View Full Version : Why should the ITF follow the WTA rankings?

Jan 24th, 2003, 06:49 PM
Seriously. The only reason there IS a WTA is that a lot of women disagreed with ITF priorities. The ITF didn't change those priorities. In essence, I ask why the ITF should feel bound by an arbitrary system created by a pack of renegades?

They DO, in the case of the women, MOSTLY follow the WTA rankings. But, as far as I can see, they have no obligation to do so, and a certain incentive NOT to.

You tell me.

Why should the ITF follow the WTA rankings? In singles OR in doubles?

Jan 24th, 2003, 06:58 PM
because the WTA rankings are the best system that anyone currently possesses for gauging the respective abilities of the women who play in ITF events. (Yes, it's not perfect blah blah blah, but it's the only guide we have; anything else is pure subjectivity.) The ITF has no measurements of its own to guide seeding; if it doesn't use the WTA ranks, it may as well seed randomly. Which come to think of it, is essentially what Wimbledon does. (Seeding Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski artificially high, ostensibly because of 'grass court prowess'; randomly giving Lisa Raymond a top 16 seed this year even though a) Tamarine Tanasugarn was ranked higher at the time and b) had a better Wimbledon record. If you seed according to the objective rankings, you stop fuck-ups like those occurring.)

Jan 24th, 2003, 07:01 PM
VB - But you're asking the ITF to make a concession they've refused to make for over 30 years. What does the ITF, as an organization, get out of it? From their perspective, the rankings are arbitrary and capricious. Should they contribute to this lack of reason? They feel a teams form, past accomplishments, and the surface should be taken into consideration.

They would also point out that the #1 seeded women's doubles team beat the #2 seeded team in the OZ final, a clear sign that the seedings were correct.

Jan 24th, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Volcana
From their perspective, the rankings are arbitrary and capricious. Should they contribute to this lack of reason? They feel a teams form, past accomplishments, and the surface should be taken into consideration.

But the rankings are formulated from clearly laid out rules. Any ITF seeding system is not.

Jan 24th, 2003, 07:15 PM
ITF lost the power control a long time ago to the WTA and the ATP.

Jan 24th, 2003, 07:20 PM
Because they reflect the achievements of the players over a 12 month period and IMO determining where to seed the players at tournaments is the resson they are there. If they can be ignored at will, why bother to have them?

I'm not going to get into an argument over this again though, 'cos right now it's irrelevant and not worth arguing about.

The Crow
Jan 24th, 2003, 07:37 PM
As others say, it's as close to objectiveness as you can come.

Jan 24th, 2003, 07:47 PM
Because the WTA rankings give the most value to the ITF events. It's a symbiotic co-operation that keeps the tour from competing with the Slams. If the relationship broke down, both parties would be the worse for it.

Jan 24th, 2003, 07:55 PM
I think this is how they should do it

60% ranking
40% past performance

The Crow
Jan 24th, 2003, 08:03 PM
And what exactly do you see as "past performance"?? Past performance at that tourney or what??

Jan 24th, 2003, 08:26 PM
TBE - The ITF hasn't lost power over the most important events, and control of the seedings is the most obvious representation of that. Again I ask, what does the ITF GET out of letting the WTA control the seedings of GS tournaments? That isn't a 'symbiotic co-operation'. That's total capitulation to rival organization.

The control is the seeding process is the only power the ITF has over the players. That and being able to throw them out of tournaments. The WTA and the ATP hold all the other cards. If youlook at the list of Wimbledon winners, you see the namen Jan Kodes. What you don't see is, that's the year the ATP struck Wimbledon, and Kodes only played caused his government said he had to.

The ITF hasn't forgotten. I doubt they've forgiven either. They've gone through some (corporate) pain and heart-ache to maintain their current (reduced) level of authority. You're asking them to give away the store. T'ain't happ'n.

Jan 24th, 2003, 09:05 PM
If the ITF did their own subjective seedings, that would cause more disatisfaction rather than good.

there will me more player unrest by going that way, Just look at what happens at Wimbledon where they only do the men.