Does anyone agree that the ranking system depends too heavily on point defense...eg..Barbara Schett, Petra Mandula, Lina Krasnoroutskaya, Nadia Petrova, Zsofia Gubadci...ect..
their ranking drops do not give a true indication of their curent results and abilities, rather they tell us simply that they did better last year...different with Lina and Nadia of course because its injury related however, with the other players, who havent had results all together that bad, the dramatic rankings drops are unfair. And then there are players like Tauziat, she hasnt played all yaer, still at no.16!!! OMG! anyway, opinions??
I realise this is a big statement, although in part i think many would agree...
~ The Leopard ~
Jun 11th, 2002, 06:06 AM
No I don't agree. The rankings are based on how well you have done in the past 12 months at any given time. The concepts of "points defense" etc are just an artifact of the system and useful shorthand. Such an artifact will be produced by any rolling system.
A non-rolling system or a system based on a period of less than 12 months with be distorted by how players have fared at particular major tournaments and on particular surfaces.
The only area where the ranking is distorted IMO is that some of the top players have played less than the maximum 17 tournaments that can count - otherwise they'd have even more points. Even a player with 17 tournaments including a couple of bad ones is disadvanted vis a vis someone with a lot more tournaments to "choose" from, if those 17 include a couple of bad results.
Serena should really be number 1 now, ahead of Venus. Amelie should probably be 10, not 11 (though maybe not... she's fallen far enough behind Sandrine that even a few extra tournaments to choose from would not *necessarily* close the gap).
These minor distortions aside, I think the system is reasonably good. If everyone played, say, 19 or 20 tournaments I think it would work very well.
Jun 11th, 2002, 06:09 AM
If you want to see who's the best at this moment, check the results of the last tournament. The ranking is supposed to tell who was the best during the last year, not during the last few weeks. Any system based on a shorter timespan would be a lot more unfair than the current one.
And it doesn't rely on point defense at all. You simply get the points for the tournaments you've played during the last year. The tournaments you won the year before have no impact.
I agree that retired players should be removed from the rankings as soon as they retire though.
Jun 11th, 2002, 12:39 PM
"with the other players, who havent had results all together that bad, the dramatic rankings drops are unfair"
the ranking drops are comlpletely fair. you did well last year, but this year you're not as good.
Jun 11th, 2002, 12:53 PM
The ranking system does not rely heavily on point defense at all. If you play 17 tournaments a year and get exactly 50 points at each one, you will never have this problem. Players who gain large portions of their points from 1 or 2 events need to keep on achieving at those events and others to prove they deserve those points.
Jun 11th, 2002, 01:29 PM
Yes if you are relying on defense or you losse your good ranking because of it it probably because you have had one great result and nothing else that good(mandula)
with gaining points gradually the ranking wont suffer come 12 months laster as much!
Jun 11th, 2002, 01:45 PM
The current system was devised by the WTA to benefit who? Surprise! The WTA!! They don't seem to care if Jennifer loses every one of her WTA events as long as she is selling tickets.
Jun 11th, 2002, 01:50 PM
I used to think that until it was explained very clearly by a poster on this board, now i see that it is very fair. It ensures that only points from the past 12 months can be counted, it shouldnt matter what a player has done last year.
Jun 11th, 2002, 02:01 PM
I presonally think the ranking system is about as close to perfect as can be and have no problems with it. I think those who truly understand how rankings work generally have no problem with it. Didn't the tour about 2 or 3 years back go from a players top 18 or 19 tournaments to their top 17 tournament results. I thought the rational behind this was so that players didn't have to play in as many tournaments and cutting back on the season. I think the rankings are based in part on the number of tournaments you play but also a strong emphasis on your quality of play (i.e. how deep in the draw you get and the quality of the opponents you beat). I find it rather amazing that the current #1 and #2 players in the world have only played in 14 and 12 tournaments respectively in the past 52 weeks. So, it's not necessarily the number of tournaments you play in but the quality of a players results. I find it amazing that Dokic can play in over twice the amount of tournaments of Venus and Serena and still be ranked behind them. I find it amazing, plus when Martina was number 1 she generally had 19 to 21 tournaments on the books. But this is all just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jun 11th, 2002, 02:04 PM
Nathalie Tauziat is quite unique. She is average (and sometimes bad) on clay and hardcourt but great (and somtimes brilliant) on grass and carpet.
Last year, she lost in the first round in all the European clay tournaments (except the SF finish in Strasbourg).
She didn't play in Australia. So basically, the only points that have come off so far are the carpet points from early 2001. She won a grasscourt tournament last year, as well as the Wimbledon QF so expect her ranking to drop these next two weeks or so.
But yes, I suspect she has been sitting on her backside for six months sipping martinis by a pool watching her singles ranking drop 2 or so places :cool:
No wonder she decided to play doubles again.
Jun 11th, 2002, 10:44 PM
she's unique but just a rare anomaly (i dunno if thats spelled right... hmm).
Jun 12th, 2002, 02:18 AM
I've always thought the ranking system was messed up. Dewonder Davis has a ranking having never won a set, let alone a match. Enough said.
Jun 12th, 2002, 09:01 AM
Well at least it's more accurate than the FIFA rankings for football national teams!!
Jun 12th, 2002, 11:39 AM
While i see some of your points, i still think its unfair that a player (eg.Mandula, Scheett) can drop so heavily when other players with similar reult in same tournament dont drop at all, simply because they didnt do well last year either.
Jun 12th, 2002, 01:22 PM
Bello-it's "fair" because the rankings are based on a YEAR, not one event. If your ranking is so dependent on one event, you deserve to drop. Besides, you haven't offered your alternative ranking system. What changes would you suggest?
Jun 12th, 2002, 02:43 PM
Bello there is an upside to the system. Take Clarissa Fernandez for instance, she moved from #87 to #34 becuase of her good showing in the French Open and she will have those 504 points for the next year. The FO points are providing her with a full year of opportunity - better tournaments (Tier I's instead of II/III's) and opponents (quality points) - and not just entry into the next big tournament. It depends on if you view it as an opportunity or an eventual loss. A player who can take full advantage of their opportunities - no injuries, etc... will compensate for lost points by gaining in other tournies and will not drop in the rankings.