PDA

View Full Version : Your feelings on quality points


FaceyFacem
Aug 15th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Just been thinking about quality points recently, men don't have them, and women do...do you think that makes sense? i guess since there tend to be a few less upsets in women's events it rewards a stellar result although in men's events a lot of times people just run through an easy section of the draw and fly up the rankings without really having a nice win...let me know how you feel!

another question i have...don't you feel bad for people like emilie loit at the 03 australian open who come SO close to beating a top player and get nothing for that effort...just cause they had a bad draw, do you think that getting sets of top players should be some sort of bonus points as well? personally, i don't believe you should get bonus points without winning the whole match since that is the whole point of tennis, sometime you win more games/points and don't win the match, it's the critical times during the match that make the difference...anyway, just some ideas that i had recently...
discuss!

*Karen*
Aug 15th, 2005, 10:05 PM
I don't really think they should get quality points. I think it'd be better if it was based on how far they got in the draw. If you get a bad draw then thats unlucky but I don't think you should get any more points than the other semi finalists or whatever round they reach.

franny
Aug 15th, 2005, 10:11 PM
The thing about quality points is this. Would you rather play Venus Williams or Svetlana Kuznetsova? Would you rather play Kim Clijsters or Elena Dementieva? Would you rather play Justine Henin-hardenne or Amelie Mauresmo? I think most would prefer to play the latters in each of those examples, and yet if you somehow manage to beat the formers in those examples, you'd get less points. That's the problem with quality points.

Brooks.
Aug 15th, 2005, 10:22 PM
The thing about quality points is this. Would you rather play Venus Williams or Svetlana Kuznetsova? Would you rather play Kim Clijsters or Elena Dementieva? Would you rather play Justine Henin-hardenne or Amelie Mauresmo? I think most would prefer to play the latters in each of those examples, and yet if you somehow manage to beat the formers in those examples, you'd get less points. That's the problem with quality points.

the russians (besides sharapova) all have inflated rankings due to injury.......it will sort itself out by the end of this year as long as the best players are able to play and be healthy :) .......as for mauresmo......she always seems to manage to stay top 5 .....dont ask me how :lol:

darrinbaker00
Aug 15th, 2005, 11:25 PM
I don't have a problem if #50 gets quality points for beating #1, but why should #1 get quality points for beating #50? If I were in charge, players ranked 1-10 would only get quality points for beating each other, 11-20 would get quality points for beating 1-20, etc. Otherwise, I think they should do away with it altogether.

Jem
Aug 16th, 2005, 02:04 AM
I think quality points are the right way to go -- you get points for how far you advance in a tournament, plus for the players you beat, according to the current rankings. It's a lot fairer to me than the men's tournament, where who you beat doesn't matter. It seems to me if a man beats Federer, for example now, he should get more points than beating Taylor Dent in the same round.

vogus
Aug 16th, 2005, 03:27 AM
"Quality points" are a scam, the WTA should get rid of them. All it means is somebody wins the lottery when they draw a top player who is sick or injured. It skews the rankings.