Now they are following that rule consistently, which makes it fair for all players.

You need to re-read all of my posts before. You have been talking about things which I'm not discussing.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 05:31 AM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that doing this doesn't fix everything, but it certainly HELPS.

Having said that, I don't know if you can get a better ranking system than this. They just need to stick to their original rule of giving out Quality Points based on Actual Ranking, and then maybe there wouldn't be this type of problem.

Maybe ;)

Fingon
Sep 14th, 2004, 05:42 AM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that doing this doesn't fix everything, but it certainly HELPS.

Having said that, I don't know if you can get a better ranking system than this. They just need to stick to their original rule of giving out Quality Points based on Actual Ranking, and then maybe there wouldn't be this type of problem.

Maybe ;)
they certainly can.

1) do not reward quality points for round robin

2) do not reward points for the olympics

3) use an average system, that way players can't just dismiss bad results, if you lose first round your average goes dramatically down, before I used to think they should use a high minimum denominator to force players to play more, screw that, use 12, it's fine. Money should be enough incentive.

4) give more weight to the last rounds of the GS, especially to the winner. the last time the increased points for the GSs, creating a new distortion because a player with a fluke GS result would have her ranking inflated, it's not likely a fluke appearance in the semis, so from the semis on increase the points.

5) Change the quality points system, it's not reasonable that in a GS, a player gets 50 points more for beating the # 1 than for beating the # 2, there isn't really that much difference.

Regarding the rules, I do get your point of applying the rules consistently, the problem is that they are not applying the rules, if they have changed the official rules I wouldn't agree but couldn't say anything, but they didn't, netcords is NOT the official rules.

the most important rule change, I would take away from Larry Scott and the board of directors the ability to change the rules, there should be an independent body that creates the rules, and Larry Scott and his gang should just apply them (if they can understand them).

Moreover, the ranking should not be calculated by the WTA but by an independent third party (similar to the oscars where the votes count is not done by the Motion Picture but by PriceWaterhouseCoopers).

IMO, the WTA violating its own rules is serious enough to replace Larry Scott, that has done a terrible job anyway.

Hurley
Sep 14th, 2004, 06:01 AM
I don't disagree with anything you say in that post.

Regarding this:

Regarding the rules, I do get your point of applying the rules consistently, the problem is that they are not applying the rules, if they have changed the official rules I wouldn't agree but couldn't say anything, but they didn't, netcords is NOT the official rules.

Right, it was a brainless decision from the first moment and then they fucked it up even more by not doing it properly! At least now they're enacting a made-up rule properly, and that's why I think it's at least a little bit more fair for everyone concerned.

It still merits a huge :rolleyes: from me, but I don't own the WTA, and I don't make their decisions, so the only thing I can do is hope that they stick to their rules as much as they can. They changed a rule stupidly and I completely disagreed with it, but I expected them to follow it and they didn't even do THAT. It looks stupid now but at least they got it back on track.

1) do not reward quality points for round robin

Fine with me. I'm against round robin anyway; if they go back to the 16-player draw that would eliminate that problem. Masters points are too high anyway IMO.

2) do not reward points for the olympics

I'm not particularly against that, I think if they play they should be rewarded. But I don't think they should play -- I don't think professional tennis should be in the Olympics, so they wouldn't get points in my perfect world since it wouldn't exist ;)

3) use an average system, that way players can't just dismiss bad results, if you lose first round your average goes dramatically down, before I used to think they should use a high minimum denominator to force players to play more, screw that, use 12, it's fine. Money should be enough incentive.

It wouldn't be a bad system, but ehhhhhh...I do approve of the players supporting the Tour. I think you could get the same effect by cutting from Best 17 to Best 15, or doing what they're suggesting, which is mandatory counting top events, of which I wholly approve.

4) give more weight to the last rounds of the GS, especially to the winner. the last time the increased points for the GSs, creating a new distortion because a player with a fluke GS result would have her ranking inflated, it's not likely a fluke appearance in the semis, so from the semis on increase the points.

GS's should be far and away the highest-counting events. If a girl goes far in the Slam...they should be rewarded! That's what these girls play for, even if the beneficiary happens to be (ugh) Stevenson ;)

5) Change the quality points system, it's not reasonable that in a GS, a player gets 50 points more for beating the # 1 than for beating the # 2, there isn't really that much difference.

Quality points should be halved. What they get now for beating a player in a Tour event should be used for Slams. That would solve your disparity issue at Slams too.

Richie77
Sep 14th, 2004, 07:11 AM
Fingon, I pretty much agree with each of your rankings suggestions.

I like the idea of bringing back the old average system, but make the minimum divisor a little higher, say, 14.

Quality points should be reduced greatly, and there should be NO doubling of QP at a Slam. It makes no sense that someone could beat the No. 1 player in the first round of a Slam, and then lose in the next round and collect 232 points. That's conceivably more than what the winner of a Tier II could get!

Daniel
Sep 14th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Nastya #2 :worship: :D

hanafan
Sep 14th, 2004, 10:40 AM
i'm a little surprised about this discussion... So, the problem is : You're not happy with Ame being n°1, and so you'd like to change the rules of the WTA. What the WTA does is not perfect, but I don't see why they should not award points at Olympics, give Quality Points at YEC Rd Robin, and why they should change the YEC Format? To please you, because you're not happy? If you're such big brains, then you should be at the top of the WTA instead of Larry Scott, maybe you should apply, Fingon and others!

I'm always dubitative when somebody wants to change everythiong when there is something he doesn't like. It's the same, when a dictator in South America is not happy with elections results and decide to keep the power, and he changes laws. It's the same mentality I see there...