PDA

View Full Version : Should the rankings be changed to reflect who the best players are?


Volcana
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:20 PM
The rolling 52 week rankings are a method to insure fair seeding at tournaments. They do that pretty well. What they DON'T do is tell you who's better than who. They don't even tell you who performing the best when they play.

Putting aside the difficulty of finding such a system, SHOULD the rankings order the players by who's best? Or do we just continue to determine that subjectively, juggling perfomance in the big events?

Keep in mind, if you order the players by who's best, the seedings at tournaments are likely to be un-fair. Consider Kim Clijsters being seeded at tournaments last summer when her ranking was outside the top fifty. Obviously she was better than a lot of the seeded players, but would that have been fair?

tennisrox
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:25 PM
On what basis do you say that a particular player is 'better' than another?Its subjective.

Smeagol
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:29 PM
The rolling 52 week rankings are a method to insure fair seeding at tournaments. They do that pretty well. What they DON'T do is tell you who's better than who. They don't even tell you who performing the best when they play.

Putting aside the difficulty of finding such a system, SHOULD the rankings order the players by who's best? Or do we just continue to determine that subjectively, juggling perfomance in the big events?

Keep in mind, if you order the players by who's best, the seedings at tournaments are likely to be un-fair. Consider Kim Clijsters being seeded at tournaments last summer when her ranking was outside the top fifty. Obviously she was better than a lot of the seeded players, but would that have been fair?

Yes

So tell us who is the Best and lets get over it, okay?

franny
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:29 PM
It's subjective but I think that there could be a pretty good overall consensus based on rankings by the media or certain officials. Personally, I would allow a group of journalists to select the rankings, much like they do in college football and such. Obviously, commentators and journalists may be biased, but I think that most of them would take into consideration slam victories and player head to heads, etc.

Spunky83
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:30 PM
I am sure somewhere in Timbuktu there´s a woman who has never played tennis but has the most talent to do so if someone gave her a raquet.

The rankings will never reflect the best player, but they reflect who fought their asses off to play and win as many matches as they can without getting injured. Personally I think Justine´s the best tennis player right now but she doesn´t deserve to be ranked higher cause there were a lot of other players who were in fact able to attend the tourneys and play.

In theory, yes...I´d love to see the perfect ranking but I guess that is impossible

FaceyFacem
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:32 PM
you can't do things subjectively, there will always be people that have problems, you need something objective, that's why we have computer rankings, the only other option used in major sports currently would be something like what the NCAA does for football and basketball where sports writers/coaches/former players etc etc vote on who is the best, i guess you can vote the top 32 every week and then use those for seeding purposes? even then there are extreme problems since seedings at small events would be problematic

overall, no, they should use the rolling rankings, they do fine, being #1 is no one's priority as every player has said (except when they reach 1 for the first time since they're obligated to say they care) everyone only cares about titles, so let's get over the ranking issues

vogus
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:35 PM
great idea, but i already thought of it. The WTA will be calling me every Friday night in 2006 to get a list of who i've decided the 50 best players are that particular week, and they will use the list for their seeding at the following week's tournaments. I'm confident that this will be a far superior system to the current "rankings".

Smeagol
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:37 PM
Hint #1: The best player has a sister.

A'DAM
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:38 PM
I did answer yes but question is how to change it :confused: :confused: :confused:

shap_half
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:43 PM
Hint #1: The best player has a sister.

I have a sister. Is it me?

Smeagol
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:44 PM
I have a sister. Is it me?

Are you African American?

Smeagol
Dec 1st, 2005, 07:57 PM
Hint #2 : Best players are the ones that win slams and bigger events.

JulesVerne
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:01 PM
Hint #1: The best player has a sister.

There is no ideal way of determining who is better than who. For all its faults the computer is probably the best method we have for assessing quality.

There is no evidence to support the view that either Serena or Venus have been the best players in the world since July 2003. If you disagree please provide some evidence.

fammmmedspin
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:04 PM
After 2005 the argument is plain silly. Subjective judgement means "the one I like" which in turn means " the nice one, the gay one, the cute one, the pretty one, the black one, the green one, the tall one, the fat one, the one who cries a lot...."

The best player in January was Serena. By february it was Maria, By June Serena wouldn't feature in the best 20 and Justine was best. By Julythe best was Venus who barely registered before and vanished afterwards despite playing probably the best tennis of the year for a whole hour. By July Justine had vanished from the calculation. Kim was then best except at the FO and Wimbledon and the YEC - she was probably the best around in 2005 as a whole but still couldn't grab number 1 because she couldn't sustain be best for one extra big tournament. Lindsay was best somewhere enough to be number 1 but not in anything big. Is being best at everything else better than being best at the odd GS when the GS are spread around? Momo won the YEC but was poor in the GS when it mattered and lost the Fed Cup. Mary could beat any SF opponent but lose to any finalist in a big event. Its not even true that there is a relationship between ranking and who beats whom - most of the top players will lose regularly to some top players and beat others equally often - so the subjective concept of "best player" makes even less sense..

Picking players that might be best one week, or one month in a year tells you precisely nothing about who on average can be expected to play well. If you bet on Serena for the other GS after her AO win you didn't make much. Even Kim is now a variable performer. Thats why the rankings are over a year to give an idea of consistency and some idea of performance over the various surfaces.

Smeagol
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:08 PM
There is no ideal way of determining who is better than who. For all its faults the computer is probably the best method we have for assessing quality.

There is no evidence to support the view that either Serena or Venus have been the best players in the world since July 2003. If you disagree please provide some evidence.

Volcana I need Help here Please :help:

switz
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:13 PM
jesus get over the rankings already. i swear some fans care a million times more than the players do about rankings.

fammmmedspin
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:16 PM
It's subjective but I think that there could be a pretty good overall consensus based on rankings by the media or certain officials. Personally, I would allow a group of journalists to select the rankings, much like they do in college football and such. Obviously, commentators and journalists may be biased, but I think that most of them would take into consideration slam victories and player head to heads, etc.

Yes but you couldn't rank anyone apart from the top 10 that way so rankings would still exist and you would then have a top 10 as voted and a top 10 as ranked. You would also have silly results as people voted by nationality or sponsors pressure or for people who they liked to interview. You would also still have the basic problem that you would have GS winners who got media attention being proclaimed the best when for all but that one second week in the year their performance was worse than people ranked well below them. "Fifth best player beaten by world number 65" or "Third best player beaten by number 25" as headlines for the rest of the year would just make the idea look absurd as the claim to be "best" was disproved week after week.

JulesVerne
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:20 PM
It's subjective but I think that there could be a pretty good overall consensus based on rankings by the media or certain officials. Personally, I would allow a group of journalists to select the rankings, much like they do in college football and such. Obviously, commentators and journalists may be biased, but I think that most of them would take into consideration slam victories and player head to heads, etc.

If events have sensible points structures and they are processed in a rational way, then there is no method more objective than computer rankings.

Veritas
Dec 1st, 2005, 08:23 PM
The rolling 52 week rankings are a method to insure fair seeding at tournaments. They do that pretty well. What they DON'T do is tell you who's better than who. They don't even tell you who performing the best when they play.

Putting aside the difficulty of finding such a system, SHOULD the rankings order the players by who's best? Or do we just continue to determine that subjectively, juggling perfomance in the big events?

The rankings aren't supposed to be an accurate reflection of how good players really are. I reckon people should stop assuming that rankings are the only way to measure someone's talent and look at it as a reflection of their results.

We all know someone like Serena Williams shouldn't normally be ranked outside the top 10, but, aside from her victory at the Australian Open, she hasn't had many good results this year. Rankings reward players for their results in a certain timeframe, and Serena got back into the top 5 after her AO win. That was fair enough. What wouldn't be fair is if a new seeding or ranking systems come into play and players who've done well throughout the year would be bumped down a few notches to accomodate some room for Serena to occupy in the seedings.

Plus, besides the prize money and the points, there's really not that much difference for Serena to go up against someone like Lindsay in the 4th round or in the Semis. Sooner or later, solid opposition will come in her way and if she can't take them out before the Quarters, there's little chance she'd be able to do it later on.

And, of course, Serena's just one example. The same applied for Kim at Indian Wells earlier this year and she did fine without a high seeding.

Keep in mind, if you order the players by who's best, the seedings at tournaments are likely to be un-fair. Consider Kim Clijsters being seeded at tournaments last summer when her ranking was outside the top fifty. Obviously she was better than a lot of the seeded players, but would that have been fair?

Maybe not, but then if Clijsters is good enough to be no.1, then she probably won't have much problems getting into the later rounds even without a seeding.

QUEENLINDSAY
Dec 1st, 2005, 09:01 PM
The Best players represents the current system!

DragonFlame
Dec 1st, 2005, 09:07 PM
i say yes, that's why qualitypoints are so important. it are extra points for beating the best players and thats why they are higher in the rankings. now that they are going to get rid of it players that play more on quantity instead of quality are higher:ras: that sucks cause they aren't the best :o

Blonde_Ambition7
Dec 1st, 2005, 09:08 PM
No.

LH2HBH
Dec 1st, 2005, 10:18 PM
How are you determining who is 'best'. Seems very subjective. A rolling 52 week rank system is a great way to determine who is 'best'. There are even measures in place to help players like Kim as you've suggested- called Injury Protected Ranking. Unfortunately, Kim attempted a mini-comeback and therefore wasted her Protected Ranking. What exactly are you proposing???

Zauber
Dec 1st, 2005, 11:59 PM
The mathematical system is fine.
They just count too many tournaments.
Therefore quantity wins out over quality sometimes.
Perhaps players play too much causing injuries.
Simple solution.
Have each player count only the best 10 tournaments.
However it will not happen because the associations and money makers want the top players to play as much as possible.
quantity over quality.
Unfortunately the busines aspect wins out over the sport's aspect.

Volcana
Dec 2nd, 2005, 12:50 AM
JulesVerne][/b]There is no evidence to support the view that either Serena or Venus have been the best players in the world since July 2003. If you disagree please provide some evidence.

Volcana I need Help here Please :help:No you don't. Of course there was a period when Venus was the best player in the world after July 2003. The second week of Wimbledon. The evidence is her last three matches. All you have to do is look at them.

PreOp
Dec 2nd, 2005, 12:56 AM
The ranking system is as fair as any. And number 1 is number 1. No problem there.

The problem is with how players are seeded. The tournaments should show some flexibility, and not abandon all reason as they do now, and stop seeding strictly according to ranking.

Did it make any sense that a healthy Venus was the 14th seed at this years Wimbledon, a tournament in which she had appeared in 4 of the last 5 finals?

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 2nd, 2005, 01:39 AM
Having a fair means, blah, blah, is what matters. But what is fair? You still have to pick your criteria. I mean we could rank them by a vote of who has the nicest tits, longest tongue, or whatever.

Surely a fair system has something to do with who has been best-performed over some recent period. It can't be based on a subjective assessment of who is best, but must be based on some objective calculation of who is best performed - who has actually been winning matches, winning titles at various levels, getting deep into important tournaments, etc., over the relevant time. Of course, human beings have to determine how this is weighted. You'd hope that when the weightings etc are assigned, and the computer then does the calculations, that it would come up with results pretty close to the intuitive feelings that well-informed observers have of who have been best performed over the past X weeks (most people think a year is a fair period since it is not too long but takes into account matches on all surfaces and in all conditions). Major deviations from widespread intuitions should at least be explicable on the basis of time off with injuries, or something else that makes sense.

JulesVerne
Dec 2nd, 2005, 03:09 PM
The mathematical system is fine.
They just count too many tournaments.
Therefore quantity wins out over quality sometimes.
Perhaps players play too much causing injuries.
Simple solution.
Have each player count only the best 10 tournaments.
However it will not happen because the associations and money makers want the top players to play as much as possible.
quantity over quality.
Unfortunately the busines aspect wins out over the sport's aspect.

Implement an entry ranking system similar to ATP which focuses on major and large events with greater differential between winning, losing finalist etc

SAEKeithSerena
Dec 2nd, 2005, 03:12 PM
you earn your ranking. there is no doubt that serena and venus could kick patty's and nadia's ass any day. unfortunately, they don't play half the tournaments they do so their ranking does not reflect their ability.

JulesVerne
Dec 2nd, 2005, 03:17 PM
No you don't. Of course there was a period when Venus was the best player in the world after July 2003. The second week of Wimbledon. The evidence is her last three matches. All you have to do is look at them.

Okay Serena was the best player in the world for 2 weeks in Jan 2005 and Venus for 2 weeks in July 2005. Still cannot find a better system, although betting odds have an interesting habit of sometimes being more accurate predictor than computer rankings.