PDA

View Full Version : women ranking sytem is a joke


Abdoul
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:38 PM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/frown.gif

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/rolleyes.gif

lindsayno1
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:41 PM
lmao when has lindsay had problems with her back in the recent past?!

I wouldnt have thoughd she'd have faked it when she was ahead in the set!

And how the hell did venus crush Lindsay?! I seem to remember lindsay DID have a championship point over Venus!

Martian Willow
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:43 PM
Do you think Venus should have been ranked above Lindsay and Maria? :scratch:

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Serena beat #4 #2 and #1 to win the AO.

king416
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:54 PM
You have to take into account consistency. Yes, Venus played much above her ranking at Wimbledon but she lost in the 3rd round of the French in a performance that was actually lower than her 16 world ranking. The rankings are not stupid because if Venus continues her Wimbledon form she will be top5 in no time. Davenport fully deserves her number 1 ranking by being a serious contender at every event, whereas its been impossible to predict which Venus would show up. However, there probably should be a bigger points reward to winning/getting to the latter stages of grand slams. But all in all the rankings do reflect who is better than who.

volta
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:55 PM
Lindsay always fakes ??? and since when seeds reflect the lvl of tennis played?

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:01 PM
You have to take into account consistency. Yes, Venus played much above her ranking at Wimbledon but she lost in the 3rd round of the French in a performance that was actually lower than her 16 world ranking. The rankings are not stupid because if Venus continues her Wimbledon form she will be top5 in no time. Davenport fully deserves her number 1 ranking by being a serious contender at every event, whereas its been impossible to predict which Venus would show up. However, there probably should be a bigger points reward to winning/getting to the latter stages of grand slams. But all in all the rankings do reflect who is better than who.

You're right, Lindsay definitely derserves her #1. No other player has been more consistent this year.

Shonami Slam
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:04 PM
You have to take into account consistency. Yes, Venus played much above her ranking at Wimbledon but she lost in the 3rd round of the French in a performance that was actually lower than her 16 world ranking. The rankings are not stupid because if Venus continues her Wimbledon form she will be top5 in no time. Davenport fully deserves her number 1 ranking by being a serious contender at every event, whereas its been impossible to predict which Venus would show up. However, there probably should be a bigger points reward to winning/getting to the latter stages of grand slams. But all in all the rankings do reflect who is better than who.

if only more people used thier heads prior to thier hearts...
very well explained.

Abdoul
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:07 PM
Do you think Venus should have been ranked above Lindsay and Maria? :scratch:

from her performance in grass , YES.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:07 PM
from her performance in grass , YES.

That's only one tournament though. :lol:

BUBI
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:09 PM
This thread is a joke.

ezekiel
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:09 PM
Ranking is only used for seeding and is based on consistency so your complaint is null and void. Upsets happen , that's why the matches are played.

Abdoul
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:09 PM
Lindsay always fakes ??? and since when seeds reflect the lvl of tennis played?

Since the ranking system was introduced.

Abdoul
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:15 PM
That's only one tournament though. :lol:

So ??

we're talking about wimbledon....

Steffica Greles
Jul 4th, 2005, 10:21 PM
Yes, the rankings are a joke - but that's NOT the full story.

Players who focus too greatly on the rankings become a joke. This is the point. They get injured, exhaust themselves, and start to think they're better players than they are. Think of Hingis, Dokic, Coetzer in 1997, Zvonareva - they all overplayed to keep their rankings up.

So the rankings aren't meant to be serious. All they are for is to give the tournament an objective idea of who are the best players of the last year so that they can plan that those players meet in the later rounds. The rankings are simply for prestige, for the spectators; to simplify the order of ability for the all-important public whose support the tour obviously needs. Hingis, for example, knew she couldn't win slams, so she played 22 tournaments a year and her career ended prematurely - all for the sake of prestige, to say she was "the world number one". Zvonareva was insecure about being the 5th or 6th best Russian last year, Mauresmo about not winning a slam, hence her focusing on -- and failing -- to win the race to chase of 2004.

So people need to stop criticising the rankings every time a player wins one tournament (by any logic, the best player in the world for that week) and her 52 week doesn't reflect that. We could have weekly rankings, or monthly rankings - but would that be any better? In a lot of situations the Williams sisters would be unranked.

Intelligent players don't take the rankings seriously. Graf and Seles never did, and what both of them did incredibly well was to focus on one thing, and one thing only - the ball. If they played the ball the best they could, they knew they'd probably win, and if they won, and won, and won, they'd hold trophies. And with the trophies, came their rankings. The Williams', Sharapova and Davenport are the same - and that's why I think Sharapova will last.

If intelligent players don't focus on their rankings, the same goes for the fans (however tempting it is).

Slumpsova
Jul 5th, 2005, 09:55 AM
when #1 kicks #14 ass, they said women's tennis has no depth.
when #14 crushes #1, they said rankings in women's tennis is a joke.

whoever said this is an idiot :rolleyes:

Jakeev
Jul 5th, 2005, 09:59 AM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! :(

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers :rolleyes:

So tell us our all-knowing Swami, what is your solution to the "joke?"

justine&coria
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Maybe we should do the seeding/ranking after the tournament is finished ! :confused:
Well, that's a bit impossible. :o

ceiling_fan
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:16 AM
well, it's not a very funny one... :scratch:

@m@nd@
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:22 AM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/frown.gif

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/rolleyes.gif

if thats the case for u..stick with mens tennis then ;)

rottweily
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:23 AM
The ultimate ranking system DOES NOT EXIST.

The only use of rankings is to get more or less meaningfull seedings.

Who cares who is number one? The only thing that counts is the GS count for each player.

What they can improve is to include the info of former champions into the seeding process, but following a common standard scheme. So no subjective changes in the seedings like in Wimbledon.

Other option separate rankings for each surface.

If you combine these 3 systems maybe it will be close to the ultimate seeding/ranking system.

gmak
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:29 AM
this thread actually is a joke :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*JR*
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:55 AM
Troll thread. The ultimate ranking system DOES NOT EXIST.
Lets concede that no system will be "perfect". OK, so does that mean that we should just accept whatever it is now? I think not. When everything after the 17th best result automatically "disappears", it means that a player with 27 events played in the last 52 weeks has taken twice as many "mulligans" as a player with 22, for example.

Obviously, the short-sighted tournament owners want it that way, to get the most "known names" in their events. Its easier to "sell" players ppl already know, than to gradually build new ones' followings beyond their own geography or ethnicity (except those who are considered very glamorous, or cant-miss talents).

Durability is worth something (though rewarding it does encourage players to "test the limits". That even ultra-flexible Kim finally went down with an injury which took a long time to really heal is an example of this). IMO, they need to use a divisor re. most events one plays, except for "false starts" right after an injury (so one can then "test herself" in match play without "penalty").

tennnisfannn
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:19 PM
if it was dechy/likhoseva ect players ranked 14 to 16 who had beaten lindsay then there might have been some truth to what you say.
But venus has had a lower rnaking not because her ability was really equal to her no.16 ranking, but becuse of loss of form, we all knew she would get it back.
Kim could also so easily have beaten lindsay and i would not have been surprised.
just as justine won the FO ranked no.12 or so
when capriati comes back, expect her to still give serena a run for her money!

hablo
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:22 PM
:lol:

but if this happen on men's tour, it reflects depth, right?? :haha::retard:

hablo
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:23 PM
when #1 kicks #14 ass, they said women's tennis has no depth.
when #14 crushes #1, they said rankings in women's tennis is a joke.

whoever said this is an idiot :rolleyes:

:bowdown:

I should have read the whole thread first. you said it better ;) :p

Dava
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:28 PM
The ranking system is based on consistancy...it also rewards the players who are loyal to the WTA Tour and are on tour week in week out.

Marcelos Rios...WTF...him being number one was a complete joke anyway!

Dawn Marie
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Venus should have been ranked HIGHER on grass because of her grass results. I mentioned this though BEFORE the final results.

The joke is this:

You're only bringing this up because Venus won and why tear down Lindsay while praising Rios. I find your last two sentences and you signature to be ironic Abdoul.

p.s. Don't blame Lindsay because the egotistical women haters (Wimbeldon honchos) didn't go by GRASS FORM like they always do the men's seedings. They discriminate the women at the ALL ENGLAND CLUB and it tickes me off.

*Karen*
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:37 PM
Why should Venus have been ranked above Lindsay and Maria the way she had been playing before wimbledon?

SelesFan70
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:42 PM
The women know how their ranking system works. Don't fault Lindsay for being consistent. :rolleyes:

Volcana
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:43 PM
None of the 2005 slam winners has even made the QFs in a slam other than the one they won. THAT is why they are ranked so low. The ranking system isn't the problem. We've just had the wierd case that the best players in the world on three different surfaces have won the slams on those surfaces. And other not shown up, or performed like crap, in the other slams.

Dawn Marie
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Karen imho since Wimbeldon goes by GRASS FORM and GRASS results Venus should have been seeded higher than 14. Anyway I am glad she beat the top two seeds cause that means more points, so in a way it benefited Venus to be the 14 seed in the long run.

My thing though is this. If Wimby does one thing for the men why not for the women? Come on Venus was seeded to low considering her past GRASS results.

Martian Willow
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:56 PM
Maybe Venus should have been seeded higher, but what's that got to do with the rankings? :shrug:

SJW
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:58 PM
i dont think so.
i think she should have been seeded where she was. she was having a shocker of a year. now she won the tournament being the lowest seed EVER to win, it makes it all that much more sweeter. :D

kabuki
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:02 PM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/frown.gif

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Here. Have another bad rep. And while you're at it, if men's tennis is so much better, then why not stay the hell out of here. :wavey:

menstennisforums.com

tennnisfannn
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Have people forgotten USO 2004. Federer no.1 beat Hewitt no.3 6/0 7/6 6/0 in the final. Even ElenaD with that serve still managed to win more games off Kuzy in two sets than lleyton did in 3 sets. How is that for depth in men's tennis!

tennisbum79
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Why should Venus have been ranked above Lindsay and Maria the way she had been playing before wimbledon?

I do not think wthat what Abdoul is suggesting here.
He thinks Venus should have been ranked higher bease on her passed performance in Wimbledon.

To illustrate this, let us take the case of the French Open.
We all know Spaniards and Argentines as a group are more capable on clay and they have shown it in Paris in years past.
Do you think it would be fair to have Roddick seeded before Nadal or Safin.
In the Sampras era, given his dismal record, i don't think it would be right to seed him ahead of clay court specialists of the time just because he is ranked first.

Dawn Marie
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:32 PM
SJW: I disagree.

The year Venus was having had nothing to do with how well she performs on grass. Without a doubt she should have been seeded higher then 14. She won so I feel better as a Venus fan, but if she would have lost I would have been more pissed that she was ranked so low. There are not 13 grass players on the women's side better than her on grass.

Wimby discriminated against the women's seeds, seeded her to low and Venus winning exposed the old fogeys even more. I feel like they got paid back somehow. Venus won, longest match in Wimby history, lowest seed. Her name is on the dish itself. It is a great feeling.

So the heck with you Wimby, but learn and seed according to grass results!!

icequeen
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:50 PM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/frown.gif

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/rolleyes.gif

We have to ralize that that is not a true seeding for Venus.

Sanneriet
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:44 PM
The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

:rolleyes:


9-7 in the third set constitutes crushing your opponent:confused:

franny
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Oh I get it, this guy is suggesting that we rank players different on each surface. Gotcha.

SJW
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:02 PM
SJW: I disagree.

The year Venus was having had nothing to do with how well she performs on grass. Without a doubt she should have been seeded higher then 14. She won so I feel better as a Venus fan, but if she would have lost I would have been more pissed that she was ranked so low. There are not 13 grass players on the women's side better than her on grass.

Wimby discriminated against the women's seeds, seeded her to low and Venus winning exposed the old fogeys even more. I feel like they got paid back somehow. Venus won, longest match in Wimby history, lowest seed. Her name is on the dish itself. It is a great feeling.

So the heck with you Wimby, but learn and seed according to grass results!!

they generally dont mess with the women's seedings. and they shouldn't.
to be the best you have to beat everyone anyway. and she did. if they seeded her at like 6 and she lost early there would have been bitching about how the ws get special treatment blah blah blah. im glad they kept it the same. makes it even more sweet.

mboyle
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Really we should go back to the divisor and just have a minimum divisor of like 8 or 10.

jamatthews
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Really we should just have the Williams sisters and the Belgians play off for a chance to beat Lindsay in the final...

alfonsojose
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:35 PM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/frown.gif

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/rolleyes.gif
Marcel :tape: Where are And, Roge, Pet and Marian :lol: ?

goldenlox
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Really we should just have the Williams sisters and the Belgians play off for a chance to beat Lindsay in the final...Lindsay did not reach a slam final in 2004. Never at RG.
The ranking reflects the whole 52 weeks.
The slam winner should get more points than they currently do.
Even so, Lindsay has 5,600 points. The highest ranked slam holder is Sveta, with 3,200.
Lindsay is the most consistent top player, and deserves #1 right now.

ico4498
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:46 PM
on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers

where was Goran ranked when he won Wimbledon?

xan
Jul 5th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Really we should go back to the divisor and just have a minimum divisor of like 8 or 10.

No. That would benefit those who play the fewest tournaments.

The present system encourages players to support the whole tour. Not just turn up for the slams and their warm-ups.

Declan
Jul 5th, 2005, 08:02 PM
My friends , I think Marcel Rios was right after all

The simple fact that a No 14th seed can crush the No 2 and 1 seed and win the all thing is a joke to me .

When I said a couple weeks ago that LINDSAY allways fakes back pains

I was hystericaly badrepped!!! http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/frown.gif

on the man's tour , ranking reflect talent !
But ,on women tour it reflects opportunits and usurpers http://ads.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/ubb/rolleyes.gif


Rios was SO wrong, exactly for the reasons you've outlined. His argument was that any male player in the Top 20 could beat the very top ones, and anyone could win a Slam at the peak of their game. He said the women were too predictable, and that only the top 2 could win Slams -the old 'lack of depth' argument. So by this criteria Venus winning Wimbledon ranked 16th in the world, plus all the other 'shock' Slam winners and finalists over the past 18 months, shows the great strength and depth of the women's game right now!

Zauber
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:01 AM
A lower ranked player beating a higher ranked player in a closely contested match has absolutely nothing todo with a ranking system, any ranking system any measurement. grrrrrrr

Xanadu11
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:09 AM
I don't get it it. When Pete Sampras as the 17th seed won the US open in 2002, it reflects the depth in mens tennis. When Venus wins it reflects the mediocrity of the rankings? The match against Lindsay was one of the highest quality finals in a while and I think most people would agree that the first set against Sharapova was brilliant.

Plus who cares what Rios said. He is just a bitter guy, who never capitalised on his oddles of talent.

*JR*
Jul 6th, 2005, 12:10 PM
No. That would benefit those who play the fewest tournaments.

The present system encourages players to support the whole tour. Not just turn up for the slams and their warm-ups.
You and Matthew both have relevant points here. He's correct about the principle of a divisor system, presuming he means counting every event. (Re. the "minimum", one doesn't really need one, just give a "part-time player" only the points she earned).

Xan, unfortunately your words "support the whole tour" can be another way of saying: "Play till you drop". As I noted B4, even an ultra-flexible athlete like Kim paid the price for ova-play. (The best 17 system is an event owners' gimmick to make everything from the 18th on a no-lose proposition re. points, and thus get more already "known names").

So player X's agent, who probably works for IMG or Octagon (which each own 5 events, BTW) will cajole her to play too much, as in "if you make the semi's here, you'll be in the Top 10, since Y isn't playing. Then I can wrap up that Z endorsement deal".

Sure the agent knows that if she's played a lot of events already, it increases the chances that she'll get hurt (or just burned out) but there's a perverse "no-lose" angle for these mega-agencies. Since they also have players in the next bunch below X, if she drops out of the elite, it opens up a spot another of their players might get.

IMO, everything except poor showings in injury comeback events should count, like Kim's R2 exit in Hasselt last fall, maybe limiting these "mulligans" based on how long one was out, and putting a cap on the # per year one can use. (Poor showings defined as a result that would lower the player's average points per event played).

However, I'm not opposed to rewarding durability a little bit, with a small # of bonus points for events played beyond (lets say 20, but with a cap on that around 27). And if a Gold Exempt "bails out" an event by playing it to fill in for another who withdrew, perhaps that should be an exception from the "everything counts" rule, if her result would lower her points average.

xan
Jul 6th, 2005, 02:18 PM
You and Matthew both have relevant points here. He's correct about the principle of a divisor system, presuming he means counting every event. (Re. the "minimum", one doesn't really need one, just give a "part-time player" only the points she earned).
But what a strict divisor does is average out your total points by the number of tournaments played. No minimum divisor would mean that someone who played and won three tournaments would end up higher ranked than someone who won 19 and lost 1. That's an extreme example - but it shows what the problem is.

If the minimum divisor is low (say 8 as suggested) this too raises problems. A player who has played seven or eight good tournaments is then penalised for playing more. They can't hope to move up the rankings much by playing more tournaments, but a couple of early round exits could drag their rank down significantly. This is a disincentive to play. Similarly if a player has done badly in some tournaments. That weight of the bad result will continue to drag their average down for the rest of the year. Under the current system, the best results are counted, and one unlucky day on court doesn't overly affect the rest of the year.

Xan, unfortunately your words "support the whole tour" can be another way of saying: "Play till you drop". As I noted B4, even an ultra-flexible athlete like Kim paid the price for ova-play. (The best 17 system is an event owners' gimmick to make everything from the 18th on a no-lose proposition re. points, and thus get more already "known names").
But event owners aren't "bad". The tour needs a lot of active venues that are successful and make money. Playing 17 events a year is not too much IMO. That still leaves over half the year free. Players who start going into the high 20s are doing too much. (Maybe there should be a cap at 25).

The thing is, tennis tournaments need the top players to PLAY. If the top players play fewer tournaments this means that many tournaments won't get the star players they need to attract the crowds. More events will close, and the tour as a major event starts to die.

So player X's agent, who probably works for IMG or Octagon (which each own 5 events, BTW) will cajole her to play too much, as in "if you make the semi's here, you'll be in the Top 10, since Y isn't playing. Then I can wrap up that Z endorsement deal".
Players are adults. We can't mollycoddle them too much. Anyway an injured player is going to lose money for an agency too. Maybe there should be a maximum number of events. But there also needs to be a minimum. And 17 seems a good number. Players aren't forced to play 17, but they know if they play fewer events, they better perform well.

IMO, everything except poor showings in injury comeback events should count, like Kim's R2 exit in Hasselt last fall, maybe limiting these "mulligans" based on how long one was out, and putting a cap on the # per year one can use. (Poor showings defined as a result that would lower the player's average points per event played). This raises other problems. Why should an injury come-back get special treatment? The player decides when they come back. What about injuries at a tournament? Do they count for a mulligan? If so, how do we stop everyone who loses early claiming an injury or illness?

However, I'm not opposed to rewarding durability a little bit, with a small # of bonus points for events played beyond (lets say 20, but with a cap on that around 27). And if a Gold Exempt "bails out" an event by playing it to fill in for another who withdrew, perhaps that should be an exception from the "everything counts" rule, if her result would lower her points average.If the rank system needs exceptions, its going to draw cries of unfairness from many sources.

Basically I would say a divisor system can work but
* A low minimum divisor like 8-14 actively disincentives players from playing more events. Bad for the Tour.
* A high minimum divisor 15-20, penalises players who are injured, or otherwise like to play a shorter tour (eg Williams sisters)

Te present system encourages you to play a good, but not excessive number of events, but doesn't penalise you for the odd bad performance.

*JR*
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:15 PM
But what a strict divisor does is average out your total points by the number of tournaments played. No minimum divisor would mean that someone who played and won three tournaments would end up higher ranked than someone who won 19 and lost 1. That's an extreme example - but it shows what the problem is.
You're correct, using a divisor requires some minimum # of events to divide the points by to avoid that.

If the minimum divisor is low (say 8 as suggested) this too raises problems. A player who has played seven or eight good tournaments is then penalised for playing more. They can't hope to move up the rankings much by playing more tournaments, but a couple of early round exits could drag their rank down significantly.

This is a disincentive to play. Similarly if a player has done badly in some tournaments. That weight of the bad result will continue to drag their average down for the rest of the year. Under the current system, the best results are counted, and one unlucky day on court doesn't overly affect the rest of the year.
As "quitting while ahead" for the year (with lets say 7 or 8 events after RG) would both deprive a player of the chance for more prize $, and make her less marketable to her sponsors, even clay specialists won't do that. Seeming 2B "chicken" would hurt her credibility, too. And bad results "dragging down" one's ranking is how pro sports, by nature competitive, are supposed to work.

But event owners aren't "bad". The tour needs a lot of active venues that are successful and make money. Playing 17 events a year is not too much IMO. That still leaves over half the year free. Players who start going into the high 20s are doing too much. (Maybe there should be a cap at 25).

The thing is, tennis tournaments need the top players to PLAY. If the top players play fewer tournaments this means that many tournaments won't get the star players they need to attract the crowds. More events will close, and the tour as a major event starts to die.
The point isn't whether TD's are saints, its to save the game (and its players) from their short-sighted focus on only their own events. And the players from having to "compete" for rankings with those who will "play till they (eventually) drop". And the tour needs to stop relying on a few marquee names, and market tennis as a sport, IMO.

Players are adults. We can't mollycoddle them too much. Anyway an injured player is going to lose money for an agency too. Maybe there should be a maximum number of events. But there also needs to be a minimum. And 17 seems a good number. Players aren't forced to play 17, but they know if they play fewer events, they better perform well.
As I stated, IMG & Octagon know that if they push a player "on the bubble" in terms of marketability too much, and she suffers a major injury, one of their legions of others has one less person to get past. (And the injured one can fully recover in most cases).

This raises other problems. Why should an injury come-back get special treatment? The player decides when they come back. What about injuries at a tournament? Do they count for a mulligan? If so, how do we stop everyone who loses early claiming an injury or illness?

If the rank system needs exceptions, its going to draw cries of unfairness from many sources.
I wouldn't give a "mulligan" for retirements during a match, unless an MRI or whatever objectively confirms that she injured herself. (I might give a one for a player withdrawing between matches, such as for a family emergency or a verifiable medical reason, as above).

Basically I would say a divisor system can work but
* A low minimum divisor like 8-14 actively disincentives players from playing more events. Bad for the Tour.
* A high minimum divisor 15-20, penalises players who are injured, or otherwise like to play a shorter tour (eg Williams sisters)

Te present system encourages you to play a good, but not excessive number of events, but doesn't penalise you for the odd bad performance.
Perhaps the best divisor is one that's based on a percent of the events entered, up to a limit of 25, with a minimum of 15. Such as counting the best 80% of one's events between those 2 numbers?

Rollo
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:35 PM
I think there IS a ranking system that could better serve the WTA and promote the tour at the same time. I've proposed a system that weights more heavily towards winning events (as opposed to finishing well) and slams.


It takes into account the best 12 events, without discouraging a player from entering more if she chooses to, because as Xan pointed out a divisor system actually DISCOURAGES women from entering events.

*JR*
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:54 PM
I think there IS a ranking system that could better serve the WTA and promote the tour at the same time. I've proposed a system that weights more heavily towards winning events (as opposed to finishing well) and slams.

It takes into account the best 12 events, without discouraging a player from entering more if she chooses to, because as Xan pointed out a divisor system actually DISCOURAGES women from entering events.
I recall that your "weighting towards winning" is that the winner gets twice as many points as the RU, who gets twice as many as the SF's, and so on down the line. What's your "Base 12" system re. how many they play? (If its just "best 12" instead of "best 17" I really disagree, in that an erratic player could play 24 events with half real clunkers, and have the other half create an illusion that she's a lot better than she really is).

Rollo
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:38 PM
I think you've pegged my ranking sysyem correctly *JR*-you've got a good memory!

(If its just "best 12" instead of "best 17" I really disagree, in that an erratic player could play 24 events with half real clunkers, and have the other half create an illusion that she's a lot better than she really is).

Fair enough-BUT how often does that really happen? It's rare indeed for a top notch player to lose scads of 1 round matches. It's much more likely for an erratic player to be like a Vera Zvonereva-who is rewarded by the current
points rich "best 17" and would be a lot lower ranked under my system.