PDA

View Full Version : If the rankings system is not working now. Then how did it work for so long?


To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Many people are saying the rankings system is flawed....yada yada yada...you know the story

But why is it not working now....only these last few years I've heard people complaining....

Please...help me understand

Dunlop1
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:07 PM
No one complained about the ranking system when Justine was #1. Could it be that players need to play well at other tournaments outside of slams to truly be #1?????

Nahhhhh. Just win slams and the magic ranking gods will make you #1. Yay Serena!

franny
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:07 PM
People have been complaining since they changed the system during the past decade, not just in the past few years.

starin
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:11 PM
Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, Mauresmo
everyone complained when they got to #1 w/ no slams.

To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:11 PM
People have been complaining since they changed the system during the past decade, not just in the past few years.

O right Franny...now this I didn't know...they changed it...what did they change?

I recall when it was quite difficult to get to #1

franny
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:14 PM
No one complained about the ranking system when Justine was #1. Could it be that players need to play well at other tournaments outside of slams to truly be #1?????

Nahhhhh. Just win slams and the magic ranking gods will make you #1. Yay Serena!

Um . . . have you ever thought about it this way. No one complained about the number 1 ranking when Justine was number 1 because she won BOTH slams AND outside tournaments. Has Dinara done that? No. So why is it bad to complain about Dinara being number 1. She has won like what, three or four tournaments? She has no grand slams. So of course people will complain. Let's compare Safina to Serena this year. Each has won TWO tournaments. Safina got Rome and Madrid. People act as if Dinara has done that well outside of slams, but the girl has won only two tournaments.

In The Zone
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Serena has had 3 slams and not been #1 -- Summer of 2003. In fact, she even had Miami, 3 Tier IIs and a YEC Final. She was still not #1.

Clijsters played and won everything else. Same goes for Safina. The tour has to mean something.

Serena will get back to #1 this summer as long as she wins one of the Premier 5's. Safina still has a sizable lead where even if she falls flat on her face this summer, Serena will need to do something.

To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Um . . . have you ever thought about it this way. No one complained about the number 1 ranking when Justine was number 1 because she won BOTH slams AND outside tournaments. Has Dinara done that? No. So why is it bad to complain about Dinara being number 1. She has won like what, three or four tournaments? She has no grand slams. So of course people will complain. Let's compare Safina to Serena this year. Each has won TWO tournaments. Safina got Rome and Madrid. People act as if Dinara has done that well outside of slams, but the girl has won only two tournaments.

But it's not Dinara's fault. She's only filling the rankings criteria set by the WTA officials....

Thanx4nothin
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM
No one complained about the ranking system when Justine was #1. Could it be that players need to play well at other tournaments outside of slams to truly be #1?????

Nahhhhh. Just win slams and the magic ranking gods will make you #1. Yay Serena!

Henin won slams. Dinara nor JJ have done so. Hence the validity has been questioned.

Since slams are more important than smaller tournies, winning small tournies and NOT slams is more of a blemish than winning slams and NOT smaller tournies.:)

To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM
Henin won slams. Dinara nor JJ have done so. Hence the validity has been questioned.

Since slams are more important than smaller tournies, winning small tournies and NOT slams is more of a blemish than winning slams and NOT smaller tournies.:)

Yes luv...we all know who's won what...but what changed in the rankings system and why was it changed....that's what I'm asking...:)

In The Zone
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM
But it's not Dinara's fault. She's only filling the rankings criteria set by the WTA officials....

Yep. No one can blame Dinara. It is unfortunate, though, to have someone with 3 slams who is clearly the best player in the world not be #1.

In nearly every event Safina enters, she makes at least the semifinals. Not many people can say that. The points rack up.

This is why we need a ranking based on averages.

VS Fan
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:23 PM
It NEVER worked, it is designed to reward number of tournaments played rather than performance at tourneys where almost everyone shows up. (Slams, Tier 1).
Play enough tier II, III and IV and... wah-lah you can be on the top, but not played the main competetion. This is done to help the smaller tournaments attract players, but it makes the rankings meaningless. Some of the wanna be's play 30 or more tourneys to help their rankings which take the top 17 scores to calculate it. Dokic, Clijsters, and Henin were common users of this method, ALL burnt out and quit playing. I am not sure how this can be fixed. There are too many tourneys currently considering the physically demanding game that is played now.

To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:24 PM
Yep. No one can blame Dinara. It is unfortunate, though, to have someone with 3 slams who is clearly the best player in the world not be #1.

In nearly every event Safina enters, she makes at least the semifinals. Not many people can say that. The points rack up.

This is why we need a ranking based on averages.

Yeah I agree with what you state and I'd say most would....like my previous post...I was asking what exactly changed and who changed...for whatever specific reason

I thought maybe someone knew...

To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:25 PM
It NEVER worked, it is designed to reward number of tournaments played rather than performance at tourneys where almost everyone shows up. (Slams, Tier 1).
Play enough tier II, III and IV and... wah-lah you can be on the top, but not played the main competetion. This is done to help the smaller tournaments attract players, but it makes the rankings meaningless. Some of the wanna be's play 30 or more tourneys to help their rankings which take the top 17 scores to calculate it. Dokic, Clijsters, and Henin were common users of this method, ALL burnt out and quit playing. I am not sure how this can be fixed. There are too many tourneys currently considering the physically demanding game that is played now.

Hold on...here's a new one...it never worked? You mean since the pro-era..or when they changed the rankings sytem?

Marty-Dom
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Ranking system was changed because Venus and Serena were # 1 and 2 while playing 12 tournaments per year including the slams. They did it by earning a lot of additional quality points- for beating high ranked opponents.
First the quality points went away, then Tier 1 and 2 got more points relative to slams.
Also, they increased the number of ranked tournaments to reward players who play a lot.
That lead to skewing of the perceived rankings in relation to computer rankings.
I believe the next CEO will make another adjustment back toward weighing quality of wins and H2H results.

To be continued
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Ranking system was changed because Venus and Serena were # 1 and 2 while playing 12 tournaments per year including the slams. They did it by earning a lot of additional quality points- for beating high ranked opponents.
First the quality points went away, then Tier 1 and 2 got more points relative to slams.
Also, they increased the number of ranked tournaments to reward players who play a lot.
That lead to skewing of the perceived rankings in relation to computer rankings.
I believe the next CEO will make another adjustment back toward weighing quality of wins and H2H results.

Thanks....I understand more clearly now

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:39 PM
Serena has had 3 slams and not been #1 -- Summer of 2003. In fact, she even had Miami, 3 Tier IIs and a YEC Final. She was still not #1.

Clijsters played and won everything else. Same goes for Safina. The tour has to mean something.

I wouldn't even compare Safina to Clijsters. Kim had to win 9 titles to overtake Serena and she actually won one "major" title, Tour Championships, defeating Serena in the final. And she had 17 top-10 wins to Serena's 16.
Safina despite being consistent and going deep in virtually every tournament has defeated 9 top-tenners, three less than Serena.

VS Fan
Jul 4th, 2009, 08:45 PM
Hold on...here's a new one...it never worked? You mean since the pro-era..or when they changed the rankings sytem?
Well, I am not sure exactly when it changed, but when they started requiring 17 tourneys to compute rankings and gave players 0 points for each tourney
under 17 they did not play, while using they BEST 17 of players that played MORE than 17, it was the beginning of the problem. Martina Hingis did not win a slam after 1999, but retained the #1 ranking for almost TWO years because she played more tourneys and won or did well in them.... she also went deep into the slams she played. Meanwhile Serena and Lindsay won 1 and 3 slams and Venus won 4, but were still ranked below Martina. Lindsay was finally ranked #1 at the end of 2001.
There has been additional tweeking since then such as removing quality points, but the system still does not work. I am not sure how to fix it.

Wannabeknowitall
Jul 4th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Ranking system was changed because Venus and Serena were # 1 and 2 while playing 12 tournaments per year including the slams. They did it by earning a lot of additional quality points- for beating high ranked opponents.
First the quality points went away, then Tier 1 and 2 got more points relative to slams.
Also, they increased the number of ranked tournaments to reward players who play a lot.
That lead to skewing of the perceived rankings in relation to computer rankings.
I believe the next CEO will make another adjustment back toward weighing quality of wins and H2H results.

Actually you're wrong.
The previous system reflected the best 21 tournaments a player played with the added addition of quality points.
This system reflects the best 17 without quality points.
So this system actually should work better for a Williams since now it's harder to collect as many points in tournis.

For example, Lindsay got to year end number one many years by beating top players in fall with added quality points.
In 2001, Lindsay ended up the year end number one ranking regardless of not having a slam with Venus and Capriati holding two slams.

And she also was the year ending number one in 2004 and 2005.
This system tried to stop these things from happening.

It did assume a few things such as a player winning warm-up tournis as well as the slam that goes along with it, which is why Nadal is still ahead of Federer for now.


Problem is...
Who won the warm ups to the Australian Open this year:
Elena Dementieva
Who won the slam: Serena

Who won the warm ups to the French Open: Safina
Who won the slam: Kuznetsova

Who won the warmups to Wimbledon: Noone in the top 5
Who won Wimbledon: Serena

Who won the warm up to last year's US Open: Safina
Who won the slam: Serena

The system is actually pretty similar to the ATP system.
So really there's not much that can be done to change it.

It really is a good ranking system if you take into account that usually the players who do well in the warmups usually win the slams, well that's what happens on the men's tour.

jubliant11
Jul 4th, 2009, 09:30 PM
It didn't.

Hingis '00.
Serena was legit #1
Then Clijsters '03
Mauresmo '04
Davenport '05
Davenport '06
Henin legit #1
Jankovic '08
Safina '09

It never worked the majority of the time.

Kworb
Jul 4th, 2009, 09:46 PM
This is why we need a ranking based on averages.

Sounds good.

Safina = 10521/19 = 553.7
Serena = 8758/17 = 515.2

Hmmm.

Horizon
Jul 4th, 2009, 10:32 PM
because now the 2 players causing the controversy are in such extreme situations.

specific conditions are needed for a player to hold 3 slams and not be #1.

it basically requires obviously an amazingly dominanat slam player who does next to nothing outside of slams, and an amazingly dominanat non slam player who also does very, very well in slams. Those are perfectly illustrated in Serena and Dinara.

Slams are actually fairly heavily weighted in the ranking system. People just needs to realise if they want Serena at #1 she needs to be arsed to take her A game to more than 5 tournaments a year, if she could do that there wouldn't be a problem.



Serena/Clijsters was different because Clijsters actually held the remaining slam and the tour championships. That was even more extreme and perhaps Serena wasn't at fault then.

watchdogfish
Jul 4th, 2009, 10:46 PM
The system's been flawed since it was introduced in 2000 (I think :unsure:)

Some examples:

2000 - Hingis was number 1 without winning a slam while Venus won 2. Mind you, Venus didn't play for the first 5/6 months of that season while in that time Martina had made the Aus Open final.

2001 - Capriati won the Aus Open in January and the French Open in May but didn't reach number 1 until the October of that year.

2003 - Clijsters reached number 1 without winning a slam despite Serena achieving the grand slam that year (albeit her 4th in a row was in Australia. She did win Wimbledon that year too).

2004 - Davenport reached number 1 that year without even making a slam final, thanks to an incredible American hardcourt season. I think she was year end #1 that season too (might've been 2005 :scratch:)

2005 - Mauresmo reaches #1 without winning a slam but does win the tour championships

2008 - Jankovic doesn't win a slam, but a US Open final and strong indoor season gets her to #1

2009 - Safina reaches #1 by making 2 slam finals and performing well at Tier Is/Premier 5s


So the ranking system has always rewarded consistency at the main tour events. If Dinara wins the US Open this year the validity of her #1 rank won't be brought into question.

mboyle
Jul 4th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Hold on...here's a new one...it never worked? You mean since the pro-era..or when they changed the rankings sytem?

Pre 1997, the system worked on averages. Grand slams actually meant a lot less (relatively and in sheer numbers) than they do now, but you could not erase bad results the way you can with a "best of" system. You accrued points for all tournaments played, and then the computer divided those points by the number of tournaments you played. There really were no illegitimate number ones before 1997, whereas Hingis being number one in March 97 when Graf still held 3/4 grand slams was the beginning of the end of legitimate rankings. Any ranking system that allows you to cover up your losses is illegitimate by definition.

mb011
Jul 4th, 2009, 10:57 PM
the problem is that the williams sisters are in late years of their careers frankly, and don't have much motivation to play smaller tournaments, but are still capable of winning "just" slams, which is what they care about at the moment. it is some people on this forum that really care who is the "true" number one player, much more then the williams sisters. maybe you all would like to see just four tournaments during the year, i'm sure that would be more fun.

i think the ranking system at the moment is well balanced, and if the WS are really the best, and want to have it "in writting" again, they simply have to play more tournaments, and do well there too.

but, like i said, the sisters care about grand slam titles much more, and they have the right to. that is why we have players like safina or jankovic, who would give anything for that one GS title, because they know that is what is getting them into the books of history of tennis, rather then the "ranking system", which as we see changing a lot during the course of history ;) ...

mboyle
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:00 PM
The system's been flawed since it was introduced in 2000 (I think :unsure:)

Some examples:

2000 - Hingis was number 1 without winning a slam while Venus won 2. Mind you, Venus didn't play for the first 5/6 months of that season while in that time Martina had made the Aus Open final.

2001 - Capriati won the Aus Open in January and the French Open in May but didn't reach number 1 until the October of that year.

2003 - Clijsters reached number 1 without winning a slam despite Serena achieving the grand slam that year (albeit her 4th in a row was in Australia. She did win Wimbledon that year too).

2004 - Davenport reached number 1 that year without even making a slam final, thanks to an incredible American hardcourt season. I think she was year end #1 that season too (might've been 2005 :scratch:)

2005 - Mauresmo reaches #1 without winning a slam but does win the tour championships

2008 - Jankovic doesn't win a slam, but a US Open final and strong indoor season gets her to #1

2009 - Safina reaches #1 by making 2 slam finals and performing well at Tier Is/Premier 5s


So the ranking system has always rewarded consistency at the main tour events. If Dinara wins the US Open this year the validity of her #1 rank won't be brought into question.

It was 1997, and the problems started almost immediately

1997--Hingis ascends to number 1 in March, despite the fact that Graf holds three grand slams and the YEC
1998--Davenport finishes number 1 ahead of Hingis, even though Hingis had two more slam finals than Davenport, and won the YEC over Davenport.
1999--the only year the rankings were really fine.

Kworb
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:02 PM
Pre 1997, the system worked on averages. Grand slams actually meant a lot less (relatively and in sheer numbers) than they do now, but you could not erase bad results the way you can with a "best of" system. You accrued points for all tournaments played, and then the computer divided those points by the number of tournaments you played. There really were no illegitimate number ones before 1997, whereas Hingis being number one in March 97 when Graf still held 3/4 grand slams was the beginning of the end of legitimate rankings. Any ranking system that allows you to cover up your losses is illegitimate by definition.
You can't compare it because there were always dominant players before 1997 (who were dominant not just in Slams). If we used the old system now there would be the same Slamless #1s.

Donny
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:02 PM
Sounds good.

Safina = 10521/19 = 553.7
Serena = 8758/17 = 515.2

Hmmm.

Serena wouldn't have played most (or any) of those events she suffered first round defeats in if they used averages.

jubliant11
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:04 PM
It was 1997, and the problems started almost immediately

1997--Hingis ascends to number 1 in March, despite the fact that Graf holds three grand slams and the YEC
1998--Davenport finishes number 1 ahead of Hingis, even though Hingis had two more slam finals than Davenport, and won the YEC over Davenport.
1999--the only year the rankings were really fine.

2002 they were fine too.

watchdogfish
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:14 PM
It was 1997, and the problems started almost immediately

1997--Hingis ascends to number 1 in March, despite the fact that Graf holds three grand slams and the YEC
1998--Davenport finishes number 1 ahead of Hingis, even though Hingis had two more slam finals than Davenport, and won the YEC over Davenport.
1999--the only year the rankings were really fine.

Ah thanks! So really out of the 12 years we've had this system there's only been 4 seasons where the #1 rank hasn't been questioned. It's just seems the criticism Dinara's been getting is much harsher than what Kim or Amelie got before they won their slams.

jubliant11
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:17 PM
When Kim was #1 she had eight or nine titles and at least the YEC.

Amelie 04 is closer to Safina.

But Kim from '02 YEC to '03 YEC had beaten EVERYONE that mattered including Serena/Venus just not in the slams. Safina hasn't beaten Serena since Berlin '08 when she wasn't even in the Top 10. It's a bit different.

darrinbaker00
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:31 PM
When one of your favorite players is #1, then the system works. When someone other than one of your favorite players is #1, then the system is flawed. Next topic, please.

T-rex
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:50 PM
When one of your favorite players is #1, then the system works. When someone other than one of your favorite players is #1, then the system is flawed. Next topic, please.



When a player has 3 GS and is # 2. And another player has 0 GS and is #1, the system is just flawed. (Period!)

darrinbaker00
Jul 4th, 2009, 11:54 PM
When a player has 3 GS and is # 2. And another player has 0 GS and is #1, the system is just flawed. (Period!)
If the four majors were the only tournaments that counted in the rankings, you would be right, but since they aren't, guess what?