PDA

View Full Version : Isn't this great?


Fingon
Jan 11th, 2006, 11:51 PM
It didn't take long to show how flawed the new ranking system is.

Take Sydney, let's think for a moment that Justine wins it.

She would do it by beating Hingis, Dushevina, a walkover, Kuznetsova and either Schiavone or Vaidisova.

You got it, no top 10s and a walkover.

But she would get 190 points.

Let's say in Los Angeles (draw of 64) a player wins the tournamnets and beats Kim and Davenport. How many points does she get? 190 points.

WTA :yeah:

DragonFlame
Jan 11th, 2006, 11:56 PM
owh well, i'm done complaining... we have this stupid system now so let's try to make the best of it :) WIN SYDNEY JUSTINE!!!!!!!!!!! :bounce: :D :worship: :p ;)

Sam L
Jan 11th, 2006, 11:56 PM
What would your WTA ranking system be?

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:13 AM
There was nothing much wrong with the old system. The quality points were a good idea. Ideally, I would have retained quality points and reduced the maximum "counting" tournaments from 17 to ... I dunno ... maybe 15 or something.

Oh well, follks, what's done is done. Time to move on.

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:31 AM
Are you going to do this after every tournament now? :)

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:34 AM
What would your WTA ranking system be?

Basically, I would go back to an average system, with a minimum divisor of 14 tournaments.

The quality points would be calculated as a percentage of the round points.

The round points wouldn't be expressed as points for reaching a round, but points for winning a round.

for example, instead of saying QF 100 points SF 150 points, it would be 50 points for winning QF.

That would be because the quality points would be a percentage of points earned in the round the win happens, for example, for beating # 1 it could be 100%, so in the above example, if a player beats the # 1 in the quarters, she would earn 100 points.

All the poinst would be added and divided by the # of tournaments or 14, whatever is greater.

No zero points tournaments, 10k and 25k would be added to the ranking the week after they are played, not two weeks after like now.

Finally, the round points would be build with a logical relationship.

for example, winning a tier 2 could be equivalent to reaching the final of a tier 1, so the round points should be exactly the same.

no double quality points for GS, because they are a percentage they will be higher anyway.

that's pretty much it, not too complicated and I think it would be fair, of course, it would be necessary to create a simulation tool, to analyze different scenarios, to actually choose the points and percentages well.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:35 AM
Are you going to do this after every tournament now? :)

yes, any questions?

switz
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Fingon is to the new ranking system what Calimero was to Steffi and JR is to Patty :lol:

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Fingon is to the new ranking system what Calimero was to Steffi and JR is to Patty :lol:
:lol: :worship: :lol:

Smeagol
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:44 AM
It didn't take long to show how flawed the new ranking system is.


The system is fine now, doesn't need fixing so don't fix it.

ToeTag
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:52 AM
I'm sure quality points will be back once the atp adopts it. :rolleyes:

franny
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:54 AM
I still think we should do it like college football where the rankings are determined by a group of tennis sportswriters from all around the world. Every two weeks they can come out with a new list or something like that. For seeding purposes they can use the current system, and we don't have to worry about quality points being affected by sportswriters bias, since there would be no quality points. But then that does take away the historical significance of the rankings, so I guess nevermind.

TS
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:55 AM
It's time to get over it.

azza
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:00 AM
The System is better now its more like the ATP system thats good :)

fammmmedspin
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:02 AM
Are you going to do this after every tournament now? :)

Why not? It might be interesting - particularly at the end of the year if number1 is number 1 by virtue of a walkover getting the same points as a win or the number 1 wouldn't have been number 1 because someone else had more quality points. :eek: We might as well know what oddities it throws up.

Actually Francesca who deserves a bit of luck just got the same points for not playing as 1 person did for winning a real QF match and 2 did for turning up against wounded foes, so the system isn't all bad:confused:

fammmmedspin
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:05 AM
I still think we should do it like college football where the rankings are determined by a group of tennis sportswriters from all around the world. Every two weeks they can come out with a new list or something like that. For seeding purposes they can use the current system, and we don't have to worry about quality points being affected by sportswriters bias, since there would be no quality points. But then that does take away the historical significance of the rankings, so I guess nevermind.

Go to TBE's ranking page and just scroll downwards to the bottom - its debatable if you could seed 3 players in a meaningful order let alone hundreds or thousands. As you couldn't watch them all in person you would need a ranking system to judge who was doing well anyway.

Ryan
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:06 AM
It's time to get over it.


I don't see why. It's a shitty new system that is just being put into effect.


BTW Fingon, that's a really interesting ranking system. I've never thought/heard about quality points being a percentage of the round points, I like it. So by that I'm assuming it's more points to beat the #1 in the final, than in the first round, correct?

switz
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:13 AM
there should be a rankings forum where everyone can complain and then we can send the link to the wta :)

Volcana
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:04 AM
Fingon - Look, the 12 month rankings are meaningless. They are only CALLED 'rankings'. It's just a method of determining seeding. I doesn't tell who's better than who, and it never has.

What's more important? Winning the Australian Open, or finishing the year ranked #1? Ask Lindsay Davenport

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Fingon is to the new ranking system what Calimero was to Steffi and JR is to Patty :lol:

Nope, Calimero loves Steffi, I hate the ranking system.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:19 AM
Fingon - Look, the 12 month rankings are meaningless. They are only CALLED 'rankings'. It's just a method of determining seeding. I doesn't tell who's better than who, and it never has.

What's more important? Winning the Australian Open, or finishing the year ranked #1? Ask Lindsay Davenport

I don't disagree, specially with the last statement, winning a GS is far more important than being # 1.

But even agreeing that it's only a method of determining seeding, it should do it right, and it doesn't. Petrova seeded higher than Justine or Venus???

Of course it doesn't tell you who's better, that's subjective, but it should tell you who performed better in the last 52 weeks, it doesn't.

And the system has become so bad after the continous wta's changes that only made things worse, they obviously don't understand the system and that's the problem. (and this is not just an idea, the second in command regarding the ranking has sent me some emails that show he has no clue whatsoever, what can you expect?).

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:22 AM
The system is fine now, doesn't need fixing so don't fix it.

I love comments so deep, with so much analysis. Really demonstrating each and every point.

Surely, saying it's fine (because you said so?) really adds a lot of rationality to the debate.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:23 AM
The System is better now its more like the ATP system thats good :)

the atp system is a piece of shit, it has always been.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:32 AM
I don't see why. It's a shitty new system that is just being put into effect.


BTW Fingon, that's a really interesting ranking system. I've never thought/heard about quality points being a percentage of the round points, I like it. So by that I'm assuming it's more points to beat the #1 in the final, than in the first round, correct?

yes, the idea is not to reward disproportionate quality points. Normally, it's tougher to beat a top player in the late rounds, they have more match play, the pressure is greater, etc.
Of course, they can be injured, but injuries isn't something you can measure, it doesn't have to be perfect, an approximation is good enough.

anthonyqld
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:41 AM
One problem with having quality points based on rankings is that players are better on one surface than they are on others.

Average rankings should definitely not exist because they discourage players from playing. Top players are less likely to play Tier III/IV events and lower ranked players are less likely to play TIER I/II and GS.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:05 AM
One problem with having quality points based on rankings is that players are better on one surface than they are on others.


that's only partially true, many top players can play well on all surfaces, they might play better on one particular surface but there are not really as many cases of top players being really bad on a particular surface.

In any case, if they are really bad and lose early, the incidence wouldn't be that great using a percentage, if they lose late in the tournament, it's likely they are not playing that bad.

Average rankings should definitely not exist because they discourage players from playing. Top players are less likely to play Tier III/IV events and lower ranked players are less likely to play TIER I/II and GS.

First, the ranking should not be used as an incentive system, that was the wta's first error and the origin of all the problems, the ranking should measure performance, period, when you try to force a system to do something it should not be doing is when you have problems. There are other ways to incentivate players without messing the system.

Second, top players should not be playing tier III/IV events, that's the idea, lower events are supposed to be there to give lower ranked players a chance to win and advance. Do you want Davenport playing Canberra? or Justine playing Pataya?

And, considering the current state of the wta regarding injuries, maybe it's not such a great idea to push players to play more. Maybe the wta should be less greedy and have less tournaments, and maybe they should take their heads out of their asses and start marketing the tour, and not the stars.

Mightymirza
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:22 AM
well its obvious that no game can remain as it is for hundreds of years..Games gotta change with time..As long as they dont change court size or net height or to 5 game setter..I am fine with it..

vogus
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:31 AM
i don't think the new system is any worse than the old system. They went from one extreme to the other, from heavily over-weighted QPs to no QPs at all. I really disliked the arbitrary nature of the previous system so i'm glad to see it gone. But if you can make the QPs less arbitrary and cut their value as a percentage of ranking, they're worth a second look.

vogus
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:37 AM
First, the ranking should not be used as an incentive system, that was the wta's first error and the origin of all the problems,




Fingy, it's NOT the WTA who is using the rankings as an incentive system. It's the players' sponsors. There are very significant financial bonuses tied directly to a player's ranking. The rankings are a basic measuring stick of these business deals. So when you put hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line, of course ranking is going to be an incentive.

esquímaux
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:38 AM
owh well, i'm done complaining...:lol: I hear ya there :o :o :p

Ryan
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:35 PM
One problem with having quality points based on rankings is that players are better on one surface than they are on others.

Average rankings should definitely not exist because they discourage players from playing. Top players are less likely to play Tier III/IV events and lower ranked players are less likely to play TIER I/II and GS.


Thats why it works with the ATP, so many one-surface wonders. :tape:

*JR*
Jan 12th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Nope, Calimero loves Steffi, I hate the ranking system.
Yeah, Cali doesn't fit. And actually, I'd Pick Patty's husband as the correct analogy: he and the new rankings are both criminal.
:devil:

Also, I don't favor divisors limited to a given # of events. I think everything should count, minus maybe 3 "mulligans" a year, for players testing themself after an illness or injury. (Kim's early exit in Hasselt '04, also played for her Fed I presume, would be a good example for such a "freebie").

The Crow
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Great system imo. In the end you have a tier II title, nothing more, nothing less.

Greenout
Jan 12th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Well..what's even dumber is how the WTA smacked Justine upside the head, and dropped her to number 8 because of the no- quality rankings, then bumped up Patty plus Petrova in Sydney. Hence, giving a crap draw with no bye to play Hingis, only to have her beat Hingis, see Patty lose to someone else for no reason, and have Petrova lame out on their QF meeting.

Thus, being back to virtual #6 again, only to be seeded 8 at Melbourne even after the fact that she might win Sydney on her 15 match Australian winning streak!

:p

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:05 PM
Fingy, it's NOT the WTA who is using the rankings as an incentive system. It's the players' sponsors. There are very significant financial bonuses tied directly to a player's ranking. The rankings are a basic measuring stick of these business deals. So when you put hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line, of course ranking is going to be an incentive.
I know that, that's one of the important points.
The rankings are used in several ways:
1) To determine the seeds and entries to tournaments, a very fundamental function if you ask me.
2) Some sponsors tie their payments to the player's position in the ranking. This is an interesting points because I wonder if a player is unfairly ranked lower she could sue the wta for lost earnings (that would be very interesting).
3) By the media, and this is also very important, people know Serena or Maria, but you can go into a tournament and non-tennis fans could as "who is Petrova?" and you can answer she is the # 6 player in the world.
The reason why the sponsors use the ranking is because they think it gives the player more exposure, but if they are constantly wrong, if the public and the media perceive they are clearly off, them they start to be simply ignored. That has largely happened to the atp where the rankings are more and more meaningless.
I think we don't agree with the meaning of the term incentive here. I was talking about tweaking the system to make players behave a certain way.
If you tie an incentive to a certain achievement in the ranking, it's alright, you are not changing the rules to make that incentive work.
The sponsors tie their payments to the rankings, without saying how to calculate that ranking, now I wonder if that has changed in recent years since the #1 became less and less meaningful.
Do sponsor really prefer Davenport to Sharapova or Serena? Maria didn't get her big sponsorship deals for getting higher in the ranking, but for winning Wimbledon, so I am not too sure that NOW rankings are taken too much into account to build sponsorship deals, I know they did in the past but since the system is clearly a joke, if I was a sponsor I would tend to ignore it, I wouldn't want my deal to depend on the mood of a wta official that doesn't understand a thing. They are probably more tied to GS performance at this point.

rottweily
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:08 PM
There is no such thing as a good ranking, so stop whining about it.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:10 PM
Great system imo. In the end you have a tier II title, nothing more, nothing less.

you are missing the point.
It's NOT a championships, it's suppose to measure the value of a player's performance. Clearly, the value of winning a tournament with nobody in it is lower than winning a tournament with tough opponents. It doesn't refer to a championship where winning is all that matters, it refers to merit of the win. This is the main problem, people confuse a ranking with a championship points system. This isn't football or basketball.
If you want, do it for the race, I don't care, The race IS a reward system, not a performance meter, so it's fine if they don't want to use quality points for the race and want to make it cumulative, but NOT for a ranking.
The first step in fixing the system is understanding what it's supposed to do, something the wta obviously hasn't done.

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:17 PM
Clearly, the value of winning a tournament with nobody in it is lower than winning a tournament with tough opponents.
No, as long as all players have the same chance to enter the tournament. :)

SvetaPleaseWin.
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:17 PM
both systems have good and bad points

maybe its not fair that players get equal points no matter who they beat

but last year groenefeld (and im a big fan of hers) got 100 quality points for beating davenport cos davenport retired 0-5
thats not really fair either

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:17 PM
There is no such thing as a good ranking, so stop whining about it.
And everything is black or white right?
you are either tall or short, bad or good, ugly of pretty, nothing in the middle, the world is clearly separated in half.
So, because you can't design a perfect system then leave the system to be total crap? with that mentality, we wouldn't even be having this talk because the internet would not even exist, neither would computers and probably we would be all dead by the time we turn 30.
Systems can be improved you can fix bugs, you don't need to make the system perfect.
That's an easy position, if we can't achieve excellence they let's not achieve anything.
I find interesting that the people that whines about the whinning are not willing to give any solid arguments, they just have a feeling about whinning, most they don't even understand the topic. I appreciate constructive arguments even if I disagree like the suchs of Vogus and others for example, they lead to a rational debate, but I don't appreciate the stop whinning with no rational arguments. Clearly, if people don't like the whinning the can safely skip the thread. What they are telling me is "I don't want to think, I accept anything they do because I can't be bothered thinking, just let the wta do whatever they want".

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:21 PM
No, as long as all players have the same chance to enter the tournament. :)

what does the chance of a player entering a tournament have to do with the difficulty in winning it? :confused: Until they actually enter and PLAY, the chances of who could have entered have no relevance whatsoever.

It's not the what would.. it's the what was.

no wonder you don't like the discussion, obviously you don't even start to understand it, why don't you just stay away? or if not, say something that makes a little sense for a change.

Doc
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:24 PM
The problem with the old system was that it wasn't giving notably higher points for Tier 1s than for popular Tier IIs. Some Tier 1 tournaments were getting dropped by a lot of the major players.

Major sponsors putting up Tier 1 money are not going to take that for very long.

Hence the new system.

The Crow
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:28 PM
you are missing the point.
It's NOT a championships, it's suppose to measure the value of a player's performance. Clearly, the value of winning a tournament with nobody in it is lower than winning a tournament with tough opponents. It doesn't refer to a championship where winning is all that matters, it refers to merit of the win. This is the main problem, people confuse a ranking with a championship points system. This isn't football or basketball.
If you want, do it for the race, I don't care, The race IS a reward system, not a performance meter, so it's fine if they don't want to use quality points for the race and want to make it cumulative, but NOT for a ranking.
The first step in fixing the system is understanding what it's supposed to do, something the wta obviously hasn't done.

No i'm not missing the point. These days you have a couple of categories in tournaments (slams, the tiers, the challengers and so on). The categories are determined by the wta and 'should' measure the quality of the people who take part in the tournament. When you win a tier II tournament, you have won that tournament, that's your performance. You were able to win a tier II tournament. Doesn't matter really who you beat. Of course every system has its drawbacks. Or do you really think that if Clijsters would have started her match against Schiavone and she forfaited after one point, that Schiavone really deserved those bonus points? No of course not. And in Sidney you have a similar odd situation in the present ranking system. Justine got one walkover and the number 2 of the rankings is injured. In the end, it doesn't make too much difference (and imo the drawbacks of bonuspoints are bigger than its benefits).

The Crow
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:30 PM
what does the chance of a player entering a tournament have to do with the difficulty in winning it? :confused: Until they actually enter and PLAY, the chances of who could have entered have no relevance whatsoever.

It's not the what would.. it's the what was.

no wonder you don't like the discussion, obviously you don't even start to understand it, why don't you just stay away? or if not, say something that makes a little sense for a change.

Actually he's making sense. All players know the schedule of the tourneys beforehand (and know how many points they worth when winning them) and can make up their own mind about which ones they play and which not.

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Players should not suffer from other players' decision of not playing the tournament.
And I'll refrain from commenting on who really has to get it together here.

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Actually he's making sense. All players know the schedule of the tourneys beforehand (and know how many points they worth when winning them) and can make up their own mind about which ones they play and which not.
:worship: :worship: :worship:

rottweily
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:32 PM
And everything is black or white right?
you are either tall or short, bad or good, ugly of pretty, nothing in the middle, the world is clearly separated in half.
So, because you can't design a perfect system then leave the system to be total crap? with that mentality, we wouldn't even be having this talk because the internet would not even exist, neither would computers and probably we would be all dead by the time we turn 30.
Systems can be improved you can fix bugs, you don't need to make the system perfect.
That's an easy position, if we can't achieve excellence they let's not achieve anything.
I find interesting that the people that whines about the whinning are not willing to give any solid arguments, they just have a feeling about whinning, most they don't even understand the topic. I appreciate constructive arguments even if I disagree like the suchs of Vogus and others for example, they lead to a rational debate, but I don't appreciate the stop whinning with no rational arguments. Clearly, if people don't like the whinning the can safely skip the thread. What they are telling me is "I don't want to think, I accept anything they do because I can't be bothered thinking, just let the wta do whatever they want".

Here is a more detailed opinion ;)
http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=5721675#post5721675

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:43 PM
No i'm not missing the point. These days you have a couple of categories in tournaments (slams, the tiers, the challengers and so on). The categories are determined by the wta and 'should' measure the quality of the people who take part in the tournament.

should is not the same as does, you are not measuring an hypothetic scenario but a real one.

When you win a tier II tournament, you have won that tournament, that's your performance.

nope, you have won a tournament, that's all you have done, it says nothing about the merits of your achievement unless you consider how you achieved that.

You were able to win a tier II tournament. Doesn't matter really who you beat.

hell yes.

Of course every system has its drawbacks. Or do you really think that if Clijsters would have started her match against Schiavone and she forfaited after one point, that Schiavone really deserved those bonus points? No of course not.

I never claimed the quality points system was perfect, yes, those problems do happen, but just take the numbers, how many times a low ranked player has beaten an injured top ranked player? and how many times a healthy top ranked player gets beaten? you are using an exception to make a rule. Do you agree is not fair to get the same points for a walkover than for beating Clijsters? I do agree it's not fair to get the same points for beating an injured Clijsters than a healthy Clijsters but injuries are the exception. Unfortunately you can't really meassure how an injury influences in the match, so you have to take a practical approach. Overall the distortions of not having the quality points are greater than those for having it?
Just take a look, Petrova over Henin-Hardenne? I know Justine didn't play much but for everybody, absolutely everybody, Justine's performance last year was far better than Petrova's, except for the ranking system.

And in Sidney you have a similar odd situation in the present ranking system. Justine got one walkover and the number 2 of the rankings is injured. In the end, it doesn't make too much difference (and imo the drawbacks of bonuspoints are bigger than its benefits).
nope, you are wrong, with quality points a walkover DOES make a difference. In the old system, if Justine had beaten Petrova she would have earned round points for getting the semis and quality points for the win, with a walkover she would have gotten only round points, now it's exactly the same.

Kart
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:45 PM
the atp system is a piece of shit, it has always been.

Don't hold back now Fingon.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:49 PM
Actually he's making sense. All players know the schedule of the tourneys beforehand (and know how many points they worth when winning them) and can make up their own mind about which ones they play and which not.
and what does it have to do with performance?
If you beat Serena, you beat Serena, end of story, if you beat Llagostera, you beat Llagostera, end of story. The fact that Serena knew in advance the schedule and could have played if she chose to has nothing to do with what actually happened.
The system should not meassure what would happen in an ideal world, it should meassure what happens in a real world
Now you want to determine the degree of difficulty for what it could have been and not for what it was?
Let me ask you a question, suppose you want to go to a tournament to see Maria, only Maria, I don't know if you like her or not but let's assume you do and she is the only player you care about.
The tournament tickets are expensive, but you are willing to pay the price to see Maria. Maria can enter the tournament, she knows the schedule in advance but she chooses not to.
Would you pay the price, just because she could have played if she wanted but she actually didn't? think the rationality of it, you cannot build a system based on an ideal scenario, the system has to deal with reality, not potential.

vogus
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Players should not suffer from other players' decision of not playing the tournament.



A basic but compelling argument. Every player in the WTA has equal entry rights. It's a level playing field, so it's not fair for players who don't enter a tournament, for whatever reason, to say after the fact, "well, this tournament was weak, so-and-so who won it didn't deserve all those points, so let's make her win worth less relative to other tournaments." But that's essentially what quality points were doing. And, which is what bothered me the most, in the old QP system that was in place, they were doing this in a quantitatively very heavy-handed fashion.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Players should not suffer from other players' decision of not playing the tournament.
And I'll refrain from commenting on who really has to get it together here.
a side note, a way to evaluate intelligence is by the ability of the person to understand a problem and focus on it, you obviously don't have that ability.
Players DO NOT suffer for other player's decision, they still get their prize money, don't they? but it should not affect their rankings. You seem to think ranking points are some sort of reward, they are not, they are measurement of perfomance, suffer, not suffer, like, not like has nothing to do with it.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:02 PM
A basic but compelling argument. Every player in the WTA has equal entry rights. It's a level playing field, so it's not fair for players who don't enter a tournament, for whatever reason, to say after the fact, "well, this tournament was weak, so-and-so who won it didn't deserve all those points, so let's make her win worth less relative to other tournaments." But that's essentially what quality points were doing. And, which is what bothered me the most, in the old QP system that was in place, they were doing this in a quantitatively very heavy-handed fashion.
correct me if you are wrong, you are telling me that a system that attempts to determine who performed better (not more) should consider what it could have been, not what it was.
using again my example of the tickets, would you be willing to pay just because your favourite could have been there but she actually wasn't?
Then I could say, it's not fair for the tournament to have their tickets sales depending on the willingness of certain players to play or not, maybe it's not fair but such is life, simply, the fans will not pay the price based on what it could have been but based on what it actually is, it's called reality something that many posters (not you) have very little contact with.
I do agree the quality points were disproportionate, that never was an issue, I did propose to make them a percentage of quality points.
I just don't think it's fair to get the same recognition for beating Davenport than for beating Na Li, that's simply wrong.
What was wrong was the number of quality points given, then change the number, but not take them away completely. It's like you are eating too much and getting fat, the solutions is to eat less, not to stop eating altogether

calabar
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:16 PM
In as much as I am for the previous system with the QP's intact, the one flaw with the QP system is that a player can drop in the rankings EVEN if they keep on winning. If you win a tournament by defeating the #1 and #2 ranked players, you no doubt will pick up a ton of QP's which helps your overall ranking. Now 52 weeks later, you have SUCCESSFULLY defended that same tournament yet you drop in the rankings, why? because you were no longer able to duplicate the feat of taking out #'s 1 & 2. That can (and does) happen because #'s 1 and/or 2 did not enter the tournament, or the defending champion has since risen to #1 (or #2) and obviously can't play against themself.

I suppose under the current system, this scenario could not happen since the total value (points) of a tournament is fixed. All things considered, I do believe one's reward (points) should be commensurate with the amount of effort put out. No matter how you slice it, it is more difficult to beat the #1 player than the #20, and therefore should be more rewarding. Having QP's as part of the mix does address this issue.

My 2 cents.

vogus
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:37 PM
Say you've got a hypothetical Tier 1 in Papua New Guinea and nobody in the Top 20 plays it. The cutoff is 140. Should the winner get only half the points than if they had won Zurich where almost the entire Top 20 was in the draw? I think no. The WTA designated both tournaments IN ADVANCE, equally, as Tier 1s, and all the players knew this and had the choice to play or not to play them. The reasons why many players didn't want to play in New Guinea shouldn't factor (disproportionately) into the ranking value.

I do think it should be possible to build some sort of QP system that would be a constructive addition to the rankings. But i also think that NO quality points is better than an arbitrary, brain-dead QP system.

hingis-seles
Jan 12th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Say you've got a hypothetical Tier 1 in Papua New Guinea and nobody in the Top 20 plays it. The cutoff is 140. Should the winner get only half the points than if they had won Zurich where almost the entire Top 20 was in the draw? I think no. The WTA designated both tournaments IN ADVANCE, equally, as Tier 1s, and all the players knew this and had the choice to play or not to play them. The reasons why many players didn't want to play in New Guinea shouldn't factor (disproportionately) into the ranking value.

I do think it should be possible to build some sort of QP system that would be a constructive addition to the rankings. But i also think that NO quality points is better than an arbitrary, brain-dead QP system.

In your example, the player who wins in Papua New Guinea will have won against lower-quality opposition than the player who wins in Zurich. Therefore, the accomplishment of winning the Zurich title will be greater than the accomplishment of winning the Papua New Guinea title, even though both are the same Tier level. Assuming, the ranking system measures performance and accomplishment, it would seem fair that the Zurich champion get more points than the Papua New Guinea champion.

The distribution of quality points in the previous system was a bit too inflated, but Fingon's suggestion in the first post of this thread seems logical to me. Quality points as a percentage of the round points.

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Therefore, the accomplishment of winning the Zurich title will be greater than the accomplishment of winning the Papua New Guinea title, even though both are the same Tier level.
No, because you forget to take into account the willingness of the Papua New Guinea title winner to make the trip, and her smart scheduling.

Anyway, this is all useless. We have a new system, and the players will make adjustments. Therefore, applying the old system on results happening now and in future is meaningless. The same goes for applying the new system on past results.

hingis-seles
Jan 12th, 2006, 06:22 PM
No, because you forget to take into account the willingness of the Papua New Guinea title winner to make the trip, and her smart scheduling.

But, winning Papua New Guinea would give her fewer points as no notable players were around (Yes, the round points would be the same, but under a perfect system, she would lose out for defeating the Unknown-ova's instead of the Amazonian beasts). Which begs the question: was her scheduling really that smart? Again, the ranking system isn't supposed to make players play more events. It's just supposed to measure their results from various tournaments, to give an accurate indication of their standing for entry and seeding purposes in tournaments.

GoDominique
Jan 12th, 2006, 06:28 PM
It's a smart move under the new system.
It's maybe a dumb move under the old system.

It depends. :)

hingis-seles
Jan 12th, 2006, 07:03 PM
It's a smart move under the new system.
It's maybe a dumb move under the old system.

It depends. :)

Yep.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Say you've got a hypothetical Tier 1 in Papua New Guinea and nobody in the Top 20 plays it. The cutoff is 140. Should the winner get only half the points than if they had won Zurich where almost the entire Top 20 was in the draw? I think no. The WTA designated both tournaments IN ADVANCE, equally, as Tier 1s, and all the players knew this and had the choice to play or not to play them. The reasons why many players didn't want to play in New Guinea shouldn't factor (disproportionately) into the ranking value.

you are totally wrong, the fact that the wta designated both tournament in advance equally is completely and utterly irrelevant.
You don't evaluate the tournament for what you expected it to be, but for what it actually was.
The reason why players didn't play in New Guinea is not important at all (for this purpose) and it SHOULD FACTOR into the ranking value, because it affects the ranking value.
It's about measuring reality, not standards, with that criteria, you should just handle the crown to the # 1 seed, after all she is "expected" to win.


I do think it should be possible to build some sort of QP system that would be a constructive addition to the rankings. But i also think that NO quality points is better than an arbitrary, brain-dead QP system.
to be perfectly honest with you, the problem I have demonstrating that this system is crap is basically that the previous system was crap also.
I am not so much into quality points or no quality points, I am mostly on the point that the WTA continues degrading the system even further, because the fucked it up over the years, then any new mistake doesn't seem as bad.
They have done things really odd with the system. Talking about quality points, 2 years ago they rewarded points based on player's special rankings instead of real rankings. When I asked them they told me that wta wanted to reward Venus and Serena for their oustanding accomplishments, I was like wtf? how could giving their opponents extra quality points would be in their benefit? This kind of thinking (or lack thereof) is a common place in the wta.
I am a programmer, and there is a very interesting concept in programming (or more generically logic) called fuzzy logic.
That's basically the problem with the ranking, people try to apply absolute logic to it, when in reality, logic is never absolute but fuzzy
There is a classic example in a book about fuzzy logic. it says, suppose you have a "pile" of sand, let's say 1 billion grounds.
YOu can remove one at the time. Question, when does it stops being a pile and becomes a "buck", or a "bunch"? answer, when you say so, depends on your definitions, there is not a right or wrong answer, there a good enough answer.
Another example, let's say you want to rank people based on age. Pretty easy, but not as easy if you want to classify them in "old" and "young", it basically depends on what you decide to be old.
If you say old is over 65, fine, anyone over 65 is old, everyone else is young, and kind of make sense.
But if you say old is over 30, then, you system will still correctly tell you who is "old" according to that definition, but you can clearly see it's wrong.
More over, setting the "old" limit at 30 could have made sense 100 years ago, but not now.
Even clearer, and more related to the problem with the ranking, counting years is quite straight forward, a person who is 10 years old was born 10 years ago, quite simple, but if you decide to change how you calculate that number, and let's say, assign everyone the last digit of the year they were born as their "age" (0-9), then you would have bizarre results.
You can argue if a 60 years old person is really old or not, but there is no doubt that person is older than someone who is 55, but if the numbers are assigned randomly, you can't possibly say someone who is 5 is older than someone who is 3, it's meaningless, but if you still believe the numbers are correct, then you have a serious problem.
Of course, the ranking problem is not that, but the concept is the same, the system is as flawed as it can be, so the numbers are not really meaning anything, except in big blocks.
You can't find a system that is perfect, but you can find a system that is good enough, and that might require some work, some fine tuning. I talked about a system I believe would work well, but said nothing about the actual numbers, I would use neural networks for that, I would actually start with an arbitrary set of numbers (like this year numbers) and adjust them progressively to make them more accurate, not 100% accurate, just accurate enough.
But it's too much to ask for the wta to understand fuzzy logic or logic for that matter, well beyond their mental capabilities.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 07:42 PM
No, because you forget to take into account the willingness of the Papua New Guinea title winner to make the trip, and her smart scheduling.

Anyway, this is all useless. We have a new system, and the players will make adjustments. Therefore, applying the old system on results happening now and in future is meaningless. The same goes for applying the new system on past results.

Finally something we can agree on.
To be perfectly honest once again. NO, I don't think the wta will change anything because we say so. No, I don't think they give a shit.
And no, I don't think the ranking changes are the worst or most important wta problem. I think the wta is wrong in nearly everything but that's another matter.
What I am tired of is Larry Scott and Co doing whatever they want and nobody cares. I care, I see how this guy and the bunch of idiots around him are destroying the tour.
I don't expect anything said here will change things, I am not that stupid or naive, but it's the only forum where opinions can spread somehow. Maybe if the arguments are good enough, enough people would be convinced that things need to change. I don't have a column on the BBC or ESPN and all the rethoric here is mostly academic, it won't achieve practical purposes, but I do want to make clear to as many people as possible that the wta is fucked up (incidentally, I think the atp is fucked up as well, only that they market better).
It's simply a debate, you can participate or not. I read tons of thread titles that I don't even bother opening, so why would this be different? if people don't care they can just ignore it, and let the thread die. Maybe I am wrong but I think a forum is a place for debate, not for showing smilings and say "go xxxx" all the time, but maybe it's just me.

tommyk75
Jan 12th, 2006, 09:41 PM
I used to think the quality points were just too much, especially in situations where for example, a quarterfinalist would actually earn more points than a semifinalist. I also didn't like how more quality points would be given for a Grand Slam than other events.

That being said, getting rid of quality points was absolutely asinine. Fingon did a very good job of explaining the reasons, I think.

I think they should have kept quality points (although reduced from what they once were), and go to a divisor system with a 15 or 16 tournament-minimum with the 4 Grand Slams being required events (to eliminate the possibility of one-surface specialists skipping Slams to maintain a high average). I also think players should earn quality points from wins in Davis Cup or Fed Cup.

xan
Jan 12th, 2006, 10:31 PM
There is no point the WTA designting Tier 1 tournaments if players can get more points playing at other events.

The ranking system is the WTA ranking system, and so the WTA wants it to reward players who play in the Top Tier WTA events. They don't want a situation where Tier 1 events are dying on their feet because players are going elsewhere and still getting high ranking points.

I see the favourable aspects of quality points but I also see why the WTA and the tournament organisers got rid of them. If it helps keep the WTA circuit healthy and profitable and builds interest in Womens tennis, then it is a good thing.

Let's give the new system a chance before we start condemning it.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 11:45 PM
There is no point the WTA designting Tier 1 tournaments if players can get more points playing at other events.


the tier 1s offer twice the prize money of a tier 2, that alone should be enougn incentive.

The tier 1s that get weak field don't get them because of the competition of lower tier events, but because of idiotic scheduling by, once again, the wta.

Tokyo is played a week after a GS, Indian Wells, a two weeks event is played right after two events that wta players are forced to play (because of the tour sponsor) and because the next tournament is Miami, another two weeks event.
Rome is in a hard spot, Berlin used to be there and it used to be weaker, by that time many players are injured or too tired, and with a GS coming they don't go to risk.

Toronto/Montreal are at the end of a long list of tier 2/1s event on hardcourt, and is only two weeks before the US Open.

So, no, if the wta designed the schedule properly they wouldn't need to do anything.

The ranking system is the WTA ranking system, and so the WTA wants it to reward players who play in the Top Tier WTA events. They don't want a situation where Tier 1 events are dying on their feet because players are going elsewhere and still getting high ranking points.


see above, that's just plain wrong, of course the wta can do whatever they want, and we as fans can criticize their decisions, it's fair game.

I see the favourable aspects of quality points but I also see why the WTA and the tournament organisers got rid of them. If it helps keep the WTA circuit healthy and profitable and builds interest in Womens tennis, then it is a good thing.

Let's give the new system a chance before we start condemning it.

do you think a ranking system will drive revenue? where do you live, LalaLand?

How does it help keep the circuit healthy? huh? encouraging players to play more? are you serious?, profitable? my ass, revenues are going down, audiences are going down, attendance is down, what are you talking about?

build interest in women's tennis? do you really think you will attract people through a ranking system? what about making well designed ads not the dreadful "she can't cook but she sure can serve" piece of crap, what about stop laying and decepting fans, by promising the presence of players that never intended to play? how about stop hidding info from the fans, that btw are the ones paying for the tickets and giving the ratings.

Fingon
Jan 12th, 2006, 11:51 PM
btw,

nice one wta

Maria - Serena 4th round

Justine - Venus 4th round

:yeah: