PDA

View Full Version : WTA rankings aren't too strong anymore


So Disrespectful
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Everyone was claiming for quite some time last year that we had the strongest field of players ever. But when I look at the current rankings, I now see quite the opposite.

A number of players who can't string together more than two matches are still placed firmly in the top 25, but more surprisingly, tour veterans and tier 4 level players are starting to break further through for their highest rankings.

I don't know if anyone sees my point, but if someone is planning on really cracking the elite, now would be a good time to do so. When I look at the rankings, I see a huge gap between the very top players and those further back.

Tennace
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:25 AM
I get what you mean. I remember the rankings back in 2002 (I think it was) were really strong. Maybe it is the new points system :shrug:

goldenlox
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:28 AM
What's the cutoff on "top players"?
Sveta is ranked #4, and I can see 20 or so players who can compete with her on most days.

So Disrespectful
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:35 AM
At the moment, look at the current state of some of our top 40 players. Bartoli, Hantuchova, Groenefeld, Myskina, Kirilenko, Pennetta, Bondarenko (who has a 3-8 slam record), Muller, Krajicek, Shaughnessy, Jackson, Likhovtseva.

I don't see any of these reaching the quarterfinals at tournaments consistently. They're basically hanging on to their rankings by a handful of uncharacteristic tournaments.

goldenlox
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Only 8 get to the quarters. The top 20 is loaded with players like Ivanovic and Jankovic and Vaidisova, Safina and Hantuchova.

Junex
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:49 AM
At the moment, look at the current state of some of our top 40 players. Bartoli, Hantuchova, Groenefeld, Myskina, Kirilenko, Pennetta, Bondarenko (who has a 3-8 slam record), Muller, Krajicek, Shaughnessy, Jackson, Likhovtseva.

I don't see any of these reaching the quarterfinals at tournaments consistently. They're basically hanging on to their rankings by a handful of uncharacteristic tournaments.

if you mean to refer to Top 40 players, i dnt see any issue regarding your statement i bolded.

do you really expect Top 40 players to be reaching the second week of slam (or quarters at tier 1) consistently?

vogus
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Everyone was claiming for quite some time last year that we had the strongest field of players ever.




not true. Nobody with any sense was claiming that. The overall quality of the Top 20 has been declining for several years, in the absence of a strong generation of young players to re-invigorate the tour.

goldenlox
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:54 AM
not true. Nobody with any sense was claiming that. The overall quality of the Top 20 has been declining for several years, in the absence of a strong generation of young players to re-invigorate the tour.
I disagree. The top 20 is loaded with good young players.
There could be a debate about the quality of some of the recent slam winners, but the top 20 is solid.
The YEC could easily be a 16 draw.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:57 AM
the top 20 isnt that strong... the top 15/6 is though ;)

and could be stronger if vee and seree get back up there.

nicole, jelena, and safina all did decent at slams last year so that says something too. franny is always dangerous and myskina is a former gs champ

So Disrespectful
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:01 AM
if you mean to refer to Top 40 players, i dnt see any issue regarding your statement i bolded.

do you really expect Top 40 players to be reaching the second week of slam (or quarters at tier 1) consistently?

No, but they should be doing well at the tier 3s and 4s that they enter.

Mr.Kardashian
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:08 AM
i think the top 16 is very competitive, with players like ivanovic and jankovic challenging the top players conistently. by the end of the year i think that the top 20 wil be very competitive with the possibility of players such as venus, serena, molik, myskina and possibly mary pierce challenging for top 30/top 20 positions... at the moment there are a couple of top ten players who arent beating lower ranked players consistently, but with time i think the depth of wta players will improve with the younger players coming through

Ntour
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:20 AM
most of you oly thinnk its weak bcause the sisters aren't in it

AJZ.
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:34 AM
I think it's strong - strong in the sense that it's more open and unpredictable ;)

vogus
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:55 AM
I disagree. The top 20 is loaded with good young players.
There could be a debate about the quality of some of the recent slam winners, but the top 20 is solid.
The YEC could easily be a 16 draw.


Last year there were some pretenders like Kirilenko and ALG who got their rankings up pretty high.

Corswandt
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:03 AM
I think the #30-50 rankings of the WTA, currently filled with veteran journeywomen, wily overachievers and maddeningly inconsistent players, will be taken over in the next 2-3 years by mobile, consistent, hard hitting players without obvious weaknesses in the lines of Anna Chak (or the Bondarenko we saw in Luxembourg, or Bardina), with warriors such as Peer filling most of the #15-30 slots. For now, all these players still lack the experience to pose much of a challenge to the truly top players, but as I say give it a couple more years.

Then again, the ATP is also losing depth. There were quite a few early round blowouts on the first few tournaments of 2007, and the top seeds seem to have cruised into the later rounds with unusual ease (even though there were some big upsets). ATP players ranked below #60 are barely a factor nowadays, so perhaps the WTA is merely following a wider trend.

Frode
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:09 AM
I think one of the reasons the top players are losing quite regulary is because the top 100 is much stronger then before. The players ranked 40 -100 are better then they were 15 - 20 years ago.

I don't think will ever see players winning 100 tournements again. The competion they face in the first couple of rounds are much stronger now.

Junex
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Last year there were some pretenders like Kirilenko and ALG who got their rankings up pretty high.

:rolleyes:

please you can't deny that when thes two are up their they were playing great tennis, beating top players....

but they are inconsistent and have isseus, therefore their rankings reflect on that...



i can't really comprehend why we have to create too much fuss over the rankings.

The ranking rewards those who have played tournaments and have played good.... It doesn't always have to be that a great player who is in a slump stays in the top even if she can't win a damn thing.....

The field is strong and it has always been.... different types of game may dominate the top of the rankings, different names but its only fitting since these players played best, not always but sometime in the season they almost always beat the players the have to beat!

It's time for us to think outside the box. Yes the greats have moved on, comebacks are expected but until then when they will show they still own the courts, let's not discredit the girls on top right now.....

Sund7101
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:11 AM
I agree, I don't think the depth is as great as it was in say 2002.

Serena, Venus, Capriati, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Mauresmo, Henin....

Marcus1979
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:14 AM
I think its got this with Bonus points taken off

where players are jot rewarded for tough events

compare events like Tokyo to rome or Berlin

Tokyo always has a weak field yet Rome and Berlin are stronger fields

yet the winner will get same pts of winning the weaker Tokyo event compared to Rome/Berlin

another example is stuttgart and Luxembourg or Linz

where Stuttgart has the way stronger field and is worth the same as those events

I remember in the 90s and early 2000s where San Diego was a Tier II but had a killer of a draw every year and the winner could end up getting more points than some of the US Tier I events due to the tough draw that they often faced

piercerocks
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:19 AM
i totally see your point.
well maybe, 2007 will be the year when players like kirilenko,golovin,li, pennetta finally put it together

Nicolás89
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:23 AM
I agree, I don't think the depth is as great as it was in say 2002.

Serena, Venus, Capriati, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Mauresmo, Henin....

mmm the williamses are not like 02 thats clear, but hingis is there, mauresmo and henin are stonger than 2002, we dont have capriati davenport and seles, but we have kim sharapova, all the russians and the yougsters

so 2002 better depth than 06-07?
the answer is not:wavey:

Corswandt
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:26 AM
It doesn't always have to be that a great player who is in a slump stays in the top even if she can't win a damn thing.....

That happens way too often. It's much more difficult to climb up the rankings than it is to stay there (player X gets good draws because she's seeded, and is seeded because she gets good draws). It could be prevented if the rankings were made more fluid. Ask me how.

Marcus1979
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:28 AM
1999-2003 was one of the best eras for tennis in many peoples opinions ;)

PLP
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:36 AM
1999-2003 was one of the best eras for tennis in many peoples opinions ;)

It definitely was. I loved 1997-2003 the most, however:

IMO the top 100 is much tougher now! We look at the top 25 and MOST of the players could beat each other on any given day! "Upsets" are more and more common and in general I think it's a great thing, but it consequently makes the 'rivalries' between the top seem much less interesting, but also much less predictable!? :wavey:

Corswandt
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:40 AM
All that talk about the "rivalries" annoys me verily.

If the top players all reach the later stages of major tournaments to play against each other, then everyone complains of the woeful lack of depth of women's tennis.

If the top players get upset and only a few reach the QF or semis, thus playing against each other less often, then everyone complains that there are no rivalries.

vogus
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:53 AM
That happens way too often. It's much more difficult to climb up the rankings than it is to stay there (player X gets good draws because she's seeded, and is seeded because she gets good draws).


that's just a fact of life if you average the rankings over a whole year. A player can easily go half the season without winning a match (see Jankovic) without being punished in the rankings. In a six-month ranking system, Jankovic would have fallen out the Top 300 and had to fight her way back up from challengers. As it was, she only had to keep showing up every week and wait for an easier draw, then slightly lift her level.

Tenis Srbija
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:54 AM
Like Marion Bartoli strong top twenty player :rolleyes:
What a hell? :shrug:

Slumpsova
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:07 AM
all the mess happens 'cuz WTA get rid of bonus points :fiery:

Tenis Srbija
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:13 AM
That's sooo right!!!

But now tier's I and II got more points, so I think that this year situation will be much better!

Mateo Mathieu
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:22 AM
all the mess happens 'cuz WTA get rid of bonus points :fiery:
Yeah :lol:

Frode
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:54 AM
that's just a fact of life if you average the rankings over a whole year. A player can easily go half the season without winning a match (see Jankovic) without being punished in the rankings. In a six-month ranking system, Jankovic would have fallen out the Top 300 and had to fight her way back up from challengers. As it was, she only had to keep showing up every week and wait for an easier draw, then slightly lift her level.


To say that Jankovic only SLIGHTLY lifted her level has got to be the understatment of the year so far.

Prizeidiot
Jan 10th, 2007, 05:11 AM
I'd say the depth in the top 15/20 is very good at the moment. Best it has ever been really.

The main weakness is probably outside the top 20. A lot of players ranked around 30 don't even look to be in the same league as those ranked 15 or higher. Excluding those top players who are coming back from injury like Serena.

Junex
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:47 AM
that's just a fact of life if you average the rankings over a whole year. A player can easily go half the season without winning a match (see Jankovic) without being punished in the rankings. In a six-month ranking system, Jankovic would have fallen out the Top 300 and had to fight her way back up from challengers. As it was, she only had to keep showing up every week and wait for an easier draw, then slightly lift her level.

:tape:

have Jelena performed early 2006 the way she did lately, she could easily be Top 5 by now.

Hingie
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:58 AM
It definitely was. I loved 1997-2003 the most, however:

IMO the top 100 is much tougher now! We look at the top 25 and MOST of the players could beat each other on any given day! "Upsets" are more and more common and in general I think it's a great thing, but it consequently makes the 'rivalries' between the top seem much less interesting, but also much less predictable!? :wavey:

That's a really interesting point you make. Women's tennis is much more unpredictable yet the rivalries at the top aren't sparking as much interest as they did even 5 years ago.

Is it because players have been burnt by the media before and are giving them less to work with? More reluctance to show a personality off court?

Corswandt
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:44 PM
that's just a fact of life if you average the rankings over a whole year. A player can easily go half the season without winning a match (see Jankovic) without being punished in the rankings. In a six-month ranking system, Jankovic would have fallen out the Top 300 and had to fight her way back up from challengers. As it was, she only had to keep showing up every week and wait for an easier draw, then slightly lift her level.

A six month ranking system would have a distorting effect because tournaments with specific playing surfaces tend to be bunched together on specific moments of the season, which would favour specialists of some surfaces to the detriment of other specialists (even though the WTA is nowhere near the degree of specialisation seen on the ATP). A full calendar year sliding ranking system evens things out in the end.

My idea is to get rid of seedings. FA Cup style draws - anyone can play against anyone.

Wayn77
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:58 PM
A six month ranking system would have a distorting effect because tournaments with specific playing surfaces tend to be bunched together on specific moments of the season, which would favour specialists of some surfaces to the detriment of other specialists (even though the WTA is nowhere near the degree of specialisation seen on the ATP). A full calendar year sliding ranking system evens things out in the end.

My idea is to get rid of seedings. FA Cup style draws - anyone can play against anyone.

Don't like the sound of that corswandt - that sounds orrible.
Surely you have to retain some kind of seeding for the major tourneys? I would like to see it go back to 16 as soon as possible.
I would also like to see an extra qualifying round for The Slams to reduce the number of rounds in the main event by one. Smaller more quality field - two rounds (instead of three) and then the quarters.

Joana
Jan 11th, 2007, 12:39 AM
Yeah right, we all remember the glorious days of top 20 Smashnovas and Nagyovas regularly reaching the SFs and Fs of tier Is and Slams.

I have an idea: don't make any further changes. There's nothing wrong with the rankings.

goldenlox
Jan 11th, 2007, 12:55 AM
I think tennis is heading into a great situation. Federer is getting closer to Pete's slam total. That will get attention.
On the women's side, they are a lot of young players moving up.