View Full Version : The Ranking Thread To End All Other Ranking Threads

Mar 31st, 2002, 09:59 PM
To those on this board pissing and moaning (again) about the rankings, and ranking system: this is YOUR forum to devise a surefire 100% fair, equitable, and just system for the rankings for the Sanex Women's Tennis Association. I would be more than honored to be presented with the most superior and stellar ranking system, and in turn, I would feel compelled to call, email, write, fax, hand-deliver, or courier said suggestion personally to the WTA.

Please include all formulas as far as round points for each Tier event, quality points, minimum event classification, and the turnaround time for said points (this is currently 52 weeks).

So, here is your forum, let's see you back up all your complaining about the rankings and devise the PERFECT solution.....

Let the competition begin.

Mar 31st, 2002, 10:02 PM
Two answer your question, a perfect ranking system is one shows one of the following:

Number 1: Venus Williams
Number 2: Serena Williams

Number 1: Serena Williams
Number 2: Venus Williams

Apr 1st, 2002, 01:24 AM
Nobody else?.... Where's all the complainers?

Apr 1st, 2002, 01:41 AM
Ironic isn't it? Finally there's a thread specifically made to talk about this BS and no one wants a part of it. Honestly some people are jsut whingers :rolleyes:

Apr 1st, 2002, 03:01 AM
A perfect ranking system would be where Quality and Quantity are represented EQUALLY.
& not JUST to boost the sales of tickets for the Wta.

14 tournies a year.
This way, the fans would get QUALITY tennis, because the tennis players would be rested, and guess what, 99 of 100 players wouldn't be injured at the end of the year!

Ms. Lively
Apr 1st, 2002, 03:05 AM
why don't they just rank the players alphabetically?

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 1st, 2002, 03:08 AM
I think the system is fine the way it is. Having a set number of tournaments helps give incentive for the players to play more and thus to support the tour. The players dont have to but then there ranking suffers so i think its a good system. If you want to be ranked higher either play more or just win every tournament if you have like ten on your schedule.

Apr 1st, 2002, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Ms. Lively
why don't they just rank the players alphabetically?

Alphabetically in reverse. Start w/Z end w/A.

Ms. Lively
Apr 1st, 2002, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by Seles

Alphabetically in reverse. Start w/Z end w/A.

Natasha Zvervra (sp?) could return to the tour as #1.

Apr 1st, 2002, 03:33 AM
Alphabetically in reverse. Start w/Z end w/A.

Darn. Looks like my Cappy is gonna slip back down to #267

Apr 1st, 2002, 08:35 PM
So, are we settling for Inverted Alphabetically?

Apr 1st, 2002, 08:55 PM
I have a nice little rankings system that I find to be "fair" from year to year.

The best 12 events count.
It rewards quality over quantity by giving points out as follows.

100% for a win
40% for a final.
20% for a semi
10 % for a quarter
05 % for the round before a quarter.
No points earned for a first round loss.

Slams are worth 520 for a winner.
WTA finals 210
Tier 1's with draws of 56 70(80 if fields are strong, 90 for
Tier 2's 60
Tiers 3-5 20(30 if field is very strong)

No bonus points. The big advantage of this would be increased tension as the finals approach. It rewards consistency well enough, but you'll never get a slamless #1,the worst scenario IMO.

Apr 2nd, 2002, 12:23 AM
i think the ranking system is pretty just however i do think players shouldnt lose as many points for not defending points, as it almost becomes punishing players for the good results of a previous year. So maybe less on that if poss, but hewy that's just my opinion. For eg. if Venus and Capriati have identicle clay seasons Venus will get more points becoz she didnt do well last year..maybe not quite fair..??

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2002, 12:32 AM
Personally I don't like systems that only count 12-14 tournaments.

its ONLY at 17 right now - which really isn't asking all the much, considering the season is about 40 weeks long.

asking them to play about 25 weeks of the year, is NOT to much IMO.

MOST won't even be playing that much, as only a handful always reach the latter stages of a tournament.

THe more the top players play, the more the tournament benefits. people keep going on and on about how great womens tennis is, and how its full of personality - what the hell good is that if your top players are only going to play against each other maybe 6 tournaments a year?

If htye only have to play 12 tournaments, the top players will meet in the slams, and a couple other tournaments.

They should be encouraged to play, so they meet up against each other. Otherwise the marketting for all these great rivalries will be rubbish, cause you can't have a rivalry if you only play against each other once or twice a year.

Basketball, Hockey - they play 80 or so games a year, do they not? SO is it really too much to ask tennis players to schedule wisely so they they can play 65?

Apr 2nd, 2002, 01:20 AM
to be fair, i think that a lot of the people who criticised the ranking system genuinely didn't understand how it worked. all they saw was their player mowing down everyone in her path and still remaining ranked way too low. to them the system was unfair and illegitimate.

now that venus has ascended to the throne, it will silence a great deal of such criticism. it already has! the fact of venus' ascent highlighted unequivocally that the current system can and does work. it rewards consistency, yes, so if venus continues to play consistently, she will consistently be rewarded. i can live with that. can't you?

Apr 2nd, 2002, 01:39 AM
there should be an added bonus for defending a title. you should not lose points. maybe a the addition of 15-25% points garnered during the defense of a title.

Apr 2nd, 2002, 02:08 AM
Becca-don't take it personally because you know I regard you highly, but asking someone to play 25 events a year is insane.

I say that with total confidence after watching and playing tennis closely for about 25 years now:) I undestand why you or others wouldn't like a system requiring 'only' 12 to 14, but anything above 17 is pushing the body beyond limits.

If 25 events year-in and year-out is possible, please show me a top(and by top I mean from #1 to 4) woman who HAS done so AND remained on top.
The fact is they haven't. Those that HAVE stretched themselves
pay for it later with recurring injuries. I fear for the long-term health of Clijsters, Henin and Dokic(especially Dokic) for not giving their growing bodies a break. Evert, Navratilova, Graf, etc. rarely went over 17 events a year and probably averaged 14. They did so when more matches were on clay or grass. Today we have more hard courts events, more two week events and lo and behold, more injuries. That is NOT a coincidence.

Ok. Rollo's rant is over:wavey:

Brian Stewart
Apr 2nd, 2002, 04:42 PM
I think Becca was speaking literally about the 25 weeks, with the slams, Miami, and Indian Wells counting as 2 each. That would involve playing 19 events.

BTW, from 1975-94, the last 20 years of her career, Martina averaged 17 tourneys per year. (And remember, she skipped the summer hardcourt season in '94 after reaching the Wimbledon final, and still played 15 events.) This while maintaining a full schedule of doubles. From the ages of 18-25, she averaged over 20 tourneys per year, and the only year she played less than 18 (1976, when she played 17), was the only year in that span when she finished out of the top 3.

That being said, I agree with Rollo that such a schedule could not be played now. In that era, more tournaments were on more forgiving surfaces, the talent pool wasn't as deep (less exertion in early rounds), and players didn't hit as hard. There were more tourneys with 64 draws (and no byes), but overall the scale tips toward things being less demanding then.

I prefered last year's system to this year's. I think the slams being graded at twice a Tier I is plenty. (More than twice with Quality Points.) I think 17 is okay for a tournament cap. I could live with 16, but prefer 17. With top players playing that many tourneys, they'll grab the lion's share of the points at the primary events. Thus, there'll be little chance of someone passing them just by playing a lot.

The fact that someone finished last year at #1 without winning a slam wasn't so much a condemnation of the system as it was of the players who won the slams. Jen won only one other tournament. Her total of 3 tournament wins is by far the lowest for an active #1. Plus, she had a handful of early round losses. Had she won just one of those, she'd have finished #1. (Kuti Kis, anyone? :)) Likewise Venus put up #1 type numbers, but over a half-season, and on favorable surfaces. That would be tantamount to a 100 meter runner generating a 200-meter time by just running another 100, and then saying to multiply it by 2. It just doesn't work that way. Had Venus played just a few more events then, she'd have been #1.

I had no problem with last year's system. If it had inherent flaws, why were there no complaints in the media when it was introduced? To me, if flaws are "obvious", they are always obvious. They don't just become obvious just because one doesn't get the results one wants. The irony here is that most of those in the media who were squawking did so because they wanted Venus at #1. Because of it, the points were changed. As a result of inflating a few events, while devaluing the regular tour events, Jennifer is now about twice as far ahead of Venus as she would be were the old system still in place. (That's on prelim guesstimate.)

I'm on record as saying I don't like the points juggling this year, as I think the slams are now valued a smidge too high in proportion to the rest of the tour. The one change I would have made to last year's system is in how quality points were awarded. I would have both players bring their QP's into a match, and afterwards they'd be divided based % of games won in that match. That would be more fair. However, it would also be more complicated. I'm willing to forego that modification for the sake of making it more workable. It's better if the fans can calculate it by hand, like with the baseball stats, or the NFL's passers' rating formula, etc. If the formula is too complex, that will just prompt more complaining from the media. (And they complain about how the current system is "impossible" to understand.)

Enough with the rant. I, too, want to see what other systems the fans can devise. If there's something wrong with the current system, there should be a way to correct it. So far, it's just the same handful of folks who are willing to present something for discussion. Is everyone happy with the current system?

Apr 2nd, 2002, 05:33 PM
Thanks for pointing out my misreading of Becca's post Brian-25 weeks(as opposed to 25 events) is a big difference. Sorry Becca, you can hit me with a wet noodle:)

Your logic is sound Brian-I just happen to disagree with it. A slamless #1 is a sham IMO, and nothing will convince me otherwise, so I'll agree to disagree on that. If last year's computer #1(Lindsay Davenport) didn't believe in her ranking, how's the general public supposed too?

Good point about Martina managing singles and doubles too. I wonder if the fact that less women today volley in singles is a result of or plays into less doubles. What I'm saying is-doubles must have been good practice for someone like Martina because she used the same tools in singles.

Martina's average number of events drops a lot if you cut out the early years, years when she didn't win most of her slams. Martina wisened up and reduced her schedule in the years she was dominant. To me that's no coincidence.
The numbers she put up were amazing. Unless Hingis catches a second wind I can't see anyone catching Martina the firsts' open records:)

Apr 2nd, 2002, 05:48 PM
OK - Im not completely ignorant concerning the rankings, I'm quite sure in my head I know how the whole thing works.

What I can't understand is people's complaints about it. Every ranking system has it's flaws because players have form at different times, and that's what the media sees and coments on. For example, no one can disagree with Serenas amazing runs at the moment. So then the media whine about the fact she's not no. 1 when in fact they spent the whole of last year saying venus should be and Serena didn't hae the mental strength to be champion.

SO - Martina was no. 1 because she was consistent, I can understand that, she didn't win Grand Slams which are the main media and non-serious tennis fans events. players who win them are pretty much automatically assumed as being near the top (cos they usually are). But then they forget the rest of the year?

And that's the problem with Jen being number 1? Because she doesn't win the smaller tournaments? And people assume (rightly so, maybe) that Venus should be number 1 because she performs well consistently, just not very much, and so don't take into account any tiredness/fatigue she would experience as she's not used to playing this much?

Mercury Rising
Apr 2nd, 2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Rollo
Thanks for pointing out my misreading of Becca's post Brian-25 weeks(as opposed to 25 events) is a big difference. Sorry Becca, you can hit me with a wet noodle:)

Don't use me to solve your problems please, thank you.

Apr 2nd, 2002, 11:26 PM
Once again the rankings complainers are called out, and once again the response is near to zero.

Rollo, to save us all the work of testing your system, could you give us the current top 20 re-ranked according to those points? I have a sneaking suspicion that Monica Seles would drop below a group of players who almost never beat her.

Apr 3rd, 2002, 01:11 AM
i dont think that the ranking system is bad, it just needs to represent more quality than quantity, as almost everyone said. the quality point system doesnt really add to anything (the men dont have that system and they're ok...well, they're system isn't so great either, but...), it just gives you "a billion points + 16" (*arbitrary numbers) for advancing to the next round by beating a top player - which, if you're not in the top grouping, is near impossible.

Originally Posted By jp
The last funny suggestion is that players outside the top 30 should get more bonus points than top players when they beat top players...

i believe this is directed at what i said, but YOU'RE WRONG :p :o. this is not what i said at all - in fact this is a ridiculous statement :rolleyes:. all i said was that the quality pt. system only creates bigger rifts b/w the the top and everybody else b/c the top players get the same # of pts as the 1000000.... in the world does for beating the same person - which is stupid. if #1 beats #3, then why is that the same as #75 beating #3? why should #1 get the same pts. as #75 for beating the same person, when #1 should actually be beating #3 anyway? this does in NO WAY mean that i think #75 should get extra pts., i just think that the quality pts. mean nothing.

in response to this thread, i think its funny that people who blatantly attack the ranking system w/o reason have nothing to say now. at least when i criticize, i have reasoning to it. thanx for bringing this up seles :)

Apr 3rd, 2002, 01:22 AM
Players outside the top 30 do get "more" quality points for beating top players, sort of. 86 Quality points for beating a 6-10 ranked player at a Slam has a much more dramatic effect if your old total was 800 pts then if it was 4000 pts.

Apr 3rd, 2002, 02:34 AM
then there is by a surface rank

no more than say 5 tournaments count on a particular surface (grass 2) in a best of 17 situation.

encourages players to become better at other surfaces instead of speacialists.
Now some players hardly play indoors or on clay as they hate it.

Brian Stewart
Apr 3rd, 2002, 02:47 PM
I think quality points are important. It's actually been the biggest detriment to the new men's system, IMO. (Lack of QP.) Roger Federer has been nailed twice. At Wimbledon, he beats the top seed (Sampras), and gets no QP under the ATP system. Thus he got the same points as he would have for beating Barry Cowan. Likewise, Federer got no QP for beating the #1 player, Hewitt, in Miami. If ATP player A wins a Masters Series event by beating 3 of the top 5 players in the world, while player B wins a Masters Series event where the draw disintegrated and he didn't have to face anyone in the top 15, they get the same points. That's absurd. But it's all because they're trying to promote their Race as a ranking, and they can't very well award quality points that don't match up with the publicly presented Race position (hence rendering the Race merely symbolic, which it is).

There is a change I would like to see made in QP. I think they need realigned a bit. Defeating #1 gets 100 QP, while #2 gets 75. If you accept the premise that the #1 player is better than the #2 player, is it really 33% harder to beat #1 than #2? Is Jen 33% harder to beat than Venus? (Or vice versa?) Is Venus 50% harder to beat than Lindsay (#5- 50 QP)? Or Jen twice as tough as Lindsay? They need to bump up the QP a bit below the #1 spot. While they could lower the QP for #1, it would throw the QP out of alignment with the inflated points values of the top events. QP need to be a significant portion, to reflect the strength of the various fields, and the opponents beaten. Serena picked up a shipload of QP at Miami for beating #s 1, 2, and 3, which she should. Had she faced lesser ranked opponents, she should (and would) have gotten less.

Apr 3rd, 2002, 07:54 PM
Now I'm warned Noodle;)

DH, under my system Monica outranks Dokic in 2001 and would beat Graf for #1 in 1990-both unlike the computer). For 2002 results alone she would be at 3 or 4, either ahead or behind Venus(sorry, I don't have the numbers with me). Pierce would have been 4 in 2000, behind Hingis. Oh, and I had Davenport as #1 in 1999 but Hingis as #1 in 1998, which makes sense if you look at their won-lost percentages and head to head. Sanchez got the nod for #1 in 1994 ovee Graf.

Here were the 2001 Rollo ranks:

1. Venus Wiliams
2. Capriati
3. Davenport
4. Serena Wiliams
5. Hingis
6. Clijsters
7. Henin
8. Mauresmo
9. Seles

I've used my little system for a number of years and it's never gone against my sense of justice. I understand the tour needs to be promoted, but the reality for the top 10 lies in grand slam performance, not "did I win Tokyo?" Obviously my system has a bias towards slams and winning as oposed to making a lot of quarters or semis, but every system has biases.

I understand the tour needs to be promoted, but the reality for the top 10 lies in grand slam performance, not "did I win Tokyo?"

Apr 3rd, 2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Fingon
Two answer your question, a perfect ranking system is one shows one of the following:

Number 1: Venus Williams
Number 2: Serena Williams

Number 1: Serena Williams
Number 2: Venus Williams

Sorry.......I don't think it will happen, maybe just on your dream
as you know Venus even can't depend her No. 1 Spot (only just for 2 weeks)

Bright Red
Apr 3rd, 2002, 11:33 PM
There should be a year-end vote.

Apr 4th, 2002, 07:53 AM
There should be a year-end vote

yeah, they should send ballot papers to all the players asking them for their top 1000 players on the tour, like the oscars.

"So, Venus, who do you think sould be no. 996??"

"I dunno Serena I was thinking of going with Martina... :rolleyes: "

pffff :p

The Crow
Apr 4th, 2002, 08:21 AM
I'm not too fond of those quality points. IMO it's important how far you get in a tournament, not who you beat along the way. If you for instance win a GS but you haven't beaten a high seed on the way, just because they were out of the tournament in the earlier rounds, should you be penalised for that? You still won the tournament!! IMO quality points are way overrated.

Apr 4th, 2002, 08:25 AM
What about quality points in relation to where the player is in the rankings. For instance, the number 2 player beating the number 1 player is slightly less of a big deal than the number 87 beating the number 1.

It's not fair that they should receive the same number of points because that win would be a bigger acomplishment for the number 87.

What about a quality points system that gives the player 1 point for beating the player ranked one above them, 2 points for the player ranked 2 places above them

so, the number 87 would get 86 points for beating the number 1, and the number 2 would get 1 point....

Apr 4th, 2002, 08:48 AM
Again the fairy-tale that, by winning a tournament, you get disadvantages in the following year ... :rolleyes:

Generally, the system is fine. I don't think the changes made this year were necessary, but I can live with them.
But GS-points shouldn't increase even more, as well as no. of tournaments shouldn't decrease even more.

I would definite change the no. of seedings, at least back to 16 at the Grand-Slams. Some players ranked 17-32 just don't deserve extra treatment.
Maybe I would even go to only 8 seeds. The fight for these spots would be much more interesting.

Apr 4th, 2002, 09:59 AM
I don't like the 32 seeds either since the Aus Open

Plus I'm still pissed off that Lina had to become 33rd seed and had her match day/player changed at short notice and she got injured and hasn't played since :fiery: :fiery: