PDA

View Full Version : Time to go back to the divisor system?


Sam L
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:31 PM
Another year end and another slamless No. 1. The end of 2011 marks the 7th time in the last 15 years that the year end No. 1 has not won a Grand Slam during the year.

Hingis - 2000
Davenport - 2001, 2004, 2005
Jankovic - 2008
Wozniacki - 2010, 2011

Compare that to the 1975-1996 period where none of the year-end No. 1 were slamless. There was also a lot less switching between No. 1 players because the No. 1 ranking was very hard to attain. You had to be very, very consistent to get to No. 1. These days you just have to play more to be ranked higher.

Up till 1996, only 4 women were year end No. 1 players: Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Seles. That's a fairly exclusive list over a 22 year period. Since then, there has been 6 over a 15 year period: Hingis, Davenport, Serena, Henin, Jankovic, Wozniacki.

What's happened since 1997 and especially in the last few years is that the No. 1 is not something that's revered anymore. It was something that was up there with the slams. Players wanted to be a Grand Slam champion and No. 1. Now that's gone because there is a sense that anyone can be No. 1.

How long can they keep this up? Something needs to be done. Unless they bring back credibility to the No. 1 ranking, it will hurt the sport more than the top players not playing a lot through the year. IMO, they've sacrificed quality for quantity and all that's brought is ranking system that's no longer respected and a lot of injuries to a lot of players.

dsanders06
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Who would be #1 under the divisor system this year? Sharapova?

I still think a system which takes in something like best 10 results would work best because it would really reflect those who get the highest quality titles, but the divisor system would certainly be an improvement on the current halfway-house system that the WTA use, as it would genuinely show who the most consistent players are, whereas the WTA's system, someone like Wozniacki can get to #1 despite flopping at all the big events AND being an inconsistent mess and having ton of terrible embarrassing defeats.

Pops Maellard
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:40 PM
Agreed. Divisor system FTW.

MakarovaFan
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:48 PM
I think one step in the right direction is brining back quality points....NOW before i get blasted with comments such as (the top players are MUGs so therefore they would give easy points blah blah blah), i think in exchange it would reward players who finish deep AND have quality wins and prevent players with so called "cake draws" from having inflated rankings, and also those so called " top 10 mugs" may not even be top players anymore due to this system. Plus i've never thought it was fair for example: in a GS 1st round one players wins over a WC ranked #550 and another player upsets the 6th seed yet both women get equal points, that's just not fair to me. Now one way to avoid "cheap" wins over injured top players, is exclude 'Quality Points' IF your opponent retires mid way through the match.

Spring Pools
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:54 PM
What was the divisor system?

Juju Nostalgique
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:59 PM
I agree. Bonus points should be back. It's stupid to argue that they're difficult for the casual fans. Come on already! They were great and spiced up the rankings week after week.

Also the divisor system would be a good idea IMO. I don't know if Pushniacki would fuck up the rankings also with the divisor system, but it was quite good as it was.

One thing nobody can deny it's that slamless number ones are VERY BAD for tennis. Being an unknown doesn't help either.

:weirdo:

AcesHigh
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:36 AM
Wait.. so a divisor system will fix anything? No, of course not.

Which slam winner deserves #1? Answer? None of them.
Kvitova has too many unacceptable losses although she looks like the best of the worst this year. Worst of course being everyone in the WTA

dsanders06
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:38 AM
Wait.. so a divisor system will fix anything? No, of course not.

Which slam winner deserves #1? Answer? None of them.
Kvitova has too many unacceptable losses although she looks like the best of the worst this year. Worst of course being everyone in the WTA

She has far less "unacceptable losses" than Wozniacki.

AcesHigh
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:43 AM
She has far less "unacceptable losses" than Wozniacki.

Well the big one is 1st round at USO. It's hard to be #1 and lose first round in a slam. A better performance at PM's and P5's would have helped too.

It's not like these girls didn't have a chance. They just all fucked it up.. every single one.

MakarovaFan
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:44 AM
Wait.. so a divisor system will fix anything? No, of course not.

Which slam winner deserves #1? Answer? None of them.
Kvitova has too many unacceptable losses although she looks like the best of the worst this year. Worst of course being everyone in the WTA
No offense but that's been the case for the last hanful of YE #1's since 2007/2008(even including many of you guys' precious Serena Williams YE 2009 season which saw her winning just 3 of her 16 events and having no less than 3 1st losses, a 2rd loss and 2 3rd losses yet that was the best player that year lol)

AcesHigh
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:50 AM
No offense but that's been the case for the last hanful of YE #1's since 2007/2008(even including many of you guys' precious Serena Williams YE 2009 season which saw her winning just 3 of her 16 events and having no less than 3 1st losses, a 2rd loss and 2 3rd losses yet that was the best player that year lol)

And what were those three titles :weirdo:

Blu€
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:55 AM
She has far less "unacceptable losses" than Wozniacki.

:haha: She lost in an ITF against Rybarikova not to mention her 1st round loss in the US against Dulgheru! So much for "far less"!

spiceboy
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:31 AM
Another year end and another slamless No. 1. The end of 2011 marks the 7th time in the last 15 years that the year end No. 1 has not won a Grand Slam during the year.

Hingis - 2000
Davenport - 2001, 2004, 2005
Jankovic - 2008
Wozniacki - 2010, 2011

Compare that to the 1975-1996 period where none of the year-end No. 1 were slamless. There was also a lot less switching between No. 1 players because the No. 1 ranking was very hard to attain.

This has nothing to do with the ranking system. From 1975 to 1996 just 4 players ruled the tennis world. The thing is nobody these days dominates the Tour as Navratilova, Evert, Graf or Seles did at their prime. Give me today someone with their CV and I assure you that no matter which ranking system you use she will be #1 for sure. The problem is domination. Nobody is consistent enough today to be a major force for long, but this has nothing to do with a specific ranking system.

spiceboy
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:37 AM
Actually, what the WTA is living now is what the ATP lived not too long ago with the random Grand Slam wins of Korda, Johansson or Gaudio and weak #1 like Ríos, Moyā or Ferrero. What they had these last few years (Federer & Nadal) is kinda similar of the Evert vs Navratilova or Graf vs Seles eras. So we can only hope that better times for womens tennis will come :)

delicatecutter
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:41 AM
:haha: She lost in an ITF against Rybarikova not to mention her 1st round loss in the US against Dulgheru! So much for "far less"!

Umm the loss to Barrois is far more shameful than the loss to Princess Magda in her home country ITF in the Final. Don't make me cut you.

I don't know who can say this scoring system is right or accurate. Epecially if Kvitova wins YEC.

Blu€
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:45 AM
Actually, what the WTA is living now is what the ATP lived not too long ago with the random Grand Slam wins of Korda, Johansson or Gaudio. What they had these last few years (Federer & Nadal) is kinda similar of the Evert vs Navratilova or Graf vs Seles eras. So we can only hope that better times for womens tennis will come :)

I agree but why is it better when 2 or 3 players dominate? It makes them better as players but as a fan it makes it.......boring I'd say ;)

dsanders06
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:51 AM
Well the big one is 1st round at USO. It's hard to be #1 and lose first round in a slam. A better performance at PM's and P5's would have helped too.

It's not like these girls didn't have a chance. They just all fucked it up.. every single one.

There's barely any difference, for top players, between a 1st-round exit and the 3rd-round exit that Woz had at RG. Dulgheru was the only non-top 10 player who beat Kvitova at a Slam this year: other than that, she won Wimbledon and lost to Zvonareva and Li at the other Slams. Compare that to Woz, who suffered defeats to Hantuchova and Cibulkova on their worst surfaces. In terms of Slam records, Kvitova wins both in quality and consistency.

This has nothing to do with the ranking system. From 1975 to 1996 just 4 players ruled the tennis world. The thing is nobody these days dominates the Tour as Navratilova, Evert, Graf or Seles did at their prime. Give me today someone with their CV and I assure you that no matter which ranking system you use she will be #1 for sure. The problem is domination. Nobody is consistent enough today to be a major force for long, but this has nothing to do with a specific ranking system.

Debateable. I would say Kim had a pretty dominant record when for a while earlier this year she was holding 2 Slams and the YEC... she should've been #1 on ANY ranking system at that time. Ditto Serena when she was holding 3 of 4 Slams but behind Safina in 2009.

:haha: She lost in an ITF against Rybarikova not to mention her 1st round loss in the US against Dulgheru! So much for "far less"!

Woz lost to McHale, Kanepi, Vinci, etc. You're not going to win on the shitty losses front either, Wozniacki lost to players outside the top 20 12 times this year and Kvitova only 6 :lol:

Blu€
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:55 AM
Woz lost to McHale, Kanepi, Vinci, etc. You're not going to win on the shitty losses front either, Wozniacki lost to players outside the top 20 12 times this year and Kvitova only 6 :lol:

Give it a rest, Wozniacki worst losses were against McHale and Vinci, add Kanepi if you want, though she's in a different league than those two.
Petra has lost against Morita, Rybarikova, Barrois, Dulgheru and Strycova.

To you to say that she has had FAR LESS "unacceptable losses" is just.....stupid.

Patrick345
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:02 AM
Wozniacki works the current system perfectly. There are always players that will find a way to "abuse" a certain ranking system.

Itīs pretty easy to identify why Wozniacki has accumulated so many points. Simply look at her titles:

Charleston is played on green clay. After three months on hardcourts most top players simply prefer to take a first break, get to Europe and prepare for the red clay season. The result is a weaker field. The tournament is worth 470 points.

Brussels is played the week before the French Open. After a stretch of high-quality clay events in Stuttgart, Rome and Madrid most top players prefer to take a short break, get to Paris and practice. The result is a weaker field. The tournament is worth 470 points just like Stuttgart. Last direct entrance in Stuttgart #38, last direct entrance in Brussels is #91.

Copenhagen is played on hardcourt indoors between a clay and a grasscourt Grand Slam. This tournament is worth 280 points. The 2nd seed was Zakopalova, ranked #32. In comparison the 7th seed in Dallas (equally poor strategically placed) was ranked #30.

New Haven is played the week before the US Open. Itīs the hardcourt equivalent to Brussels. Most top players skip it after the top US Open preparation events and go straight to New York. This tournament is alo worth 470 points.

That is a perfectly laid out plan identifying the soft spots in the schedule and (to her credit) taking full advantage of them.

Itīs perfectly conceivable that Wozniacki takes out three of these events for rest and Slam preparation and drops 1410 points. She would sit at #4 in the current rankings, where she roughly belongs.

spiceboy
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:05 AM
I agree but why is it better when 2 or 3 players dominate? It makes them better as players but as a fan it makes it.......boring I'd say ;)

Hey, I'm not saying it is better. Just stating the facts.

spiceboy
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:11 AM
Debateable. I would say Kim had a pretty dominant record when for a while earlier this year she was holding 2 Slams and the YEC... she should've been #1 on ANY ranking system at that time. Ditto Serena when she was holding 3 of 4 Slams but behind Safina in 2009.



You got me there. But the thing is the top girls from the 80s & 90s actually commited to the sport, not commited just to the Grand Slams and a few specific tournaments. WTA changed the ranking system hoping that players would play more in order to reach/retain the #1 but it turns out that once a player reaches the top spot she doesn't really give a damn about it and focuses in GS only.

dsanders06
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:14 AM
Give it a rest, Wozniacki worst losses were against McHale and Vinci, add Kanepi if you want, though she's in a different league than those two.
Petra has lost against Morita, Rybarikova, Barrois, Dulgheru and Strycova.

To you to say that she has had FAR LESS "unacceptable losses" is just.....stupid.

Lets go through the list shall we?

Wozniacki's losses to players outside the top 20
Cibulkova (#32), Sydney 1R
Petkovic (#23), Miami 4R
Goerges (#32), Stuttgart F
Goerges (#27), Miami 3R
Hantuchova (#29), Roland Garros 3R
Cibulkova (#24), Wimbledon 4R
Arvidsson (#73), Bastad 2R
Vinci (#22), Montreal 2R
McHale (#76), Cincinnati 2R
S Williams (#27), US Open SF
Kanepi (#43), Tokyo 3R
Pennetta (#25), Beijing QF


Kvitova's losses to players outside the top 20
Morita (#57), Dubai 2R
Zahlavova Strycova (#57), Indian Wells 2R
Barrois (#74), Nassau 1R
Rybarikova (#72), Prague F
Dulgheru (#48), US Open 1R
Arvidsson (#85), Beijing 2R

Still think it's stupid to say Petra had far less unacceptable losses?

Blu€
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:24 AM
Wozniacki works the current system perfectly. There are always players that will find a way to "abuse" a certain ranking system.

Itīs pretty easy to identify why Wozniacki has accumulated so many points. Simply look at her titles:

Charleston is played on green clay. After three months on hardcourts most top players simply prefer to take a first break, get to Europe and prepare for the red clay season. The result is a weaker field. The tournament is worth 470 points.

Brussels is played the week before the French Open. After a stretch of high-quality clay events in Stuttgart, Rome and Madrid most top players prefer to take a short break, get to Paris and practice. The result is a weaker field. The tournament is worth 470 points just like Stuttgart. Last direct entrance in Stuttgart #38, last direct entrance in Brussels is #91.

Copenhagen is played on hardcourt indoors between a clay and a grasscourt Grand Slam. This tournament is worth 280 points. The 2nd seed was Zakopalova, ranked #32. In comparison the 7th seed in Dallas (equally poor strategically placed) was ranked #30.

New Haven is played the week before the US Open. Itīs the hardcourt equivalent to Brussels. Most top players skip it after the top US Open preparation events and go straight to New York. This tournament is alo worth 470 points.

That is a perfectly laid out plan identifying the soft spots in the schedule and (to her credit) taking full advantage of them.

Itīs perfectly conceivable that Wozniacki takes out three of these events for rest and Slam preparation and drops 1410 points. She would sit at #4 in the current rankings, where she roughly belongs.

Caro barely got any points from those tournaments since she was the defending champion in 2 of them and defended SF in Charleston. At Brussells (a new tournament) she defeated Schiavone who went on to reach the final again in RG. And anyway, she already got quite some points from her runs in Stuttgart and Rome.

Hey, I'm not saying it is better. Just stating the facts.

Well you said we can only hope for better times, so I assumed you thought tennis is better with dominant players :p


Lets go through the list shall we?

Wozniacki's losses to players outside the top 20
Cibulkova (#32), Sydney 1R
Petkovic (#23), Miami 4R
Goerges (#32), Stuttgart F
Goerges (#27), Miami 3R
Hantuchova (#29), Roland Garros 3R
Cibulkova (#24), Wimbledon 4R
Arvidsson (#73), Bastad 2R
Vinci (#22), Montreal 2R
McHale (#76), Cincinnati 2R
S Williams (#27), US Open SF
Kanepi (#43), Tokyo 3R
Pennetta (#25), Beijing QF


Kvitova's losses to players outside the top 20
Morita (#57), Dubai 2R
Zahlavova Strycova (#57), Indian Wells 2R
Barrois (#74), Nassau 1R
Rybarikova (#72), Prague F
Dulgheru (#48), US Open 1R
Arvidsson (#85), Beijing 2R

Still think it's stupid to say Petra had far less unacceptable losses?

LMAO yeah counting her retirement against Arvidsson, her loss to Serena. And her losses to Petkovic, Goerges, Pennetta and Cibulkova are well more acceptable than losing against Dulgheru (as much as I like her) on hardcourt, Arvidsson, Morita, Barrois... At least the players Caro lost against have won a title or had some good wins.

Sam L
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:28 AM
This has nothing to do with the ranking system. From 1975 to 1996 just 4 players ruled the tennis world. The thing is nobody these days dominates the Tour as Navratilova, Evert, Graf or Seles did at their prime. Give me today someone with their CV and I assure you that no matter which ranking system you use she will be #1 for sure. The problem is domination. Nobody is consistent enough today to be a major force for long, but this has nothing to do with a specific ranking system.

That's not necessarily true. There were very competitive years in 1978, 1979 and 1990 where there were four ways splits in the slams and the No. 1 ranking still went to one of them and the most consistent performer of them. No one is asking for someone to win all four slams and be No. 1. If the system rewarded quality over quantity, it would ensure that Serena was No. 1 when she held 3/4 slams and Kim was No. 1 when she held 2/4 slams and YEC.

They went too far in making these changes by dropping the divisor system and then dropping quality points.

Sam L
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:30 AM
Wozniacki works the current system perfectly. There are always players that will find a way to "abuse" a certain ranking system.

Itīs pretty easy to identify why Wozniacki has accumulated so many points. Simply look at her titles:

Charleston is played on green clay. After three months on hardcourts most top players simply prefer to take a first break, get to Europe and prepare for the red clay season. The result is a weaker field. The tournament is worth 470 points.

Brussels is played the week before the French Open. After a stretch of high-quality clay events in Stuttgart, Rome and Madrid most top players prefer to take a short break, get to Paris and practice. The result is a weaker field. The tournament is worth 470 points just like Stuttgart. Last direct entrance in Stuttgart #38, last direct entrance in Brussels is #91.

Copenhagen is played on hardcourt indoors between a clay and a grasscourt Grand Slam. This tournament is worth 280 points. The 2nd seed was Zakopalova, ranked #32. In comparison the 7th seed in Dallas (equally poor strategically placed) was ranked #30.

New Haven is played the week before the US Open. Itīs the hardcourt equivalent to Brussels. Most top players skip it after the top US Open preparation events and go straight to New York. This tournament is alo worth 470 points.

That is a perfectly laid out plan identifying the soft spots in the schedule and (to her credit) taking full advantage of them.

Itīs perfectly conceivable that Wozniacki takes out three of these events for rest and Slam preparation and drops 1410 points. She would sit at #4 in the current rankings, where she roughly belongs.

That's precisely it. She's basically picking tournaments with weak competition to pick up points. It's worse now because you don't have quality points.

You can see the decline in quality since 1996 and the decline in quality since 2006 due to the respective changes switch from divisor and the dropping of quality points.

Patrick345
Oct 29th, 2011, 02:35 AM
Caro barely got any points from those tournaments since she was the defending champion in 2 of them and defended SF in Charleston. At Brussells (a new tournament) she defeated Schiavone who went on to reach the final again in RG.

Barely any points?

1690 points are 23% of her total points for the year.

AcesHigh
Oct 29th, 2011, 03:16 AM
To her credit, Caroline picked up the bulk of her points (3,700) from 4 tournaments.. tournaments where the fields weren't weak. So it's not like she's solely picking up points from small tournaments with weak fields.

Brad[le]y.
Oct 29th, 2011, 04:48 AM
Lets go through the list shall we?

Wozniacki's losses to players outside the top 20
Cibulkova (#32), Sydney 1R
Petkovic (#23), Miami 4R
Goerges (#32), Stuttgart F
Goerges (#27), Miami 3R
Hantuchova (#29), Roland Garros 3R
Cibulkova (#24), Wimbledon 4R
Arvidsson (#73), Bastad 2R
Vinci (#22), Montreal 2R
McHale (#76), Cincinnati 2R
S Williams (#27), US Open SF
Kanepi (#43), Tokyo 3R
Pennetta (#25), Beijing QF


Kvitova's losses to players outside the top 20
Morita (#57), Dubai 2R
Zahlavova Strycova (#57), Indian Wells 2R
Barrois (#74), Nassau 1R
Rybarikova (#72), Prague F
Dulgheru (#48), US Open 1R
Arvidsson (#85), Beijing 2R

Still think it's stupid to say Petra had far less unacceptable losses?

:spit: at you including arvidsson

you can also put it this way: Petra has lost to 5 people outside the top 50 while Caro only has 1 (2 if you want)

Soeketi
Oct 29th, 2011, 06:15 AM
Why is it all about Caro vs Kvitova? Come on, comparing the current world no1 vs someone who has never been at no1 is just ridiculous. If you want an apple to apple comparison, then compare Caro with other previous no 1 (in terms of number of losses for a year). See where's Caro belong :p Anyway, compare Caro vs Kvitova doesnt help her looking much better too:wavey:

Londoner
Oct 29th, 2011, 09:46 AM
I agree but why is it better when 2 or 3 players dominate? It makes them better as players but as a fan it makes it.......boring I'd say ;)

Boring is subjective, but Pre 2004 was a lot less boring than recently for me!

Matt01
Oct 29th, 2011, 09:46 AM
She has far less "unacceptable losses" than Wozniacki.


You can repeat that as often as you want but it is doesn't make it right. :happy:
And I hope I don't need to explain to you while a ranking system which onyl takes into account 10 results of the players would be completely useless and stupid. :tape:

Matt01
Oct 29th, 2011, 09:52 AM
To her credit, Caroline picked up the bulk of her points (3,700) from 4 tournaments.. tournaments where the fields weren't weak. So it's not like she's solely picking up points from small tournaments with weak fields.


That's just a myth of her haters anyway...no one here takes the likes of dsanders06 seriously.

marineblue
Oct 29th, 2011, 10:38 AM
:haha: She lost in an ITF against Rybarikova not to mention her 1st round loss in the US against Dulgheru! So much for "far less"!

And her first try at ITF challengers was even worse:help:, lost in first round against Kristina Barrois.

Also it's not often mentioned for the overhyping purposes but her other results at GS were QF at AO and R16 at FO.
Add to that early losses in Dubai,Indian Wells, ITF Nasssau :oh:,Miami,Toronto,Cincy, Beijing and the whole picture is not that great all of a sudden.

Kworb
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:11 PM
The divisor system is horrible and bad for the tour. I don't know why you love it so much. The smaller tournaments need good players too.

TheBoiledEgg
Oct 29th, 2011, 12:58 PM
Lets go through the list shall we?

Wozniacki's losses to players outside the top 20
Cibulkova (#32), Sydney 1R
Petkovic (#23), Miami 4R
Goerges (#32), Stuttgart F
Goerges (#27), Miami 3R
Hantuchova (#29), Roland Garros 3R
Cibulkova (#24), Wimbledon 4R
Arvidsson (#73), Bastad 2R
Vinci (#22), Montreal 2R
McHale (#76), Cincinnati 2R
S Williams (#27), US Open SF
Kanepi (#43), Tokyo 3R
Pennetta (#25), Beijing QF


Kvitova's losses to players outside the top 20
Morita (#57), Dubai 2R
Zahlavova Strycova (#57), Indian Wells 2R
Barrois (#74), Nassau 1R
Rybarikova (#72), Prague F
Dulgheru (#48), US Open 1R
Arvidsson (#85), Beijing 2R

Still think it's stupid to say Petra had far less unacceptable losses?


big diff is Wozniacki has been no1 all year
Petra wasnt even top 10 for 4 of those losses

brickhousesupporter
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:02 PM
The divisor system is horrible and bad for the tour. I don't know why you love it so much. The smaller tournaments need good players too.
Well if Caroline is to be believed, she like playing tennis tournaments. If she is not just raking in the ranking points, she would continue to play as many tournaments as she currently does.

Beat
Oct 29th, 2011, 01:13 PM
Which slam winner deserves #1? Answer? None of them.
Kvitova has too many unacceptable losses although she looks like the best of the worst this year. Worst of course being everyone in the WTA

(i'd love to see kvitova at no.1, but) THIS!

There's barely any difference, for top players, between a 1st-round exit and the 3rd-round exit that Woz had at RG. Dulgheru was the only non-top 10 player who beat Kvitova at a Slam this year: other than that, she won Wimbledon and lost to Zvonareva and Li at the other Slams.

1. of course it makes a huge difference, even for top players, whether they lose in the 1st or in the 3rd round at a slam. i'm sure serena wiliams is proud to have never lost her first match at a slam.

2. and it doesn't matter who you lose to, it matters which round you lose.

MakarovaFan
Oct 29th, 2011, 05:57 PM
And what were those three titles :weirdo:
Wrong thread for that :rolleyes:.....the point was we had a number one player who played 16 events but won just 3 of them IMPLYING(for the slow folks out there) that the times of complete,consistent players DOMINATING the sport are gone and now we either get players who win 1/2 big titles a year but suck otherwise OR tourney hogs who fail to produce when it matters most. Either way it looks bad for the sport.

MakarovaFan
Oct 29th, 2011, 06:00 PM
Caro barely got any points from those tournaments since she was the defending champion in 2 of them and defended SF in Charleston. At Brussells (a new tournament) she defeated Schiavone who went on to reach the final again in RG. And anyway, she already got quite some points from her runs in Stuttgart and Rome.



Well you said we can only hope for better times, so I assumed you thought tennis is better with dominant players :p




LMAO yeah counting her retirement against Arvidsson, her loss to Serena. And her losses to Petkovic, Goerges, Pennetta and Cibulkova are well more acceptable than losing against Dulgheru (as much as I like her) on hardcourt, Arvidsson, Morita, Barrois... At least the players Caro lost against have won a title or had some good wins.
As someone else already pointed out Caroline was NUMBER 1 during all 12 non top 20 losses, Kvitova wasn't even a top 10 player for most of her 6 non top 20 losses......and that is what makes it worse for Wozniacki

Matt01
Oct 29th, 2011, 06:59 PM
As someone else already pointed out Caroline was NUMBER 1 during all 12 non top 20 losses, Kvitova wasn't even a top 10 player for most of her 6 non top 20 losses......and that is what makes it worse for Wozniacki


This is irrelevant when we are comparing the year of these two players.

MakarovaFan
Oct 29th, 2011, 07:24 PM
This is irrelevant when we are comparing the year of these two players.
Except I wasn't....and even if WE do, there really is no comparison of a year with 5/6 titles and a MAJOR plus YEC(possibly) to a year with 6 titles without a major and only 3 of those titles even being above "Tier 2" status.

And upon further thought actually IT IS relevant.....you hold a number 1 player in the world to a different standard than that of a non top 10 player. Prior to Wimbledon(where 4/6 of Kvitova's "bad" losses happened) Petra was nothing more than a former GS SFist who also won a PM....Sabine Lisicki is also a GS SFist who has won a Tier 1, do you expect the same of her that you do of Woz? So yes both had bad losses and i see your point, you are comparing their season so in theory there should be no discrimination of where one was ranked BUT Caroline Wozniacki as a world number 1(for an entire year) should not have a dozen losses to players outside the top 20(i dont care that they have all won titles,hell i dont care if they were all former top 10 players!!!). Was Sharapova's 3rd loss at the Open acceptable because it was to Pennetta who is a former top 10 player who has won titles?? No!

bobito
Oct 29th, 2011, 07:44 PM
To her credit, Caroline picked up the bulk of her points (3,700) from 4 tournaments.. tournaments where the fields weren't weak. So it's not like she's solely picking up points from small tournaments with weak fields.

Agreed but Patrick's point that she appears to pick events that have the greatest yield of ranking points for the quality of opposition is valid. Charleston, New Haven and Brussels have the weakest fields of any Premier and Woz has been a regular at two of them and played the other at first time of asking. She's either chasing easy ranking points or it's a helluva coincidence. :shrug:

Matt01
Oct 29th, 2011, 08:01 PM
Agreed but Patrick's point that she appears to pick events that have the greatest yield of ranking points for the quality of opposition is valid. Charleston, New Haven and Brussels have the weakest fields of any Premier and Woz has been a regular at two of them and played the other at first time of asking. She's either chasing easy ranking points or it's a helluva coincidence. :shrug:


No, they have not. :rolleyes: Paris and Carlsbad were the weakest Tier II's, the Premiers Woz played were just about average.


Except I wasn't....and even if WE do, there really is no comparison of a year with 5/6 titles and a MAJOR plus YEC(possibly) to a year with 6 titles without a major and only 3 of those titles even being above "Tier 2" status.

And upon further thought actually IT IS relevant.....you hold a number 1 player in the world to a different standard than that of a non top 10 player. Prior to Wimbledon(where 4/6 of Kvitova's "bad" losses happened) Petra was nothing more than a former GS SFist who also won a PM....Sabine Lisicki is also a GS SFist who has won a Tier 1, do you expect the same of her that you do of Woz? So yes both had bad losses and i see your point, you are comparing their season so in theory there should be no discrimination of where one was ranked BUT Caroline Wozniacki as a world number 1(for an entire year) should not have a dozen losses to players outside the top 20(i dont care that they have all won titles,hell i dont care if they were all former top 10 players!!!). Was Sharapova's 3rd loss at the Open acceptable because it was to Pennetta who is a former top 10 player who has won titles?? No!


I hold all players to the same standard.
All day long I read on TF that Caro is a non-talented, weaponless, hopeless pusher but when there is a psibility to bash her, she is suddenly held to the highest standard? Gimme a break.
Or are Wimbledon Champions held to a higher standard than slammless #1

So far, Petra has won 5 tournaments this year and 3 of them were Tier II or above, while Caro has won 5 Tier II or above tourneys which is better, no? Your comparison is not the most clever tbh.

Bottomline is that Woz and Petra both had some bad losses this year but Woz collected more points which is why she deserves to be Number One.

MakarovaFan
Oct 29th, 2011, 08:15 PM
No, they have not. :rolleyes: Paris and Carlsbad were the weakest Tier II's, the Premiers Woz played were just about average.





I hold all players to the same standard.
All day long I read on TF that Caro is a non-talented, weaponless, hopeless pusher but when there is a psibility to bash her, she is suddenly held to the highest standard? Gimme a break.
Or are Wimbledon Champions held to a higher standard than slammless #1

So far, Petra has won 5 tournaments this year and 3 of them were Tier II or above, while Caro has won 5 Tier II or above tourneys which is better, no? Your comparison is not the most clever tbh.

Bottomline is that Woz and Petra both had some bad losses this year but Woz collected more points which is why she deserves to be Number One.

Okay so since you like to be specific, yes "only" 3 of Petra's 5 were above Tier 2 but 2 of those were a GRAND SLAM and a PM....Whereas Caroline's "highlights are IW and Dubai:confused: coupled with Brussels,New Haven,Copenhagen and Charleston :tape:

Spin it any way you like buddy but 5 titles WITH a GS>>>>>>> 6 titles and by chance Petra wins the YEC then 6 titles with GS+ YEC ,well should i even bother lmao. Sure Caroline ammased the most points and in every mathematical way deserves the spot; so she can hold her empty number one rank that the commentators don't respect, the players don't fear and the fans don't appreciate!

And btw, why not.....she IS a weaponless pusher who ALSO happens to be number one in the world, so how is it hard to figure out why she gets bashed yet held to a high standard?????

Matt01
Oct 29th, 2011, 08:32 PM
And btw, why not.....she IS a weaponless pusher who ALSO happens to be number one in the world, so how is it hard to figure out why she gets bashed yet held to a high standard?????


If anything she should be respected for making the most out of her game and abilities...it is not her "fault" that she is #1, she's just doing her job and playing tennis (and also winning a lot). If anyone should be bashed it should be the players who are better players than Caro but don't care about the tour and hence to not prevent Caro from being #1.

Bashing someone for reaching #1 is just stupid.

LCS
Oct 29th, 2011, 09:05 PM
BS. Just because prior to 96 there was basically 2 good players a season and a bunch of minion it doesn't mean they were better.

Are you seriously suggesting that Hingis, Davenport, thw Williams and the Belgians were undeserving? Sorry to break the news to you but only one player can occupy the number 1 spot. While Jankovic and Woz were eyebrow raising material when it comes to this matter it's unfair to point the finger to the likes of Hingi, Davenport, Serena and Henin, because they were all credited champions even if slamless in those years.

Uranus
Oct 29th, 2011, 09:21 PM
TBH Petra has had worse losses. But it's her game. When she's on, she's a goddess. When she's off, it's really painful to watch.

What matters is that she has the most big titles, and more good wins, which means she was able to provide better quality tennis. Doesn't quality of play determine a good player?

Wozniacki's top 10 wins:
Schiavone - AO QF
Jankovic - Dubai SF
Azarenka - IW QF (ret.)
Jankovic - Charleston SF
Jankovic - Rome QF
Schiavone - Brussels SF
Schiavone - New Haven SF
Radwanska - YEC RR

Jankovic and Schiavone are not in top 10 anymore, they were going down. TWO of them (incl. one retirement) are still in top 10. Schiavone was top 5 in one of those wins, and it's her only one. Tells a lot.
Going by that logic, you could add Sharapova, Radwanska, Bartoli (twice) and Petkovic (twice) to her wins, but it was before most of them got really relevant.

Kvitova's top 10 wins:
Stosur - AO 3r
Clijsters - Paris F
Zvonareva - Madrid 3r
Li - Madrid SF
Azarenka - Madrid F
Azarenka - Wimbledon SF
Sharapova - Wimbledon F
Sharapova - Tokyo QF (ret.)
Zvonareva - YEC RR
Wozniacki - YEC RR
Radwanska - YEC RR
Stosur - YEC SF

ALL of them are still in top 10, except for Clijsters who's an injured champion. She also defeated Radwanska and Petkovic earlier this year. Azarenka might get added to her scalps tomorrow. 6 (maybe 7) top 5 wins too.

IMO Petra is the POTY if she wins the YEC. That's 2 of the 5 biggest titles. And if one of them's a champion in the making, it's obviously Petra.

Matt01
Oct 29th, 2011, 10:11 PM
What matters is that she has the most big titles, and more good wins, which means she was able to provide better quality tennis. Doesn't quality of play determine a good player?

Wozniacki's top 10 wins:
Schiavone - AO QF
Jankovic - Dubai SF
Azarenka - IW QF (ret.)
Jankovic - Charleston SF
Jankovic - Rome QF
Schiavone - Brussels SF
Schiavone - New Haven SF
Radwanska - YEC RR

Jankovic and Schiavone are not in top 10 anymore, they were going down. TWO of them (incl. one retirement) are still in top 10. Schiavone was top 5 in one of those wins, and it's her only one. Tells a lot.
Going by that logic, you could add Sharapova, Radwanska, Bartoli (twice) and Petkovic (twice) to her wins, but it was before most of them got really relevant.

Kvitova's top 10 wins:
Stosur - AO 3r
Clijsters - Paris F
Zvonareva - Madrid 3r
Li - Madrid SF
Azarenka - Madrid F
Azarenka - Wimbledon SF
Sharapova - Wimbledon F
Sharapova - Tokyo QF (ret.)
Zvonareva - YEC RR
Wozniacki - YEC RR
Radwanska - YEC RR
Stosur - YEC SF

ALL of them are still in top 10, except for Clijsters who's an injured champion. She also defeated Radwanska and Petkovic earlier this year. Azarenka might get added to her scalps tomorrow. 6 (maybe 7) top 5 wins too.




I'm not saying Petra did not have the more impressive wins over top players (she probably has) but in these statistics you have to take into account that Woz started the year as #1 and since she cannot beat herself, it is more likely that she doesn't have as many e.g. Top 5 wins as other players. Kvitova didn't start the year in Top 30 even I think so she probably had more opportunites to beat the top players.
Before the YEC, Woz' H2H with Top 10 players was something like 8:3 which is not bad, I doubt that Petra was much better.

But yeah, Petra's and Caro's stats have also something to do with their gamestyles....Caro is more consistant and Petra is more hit-and-miss.

And I think the main reason Oetar won't finish the year as #1, even though she won teh bigger titles with WI, Madird and (probably) the YEC is simlar ti Ki's reason lost...because she lost early a lot (Kim often didn't even play) of tournys wher you can get the most points...Dubai, Canada, IW, Miami, Cincy, Rome (+US Open)...Petra fired a blank in most of these tourneys while Caro with the exceptions of Cincy and Canada made it quite far in them.

sabandborg
Oct 29th, 2011, 10:48 PM
No matter the system tennis fans will be bawling.

stromatolite
Oct 30th, 2011, 07:55 AM
Wait.. so a divisor system will fix anything? No, of course not.

Which slam winner deserves #1? Answer? None of them.Kvitova has too many unacceptable losses although she looks like the best of the worst this year. Worst of course being everyone in the WTA

:yeah: This is the bottom line, plain and simple. Blaming the ranking system for the lack of a dominant player is just a silly knee-jerk reaction. All this endless, mindnumbing nitpicking we've been subjected to for weeks on this subject about which player deserves it more and which would come out on top according to which system ignores this basic fact, and is just immature fanboying at it its embarrasing worst.

Cineast
Oct 30th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Two important facts haven't been mentioned in this thread:

1. The WTA has changed the ranking system several times since scrapping the divisor system, and almost every change has been with the purpose of making the Slams more important. Back in 2000, a Slam (520 Round Points) was worth twice as much as a Tier 1 (260 RP, nine tournaments), with Tier 1s being worth 30% more than a Tier 2 (200 RP; at some strong Tier 2s like Filderstadt, Quality Points made up the difference).

At some point, the Slams went up to 700 points, with only Miami being 350; The Tier 2s were 220 (3.2 per Slam) or 195 (just under 3.6 per Slam). Then in 2007 it became 1000 for a Slam, 500 for Miami, and for Tier 2s 300 (3.33 per Slam) or 275 (just over 3.6 per Slam).

Now, they've changed the old Tier 1/2 system. The closest to Tier 1s are the Premier Mandatory/Premier 5s, with only four events being worth half a Slam. The previous Tier 2s are now only worth 470 points, which is less than a quarter of a Slam!

Additionally, the WTA has gone from Best 18 to Best 17, to now only 16 events counting.

2. The WTA has introduced Mandatory Events. In the past, you could lose at the first round of a Slam, and it might not count against you if you had 18 other great results! At some point, the four Slams and Miami became Mandatory. Now, for players in the Top 10, it's the Four Slams, the Four Premier Mandatory events, the two best Premier 5s (for people in the Top 20), and the YEC, which is 11 of the 16 slots. When it comes to those "rinky dink" events, Wozniacki (or anybody else in the Top 20) can only pad their points with results from five of them. In fact, the mandatory YEC replaced Wozniacki's optional Copenhagen title.

As has been pointed out upthread, other players have had some stinkers in Mandatory events (Kvitova and Li at the US Open come to mind) as well.

Based on the overall results this year, I'm not certain who should be #1. All I know is that I don't wan't people to look at this year's year-end rankings, decide they don't like who's at #1, and try to jigger the system to make the "correct" person end up at #1. Because it will only make the problem worse. I think I've mentioned it before, but after Wimbledon 2005, the defending Slam champion with the highest ranking was... Svetlana Kuznetsova. Nobody would have suggested she was the #1 player in the world. For a few weeks after the US Open this year, Li Na was the highest-ranked Slam holder (at #5), and I don't think anybody would have given her name in answer to the question of who should be #1.

MakarovaFan
Oct 30th, 2011, 07:07 PM
I'm not saying Petra did not have the more impressive wins over top players (she probably has) but in these statistics you have to take into account that Woz started the year as #1 and since she cannot beat herself, it is more likely that she doesn't have as many e.g. Top 5 wins as other players. Kvitova didn't start the year in Top 30 even I think so she probably had more opportunites to beat the top players.
Before the YEC, Woz' H2H with Top 10 players was something like 8:3 which is not bad, I doubt that Petra was much better.

But yeah, Petra's and Caro's stats have also something to do with their gamestyles....Caro is more consistant and Petra is more hit-and-miss.

And I think the main reason Oetar won't finish the year as #1, even though she won teh bigger titles with WI, Madird and (probably) the YEC is simlar ti Ki's reason lost...because she lost early a lot (Kim often didn't even play) of tournys wher you can get the most points...Dubai, Canada, IW, Miami, Cincy, Rome (+US Open)...Petra fired a blank in most of these tourneys while Caro with the exceptions of Cincy and Canada made it quite far in them.

Wow i coulda sworn just yesterday i was........nah not even gonna go there with though, hypocrite is what hypocrite does. As i said it's official now, no comparison on their season OR WINS, Petra by far had a better year(from just about every angle, equal titles, bigger events, better wins, less losses) point blank. Now back to the subject on hand please! Thanks

Vyacheslavovna
Oct 30th, 2011, 10:06 PM
I would like to see them abandon any kind of ranking system and just use the money list. If you do well at the biggest tournaments, I'm assuming you will earn more money. Kvitova would currently be ranked number one.

http://www.wtatennis.com/page/PrizeMoneyRankings/0,,12781,00.html

I would also like to see someone keep a table of career earnings for all the past and present champions. If you won Wimbledon when all you got was a book token and a chance to hold the trophy, that's not as impressive to me as winning Wimbledon when the winner's prize money was a million plus. The more money there is in a sport, the more competitive I would expect it to be and the harder I would expect it to be to win in that sport. If career earnings were adjusted for inflation, this would take account of the different strength of eras, though some people might disagree over using money as a measure of strength of era. If someone were to put this table together, they would end up with a player at the top who could be called the greatest, using the objective measure of mean, lean green.

* I did come across something once about players skipping slams in the 70s to play in exhibitions because they paid more, so maybe that would complicate this.

terjw
Oct 30th, 2011, 10:23 PM
LOL Another thread which is just a load of hot air. The divisor system is a terrible system and however much posters whine and wail - it ain't happening. Neither are bonus points coming back (which pretty well makes no difference) or dsanders best of 10 joke system :lol:

Thank goodness no-one on these forums has any influence whatsoever in changing the ranking system to one that rewards players for playing less.

crescentmoon
Sep 29th, 2013, 12:54 PM
Sounds like a good idea.

Volcana
Sep 29th, 2013, 01:01 PM
The players can have any ranking system they want.

Rest Maria!
Sep 29th, 2013, 01:03 PM
Divisor system was ditched for a reason, and a right one at that. A rankings system actively discouraging players from playing more tournaments is a bad idea when you actually want them to show up in as many tournaments as possible.

SerenaSlam
Sep 29th, 2013, 01:42 PM
LOL Another thread which is just a load of hot air. The divisor system is a terrible system and however much posters whine and wail - it ain't happening. Neither are bonus points coming back (which pretty well makes no difference) or dsanders best of 10 joke system :lol:

Thank goodness no-one on these forums has any influence whatsoever in changing the ranking system to one that rewards players for playing less.

Lmao. Does this person still exist?

Rolling-Thunder
Sep 29th, 2013, 01:54 PM
I do believe part of the plan of going from best of 18 to best of 16 was in response to the WS reduced tournament schedule. I liked that. Too many players were simply playing tons of tournaments, but with few very good results. Quantity was being substituted for Quality. That was a good change.

I also like the mandatory events, because I too was getting tired and perturbed by the constantly withdrawing from events for the most spurious reasons by a number of players, including the WS. This was a necessary change. A tournament can't promote itself and sell tickets if it does not know who is going to show up. A degree of consistency and professionalism was needed.

I would prefer that they introduce a plus 30 rule and Grand Slam legacy rule: Any player over 30 can play whatever tournament she wants and there will be no mandatory premier events or at least a legacy player can reduce her schedule to only 2 mandatory premiers without getting a zero. This would promote the players playing longer and reward the legacy slam winners. 30+ y.o. Grand Slam champions should be able to decide the schedule that best first her or his body. We want them around as long as possible.

spiceboy
Sep 29th, 2013, 01:59 PM
30+ y.o. Grand Slam champions should be able to decide the schedule that best first her or his body. We want them around as long as possible.

LOL Miami would be delighted while Beijing would be like WTF :lol:

Rest Maria!
Sep 29th, 2013, 02:03 PM
I would prefer that they introduce a plus 30 rule and Grand Slam legacy rule: Any player over 30 can play whatever tournament she wants and there will be no mandatory premier events or at least a legacy player can reduce her schedule to only 2 mandatory premiers without getting a zero. This would promote the players playing longer and reward the legacy slam winners. 30+ y.o. Grand Slam champions should be able to decide the schedule that best first her or his body. We want them around as long as possible.

There are already similar rules in place though. I think playing Grand Slams and Premier Mandatories is always required though, but the rest of them is optional for players who register themselves as 30+ players. I don't think requiring to play 8 tournaments is too harsh for someone who still wants to be a professional player despite her age...

coolfish1103
Sep 29th, 2013, 04:08 PM
They can go back to divisor system. Just introduce minimum divisors.

If 16 tournaments are what the WTA is looking for, then minimum divisors can be set at 16.
4 grand slam winners will get max 8000/16 = 500 points if they only play the slams.

WTA doesn't even need to make tournaments mandatory. They can just dictate how many points and $ the tournament gives to make the players to come and play. Maybe the Williams won't come, but the others will.