PDA

View Full Version : New WTA Chief defends ranking system


mdterp01
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:28 PM
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/13072009/58/new-wta-chief-defends-rankings-system.html

I'm sorry yall...I know this is like beating a dead horse (ducks the tennis balls beiing thrown at me) but just figured I would post this. I mean she's right. I know that in the whole rankings dispute I have always said that look...the system is what it is. There is more to the season than the 4 grand slams (i.e. 8 weeks). It is a 52 week
system that rewards someone who played enough and either gets deep in enough tournaments and/or wins enough that they can achieve the #1 ranking without winning any of the slams. Again, there is a difference between a computer #1 and who the best player in the world is. I don't think it should even be an argument. Instead of Serena saying "we know who the real #1 is" she should've said like she's said in the past that she believes she is the best player in the world. Cuz there is clearly a difference.

Safina is #1 based on the ranking system. Its not her design so I don't get why she gets so much flack for it. She is the beneficiery of the system, whether we think its a flawed system or not. It doesn't make her look good when she gets whipped in the finals of slams and only wins 1 game in the semifinals of a slam, but she was consistent enough last year to grab the #1 ranking. I don't know. If people would just understand the difference between #1 and the best player in the world, I think this argument can just go away. I would like to see the majors have more points though and I think it was a bad idea getting rid of quality points when you beat top ranked players.

Sally Struthers
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:35 PM
that hairstyle on her is not flattering at all :o

StephenUK
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:44 PM
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/13072009/58/new-wta-chief-defends-rankings-system.html

I'm sorry yall...I know this is like beating a dead horse (ducks the tennis balls beiing thrown at me) but just figured I would post this. I mean she's right. I know that in the whole rankings dispute I have always said that look...the system is what it is. There is more to the season than the 4 grand slams (i.e. 8 weeks). It is a 52 week
system that rewards someone who played enough and either gets deep in enough tournaments and/or wins enough that they can achieve the #1 ranking without winning any of the slams. Again, there is a difference between a computer #1 and who the best player in the world is. I don't think it should even be an argument. Instead of Serena saying "we know who the real #1 is" she should've said like she's said in the past that she believes she is the best player in the world. Cuz there is clearly a difference.

Safina is #1 based on the ranking system. Its not her design so I don't get why she gets so much flack for it. She is the beneficiery of the system, whether we think its a flawed system or not. It doesn't make her look good when she gets whipped in the finals of slams and only wins 1 game in the semifinals of a slam, but she was consistent enough last year to grab the #1 ranking. I don't know. If people would just understand the difference between #1 and the best player in the world, I think this argument can just go away. I would like to see the majors have more points though and I think it was a bad idea getting rid of quality points when you beat top ranked players.

She has to defend the ranking system because she is WTA tour chief. If you say, it is only the slams that count, then the rest of the tour and her job become redundant.
Everyone knows Serena is the best but she needs to win more WTA events on top of those 3 GS to deserve that top ranking, cf
Navratilova 83 3 GS + 13 WTA
Graf 89 3 GS + 11 WTA
Seles 91 3 GS + 7 WTA
Seles 92 3 GS + 7 WTA
Graf 95 3 GS + 6 WTA
Graf 96 3 GS + 4 WTA
Hingis 97 3 GS + 9 WTA
Serena 02 3 GS + 5 WTA

Szczecin
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:41 AM
She mentioned Elena as a drawcard...


She gets my vote :yeah:

Volcana
Jul 14th, 2009, 06:45 AM
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/13072009/58/new-wta-chief-defends-rankings-system.html
That wasn't a defense of the ranking system. It was an explanation.If people would just understand the difference between #1 and the best player in the world, I think this argument can just go away.That would require that people actually think. Not much, I grant you, but the challenge is clearly too much for a lot of people.

mr_burns
Jul 14th, 2009, 07:00 AM
I like sche mentions the 3 top stars and as the next one elenea;-))

what elso should she say about the ranking? WTA can close the doors when it is only about slams ranking wise

Sharapower
Jul 14th, 2009, 07:58 AM
That would require that people actually think. Not much, I grant you, but the challenge is clearly too much for a lot of people.
"Think"? Whatdaheck is that? :eek:

ClaudiaZ-S
Jul 14th, 2009, 01:01 PM
Serena lost early in FO... Safin made the final...

TSequoia01
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:23 PM
Serena lost early in FO... Safin made the final...

Not sure what your point was here, she made the quarters, but Serena knows the rules. I noticed early on that Serena did not like playing the low paying tournies. She would only play tier II and up. It probably had to do with recurring injuries so playing low tiered tournies was just not worth it from her point of view.

Kworb
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:30 PM
Indeed, Safina is without question the best player in the world right now. Serena may have won the Slams but she is unable to bring that level to other events, so if you look at the whole picture, Safina is better than Serena at the moment.

Wiggly
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:33 PM
I guess Rome and Madrid paid her 10K each to say those things.

TSequoia01
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:45 PM
Indeed, Safina is without question the best player in the world right now. Serena may have won the Slams but she is unable to bring that level to other events, so if you look at the whole picture, Safina is better than Serena at the moment.
No Safina has more points than Serena, she is definitely not a better player. Not at the moment not ever.

Kworb
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:57 PM
This year Serena is 32-8 (80.0%) and Safina is 42-9 (82.4%). Serena had awful losses like against Zakopalova and Schiavone. It's not about how good they are at their peak, it's about how good they are in general. Serena is like coitus interruptus, she has a high failure rate but when it works the results are spectacular. Safina is like a condom, you can always count on her. Now which contraceptive is better?

brickhousesupporter
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Indeed, Safina is without question the best player in the world right now. Serena may have won the Slams but she is unable to bring that level to other events, so if you look at the whole picture, Safina is better than Serena at the moment.

:lol::lol: Why are you trying to create controversy where none exist.....Safina is the number 1 ranked player right now now....Lets leave it at that.

Yonexforever
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:21 PM
Serena is like coitus interruptus, she has a high failure rate but when it works the results are spectacular. Safina is like a condom, you can always count on her. Now which contraceptive is better?

Best line i have heard in quite some time..
:worship::worship::worship:

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:39 PM
This year Serena is 32-8 (80.0%) and Safina is 42-9 (82.4%). Serena had awful losses like against Zakopalova and Schiavone. It's not about how good they are at their peak, it's about how good they are in general. Serena is like coitus interruptus, she has a high failure rate but when it works the results are spectacular. Safina is like a condom, you can always count on her. Now which contraceptive is better?


get your statistics right. she's 32-7 which is 82%. i agree, serena needs to be consistent outside of the slams. HOWEVER, less points awarded to the runner-up, or more points to the winner of the grand slams needs to be awarded. on top of that, serena has won 3 out of the past 4 slams. i don't care what ANYONE says, she has the right to be number one in the world. if you want to bitch about her consistency, she was INJURED AS HELL in the miami final, still played, and played three other tournaments after to avoid fees and spoke outwardly about it. it wasn't losses based on talent or training, she was honestly injured.

so before you go presenting statistics, check your fucking math.:help:

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:26 PM
This year Serena is 32-8 (80.0%) and Safina is 42-9 (82.4%). Serena had awful losses like against Zakopalova and Schiavone. It's not about how good they are at their peak, it's about how good they are in general. Serena is like coitus interruptus, she has a high failure rate but when it works the results are spectacular. Safina is like a condom, you can always count on her. Now which contraceptive is better?

:lol:

calabar
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:34 PM
:lol::lol: Why are you trying to create controversy where none exist.....Safina is the number 1 ranked player right now now....Lets leave it at that.
Because if controversy had existed, there would be no need to create it. One can't create that which already exists.

StephenUK
Jul 14th, 2009, 04:37 PM
This year Serena is 32-8 (80.0%) and Safina is 42-9 (82.4%). Serena had awful losses like against Zakopalova and Schiavone. It's not about how good they are at their peak, it's about how good they are in general. Serena is like coitus interruptus, she has a high failure rate but when it works the results are spectacular. Safina is like a condom, you can always count on her. Now which contraceptive is better?

Wow, maybe they should get Durex as the next sponsor when Sony Ericsson pull out!! Forget the Heroes, bring on the Dementieva cap and the Venus coil!!! :lol:

StephenUK
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:13 PM
work it. Work it. POSE!

I love how everyone loves to criticise Serena for the three clay tournaments she bombed in but completely ignore Safina's Dubai, Indian Wells and Miami run. Safina was only ever consistent during that clay season, otherwise she's in no way better than the person who won 3 of the last 4 GRAND SLAMS.

The problem is that Serena has only been in one FINAL outside the slams in the last 12 months, basically she has been upset in every single event:

qf Olympics lost Dementieva
2r Stuttgart, bye lost Na Li
RR WTA Champs, annihilated by Venus 5-7 6-1 6-0
sf Sydney, lost Demetieva 6-3 6-1
sf Paris Indoors, lost Dementieva w/o
sf Dubai, lost Venus 7-6 fs
r/u Miami, lost Azarenka 6-3 6-1
1r Marbella, lost Zakopalova
2r Rome, bye, lost Schnyder
1r Madrid, lost Schiavone

StephenUK
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:26 PM
cf Safina's non slam results over the same period:

won Los Angeles
won Canadian Open
r/u Olympics
won Tokyo
qf Stuttgart
sf Moscow
RR WTA Champs (yes she bombed there!)
r/u Sydney
2r Dubai lost Razzano
qf Indian Wells lost Azarenka
3r Miami lost Stosur
r/u Stuttgart
won Rome
won Madrid
sf s'Hertogenbosch

She has a few dud performances, but it is not just her clay results this year but some excellent results on hard courts last summer and autumn in N America and Asia that have secured her the top spot.

The Witch-king
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:27 PM
The problem is that Serena has only been in one FINAL outside the slams in the last 12 months, basically she has been upset in every single event:

qf Olympics lost Dementieva
2r Stuttgart, bye lost Na Li
RR WTA Champs, annihilated by Venus 5-7 6-1 6-0
sf Sydney, lost Demetieva 6-3 6-1
sf Paris Indoors, lost Dementieva w/o
sf Dubai, lost Venus 7-6 fs
r/u Miami, lost Azarenka 6-3 6-1
1r Marbella, lost Zakopalova
2r Rome, bye, lost Schnyder
1r Madrid, lost Schiavone

well i guess that's where the debate lies. What's more important- reaching WTA finals or winning grandslams?

StephenUK
Jul 14th, 2009, 05:31 PM
I think it also shows that Serena could easily get the top spot back over the summer if she brings her A-game to the US Open Series, but can she be bothered?

Donny
Jul 14th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Indeed, Safina is without question the best player in the world right now. Serena may have won the Slams but she is unable to bring that level to other events, so if you look at the whole picture, Safina is better than Serena at the moment.

Most consistent, perhaps.

spiritedenergy
Jul 14th, 2009, 06:53 PM
Of course she's defending it, she made it (or contributed to it).
Terrible choice of CEO IMO.

Matt01
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:09 PM
well i guess that's where the debate lies. What's more important- reaching WTA finals or winning grandslams?


The question is rather: What gets you more points, reaching Slam finals and winning WTA tourneys or winning Slams and not winning any WTA tourneys at all?

miffedmax
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:10 PM
well i guess that's where the debate lies. What's more important- reaching WTA finals or winning grandslams?

Therein lies the rub, doesn't it? For most of the '70s and '80s, it's arguable that the WTA tour, with it's #1 ranking and year-end championship, was arguably bigger than the slams. In the '90s, there was a sort of parity, with the resurgence of the FO and AO, plus increased purses at the Slams, helping reassert them.

In the 21st Century, the tour has become a farce. Too many withdrawals, too many MM tournaments, too many finals played in front of empty stadia. I understand the need to chase and land corporate sponsorships and all, but having three or four events going on in the same week without any top players in attendance is not good for the sport or going to attract crowds.

Fewer tournaments with bigger and better fields and cash bonuses tied to rankings might help.

Other ideas? Longer tournaments--a natural side effect of bigger fields, but also good because right now the girls and in and out of town so fast, you don't even know their in town. More time in town means more coverage in the media, more chance to interact with fans, more time to build the fanbase.

Flipside--if we're going to have a tour with a lot of MM tournaments, then use that to develop some geographic expansion and rivalries. Take a chunk of the year, split, and have an Americas tour and a Eurasian tour. Let some up-and-comers get some legit experience playing top players, but build some anticipaton and mystery. Like for example, sure, that Sloane kid can slice and dice her way with a weak America's section, but wait 'til she runs into some of those younger European or Chinses girls.

The tour needs to try and do something to get itself back on the map. Otherwise, we're in increasing danger of having a women's tennis world of slam specialists and tour specialists, with the real loser being the fans and the game. Because that's when I think a lot of us will start to just follow the men, where both the slams and the tour seem to mean something.

sakya23
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:15 PM
we went from 26 big tourneys(not including GS) to 19 this year. I think we should lower that number. downgrade warsaw. so we only have 18. the less big tourneys, the harder it will be to rack up points at mm tourneys. maybe New Haven should be downgraded also. it hasn't had a good field since 2005 and everyone is tired after canada/cincinnati.

TSequoia01
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:29 PM
The question is rather: What gets you more points, reaching Slam finals and winning WTA tourneys or winning Slams and not winning any WTA tourneys at all?
Little doubt as to which choice gets you more points, just as there is little doubt as to which is the greater degree of excellence.

Matt01
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Little doubt as to which choice gets you more points, just as there is little doubt as to which is the greater degree of excellence.


Really excellent it would be to win both the big Slams and the smaller WTA tourneys.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 14th, 2009, 09:34 PM
Even if Serena had won Miami (RU), Dubai (SF), Stanford (SF) and Charleston (DNP) she would have been ranked #2.
The system that ranks someone who has won only five tour titles above someone who has won three slams and four tour titles is a joke.

crazillo
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Her quotes about depth. :rolleyes: Just compare the current 'depth' with the one we had in the late 90's. That's what I call depth!!

StephenUK
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:18 PM
I do think they should bring back quality points.

Presumably they were axed because not having them was a way of rewarding players for going to unpopular dud events - think Warsaw 2009, with such a poor field, compare that to how Filderstadt used to be every year; Eastbourne 2009 had some fierce 1rs.

Until the mid 90s, the rankings were based on an average performance, divided by 12 events. This would have benefited the Williams sisters overall. It was axed because too many players were pulling out of events later in the year, esp Steffi Graf if that no 1 ranking was secured after the US Open.

Black Mamba.
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Indeed, Safina is without question the best player in the world right now. Serena may have won the Slams but she is unable to bring that level to other events, so if you look at the whole picture, Safina is better than Serena at the moment.

If that were true we wouldn't be talking about the rankings. I give Safina props for getting to #1 but her stay at #1 doesn't meet the smell test and everyone knows it.

Horizon
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Serena is like coitus interruptus, she has a high failure rate but when it works the results are spectacular. Safina is like a condom, you can always count on her. Now which contraceptive is better?

Best line i have heard in quite some time..
:worship::worship::worship:
:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

friendsita
Jul 14th, 2009, 11:11 PM
3 slams + N#2 >>>>>>>>>> 0 slams + NĚ#1

and there're just 4 slams... c' on!

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 14th, 2009, 11:56 PM
Even if Serena had won Miami (RU), Dubai (SF), Stanford (SF) and Charleston (DNP) she would have been ranked #2.
The system that ranks someone who has won only five tour titles above someone who has won three slams and four tour titles is a joke.


another crucial point. thank you!:worship::worship::worship:

Morrissey
Jul 15th, 2009, 12:17 PM
Of course the WTA chief is going to defend the system that's no surprise. It is ludicrous for people on this board trying to downplay the importance of the slams. The slams are the jewels of the spoort it is where greatness is measured. Safina won a couple of WTA events those events are not slams. Slams matter more then WTA events and the public expect the number one player to be WINNING SLAMS not losing slam finals so easily like Safina does.

Everyone is criticizing the ranking system because too many of these Eastern European women reach number one but don't have the mental toughness to win slams. It is obvious that a player has to have great mental toughness to WIN a grand slam. Jankovic, Safina, Dementieva, are solid players but they have proven over and over they do NOT have the mental toughness to breakthrough at a slam.

Also if Safina is so great why didn't she win the French Open this year? The French Open was the perfect opportunity for Safina to prove she has the stuff yet she capitulated as usual. It was pathetic to see Safina crying in the final the girl just doesn't have the mental toughness to win a slam yet.

I think Mary Carillo has a point too many of these so called top women too emotionally immature it's pathetic. Crying and sobing during a slam final yet not fighting to win is a disgrace to the sport.

However, the WTA ranking system is flawed. The problem is quantity replaces quality. Serena has won 3 out of the 4 slams and slams are the jewels of the sport. Serena is correct Dinara won Rome and Madrid big deal in 10 years nobody is going to care about those results. People ONLY remember slams and slams need to have higher importance on the WTA. I think the WTA should change how many events a player is allowed to enter a year. The problem is these Eastern Europeans are so money hungry they enter a gazillion events to load up on the points. If the WTA had a cut off say you can't enter more then 15 events a year that would be fair and then you are judged on those 15 results. I know the WTA rankings count the top 17 events a player competes in. My argument is the WTA should STOP players from playing too many events because that can cause injury and burnout.

Sharapower
Jul 15th, 2009, 12:57 PM
Of course the WTA chief is going to defend the system that's no surprise. It is ludicrous for people on this board trying to downplay the importance of the slams. The slams are the jewels of the spoort it is where greatness is measured. Safina won a couple of WTA events those events are not slams. Slams matter more then WTA events and the public expect the number one player to be WINNING SLAMS not losing slam finals so easily like Safina does.

Everyone is criticizing the ranking system because too many of these Eastern European women reach number one but don't have the mental toughness to win slams. It is obvious that a player has to have great mental toughness to WIN a grand slam. Jankovic, Safina, Dementieva, are solid players but they have proven over and over they do NOT have the mental toughness to breakthrough at a slam.

Also if Safina is so great why didn't she win the French Open this year? The French Open was the perfect opportunity for Safina to prove she has the stuff yet she capitulated as usual. It was pathetic to see Safina crying in the final the girl just doesn't have the mental toughness to win a slam yet.

I think Mary Carillo has a point too many of these so called top women too emotionally immature it's pathetic. Crying and sobing during a slam final yet not fighting to win is a disgrace to the sport.

However, the WTA ranking system is flawed. The problem is quantity replaces quality. Serena has won 3 out of the 4 slams and slams are the jewels of the sport. Serena is correct Dinara won Rome and Madrid big deal in 10 years nobody is going to care about those results. People ONLY remember slams and slams need to have higher importance on the WTA. I think the WTA should change how many events a player is allowed to enter a year. The problem is these Eastern Europeans are so money hungry they enter a gazillion events to load up on the points. If the WTA had a cut off say you can't enter more then 15 events a year that would be fair and then you are judged on those 15 results. I know the WTA rankings count the top 17 events a player competes in. My argument is the WTA should STOP players from playing too many events because that can cause injury and burnout.
I think you're completely off the mark, here. The reason why there's a WTA, the ultimate goal of that organization, is to make it possible that players can make a living playing tennis professionally, it's not to make the fans or observers happy or unhappy about how the rankings work.
For a lot of players, income from non GS tournaments are crucial to keep going, hence the WTA tries its best to have many events sponsored, but actually there are significantly less WTA events than there are ATP events.
17 events is not such a big deal, that's at most 21 weeks in the year if I include the 4 majors. Asking someone to do their job for at least 21 weeks out of 52 in the year doesn't look like an abusive ruling.

Kworb
Jul 15th, 2009, 01:15 PM
We are so spoiled. Tennis is the only sport where players play matches day in day out. Most sports have just a few relevant competitions a year. The rest of the year they train and practice.

Federer said in an interview the other day that he thinks it's a shame players don't get more time to add more elements to their game, because they're always playing tournaments. I guess if there were no tour the quality of tennis would also go up.

AnomyBC
Jul 16th, 2009, 02:22 AM
*Waiting to see if this gets merged into the mega-thread* :help: