PDA

View Full Version : Getting rid of quality points was a good idea...


-Sonic-
Apr 9th, 2008, 09:51 PM
... there are so many average players in the top 15 / 20 these days, I don't see why giving other average players bonus points for beating them would be a good idea.

Schnyder
Bartoli
Hantuchova
Safina
Petrova
Vaidisova

Getting top 20 quality points for beating these opponents? Pffft.

MakarovaFan
Apr 9th, 2008, 10:10 PM
Have you ever thought that those "average" top 15-20 players WOULDNT be there in the first place if we HAD quality points.....and if they were still 15-20 ,then they really arent so average.

Dementinator
Apr 9th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Exactly, its because the Qpoints have got the hell out of dodge that the top 15 or so has a lot of pretenders there.

Its all quantity over quality now.

Slutati
Apr 9th, 2008, 10:36 PM
They're not average.Cake is the only bad player in top 50.And she's below average.The rest of them are fine.

Slumpsova
Apr 9th, 2008, 10:38 PM
imagine Bartoli could have been #5 by now bc she beat Henin in Wimbledon which can give her extra 200 points :eek:

Poova
Apr 9th, 2008, 10:39 PM
There's been average players in the top 20 in every 'era'. :shrug:

And most of those players you mentioned are not average BTW, they're just slumping/over the hill and their rankings will take a while to reflect that.

Tennisstar86
Apr 9th, 2008, 10:49 PM
we didnt have so many average players before qualities points were taken away....

I wouldnt put hantuchova in this mix though... or vaidisova...
or any of them really they're just past their prime....

Volcana
Apr 9th, 2008, 11:08 PM
we didnt have so many average players before qualities points were taken away....

I wouldnt put hantuchova in this mix though... or vaidisova...
or any of them really they're just past their prime....
Take any job in the world only 1000 or so people can even do. Now take the twenty best people at that job. How many of them are really 'average'? Isn't that like saying that the CEO of one of the ten biggest companies in the Fortune 500 is only 'average'. Seriously. Maybe these aren't 'historic' players, or 'Hall of Fame', but they are very very VERY far above 'average'. Do you realize that the 'average' WTA player never wins a tournament in her career? Even winning one Tier I tournament puts you WAY above average.

Amanda Coetzer, for example, was a far above average player. Highest rank #3, made three slam semis. Never won a Tier I. Won nine tournaments her whole career, the best being Hilton Head.

Marion Bartoli has won three tournaments, made a slam final, and has a career high ranking in the top ten. That's a better career, if she retired right now, than 99% of the players who EVER play on the WTA tour.

Matt01
Apr 9th, 2008, 11:17 PM
Amanda Coetzer, for example, was a far above average player. Highest rank #3, made three slam semis. Never won a Tier I. Won nine tournaments her whole career, the best being Hilton Head.


I think Hilton Head was a Tier I...:p

Steffica Greles
Apr 9th, 2008, 11:55 PM
... there are so many average players in the top 15 / 20 these days, I don't see why giving other average players bonus points for beating them would be a good idea.

Schnyder
Bartoli
Hantuchova
Safina
Petrova
Vaidisova

Getting top 20 quality points for beating these opponents? Pffft.

But the reason so many average players are ranked so high is because the rankings take account of the quantity of matches they win, and not the quality.

Therefore, the average players are ranked where they are BECAUSE of the system as it is.

Example: a player who has constant niggling injuries, but between those injuries is able to knock out some big names and make dents in draws, is disadvantaged by this system.

It compels players to play more tournaments, which in turn leads to more injuries.

GoDominique
Apr 10th, 2008, 12:07 AM
Of course it was a good idea.

Jachal
Apr 10th, 2008, 12:10 AM
I loved the quality points system!!!
It was real fun to count the ranking positions. It was a pleasant challenge!
And it was fun watching the stupid 'not-interested-in-tennis' journalist making serious mistakes by predicting new standings :devil:

And the quality points really pushed the dangerous players to the top, not the consistent ones!!! You had to beat the big names in order to become a big name yourself!!!

Really miss those days... :crying2:

fammmmedspin
Apr 10th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Innane idea. It means you can get the same points for beating Henin as you do someone ranked 101 who no one has heard of. it means you pick up mega points for winning Tier1s and GS when the opposition didn't show up or for winning lower Tiers against little opposition. The result is inevitable - the top of the rankings reflects luck or endurance or the draw and not ability to beat the players around and above you,.

crazillo
Apr 10th, 2008, 12:25 AM
Quality points were great. If you have bad draws and still find ways to win, your ranking reflected that. Nowadays, if you beat Henin somewhere, it's not worth more than beating Ruano Pascual...

I liked them a lot.

And never forget: rankings represent the last YEAR on the circuit. Slumps don't necessarily change your ranking immediatly, but will affect them long-term. It's still a good system; although they focus too much on quantity now. The balance of points isn't too great either. A 2nd round at a Slam awards waaaay too many points for example.

amirbachar
Apr 10th, 2008, 12:51 AM
The old system was much less stable than it is now.
Just look at the ups and downs in the rankings.
That means that today the best ranking really means something unlike the past,
where you could easily get to top 10 for a few weeks or so.

MakarovaFan
Apr 10th, 2008, 12:59 AM
The old system was much less stable than it is now.
Just look at the ups and downs in the rankings.
That means that today the best ranking really means something unlike the past,
where you could easily get to top 10 for a few weeks or so.
Lol i think you mixed those up.....the top 10 was usualy very "solid,stable" etc back then.now just look at the past year and the number of players who snuck in the top 10 and float around 9-13 and given week.Now the 9 and 10 spots spots are interchangeable by the week(safina,vaidisova,bartoli,dementivea,hantuchov a even serena) have all done this in the past season...and if anything the old system was MUCH MORE indicative of the real ranks because players who played less but were always good for the big wins were rewarded justly,now if you dont play you're screwed no matter who you beat or how consistent you are(see Serena and Nicole '07)

Ryan
Apr 10th, 2008, 02:15 AM
I think quality points were great, but maybe not having them worth as much as before might have worked better? I think if you beat the #1 player, you should get extra points. It rewards quality wins over sheer quantity of tournaments, but I really dont think the rankings would change THAT much from what they are now.

Wiggly
Apr 10th, 2008, 02:21 AM
60 pts to win a 1st round is way too much. By exemple, you face Castano in Wimbledon = easiest pts of your life. 2nd roud, you need to beat a seed if you're not a seed = 30 pts. You couldget less reward to beat Sharapova on grass than Castano. :tape: