PDA

View Full Version : Kim and Amelie Do Not Deserve To Be Ranked #1 and #2


pierce0415
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:33 PM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:

GoDominique
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:38 PM
Shocking!

Helen Lawson
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:40 PM
That's totally hilarious about Nadia and Patty! The truth reveals itself once again.

SAEKeithSerena
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:43 PM
whatever, they deserve it. if people don't wanna play more than 12 tournaments a year, that's their fault. all the more power to the people who earn it.

chuCKnorris
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:44 PM
there are only 17 tournaments that count to the ranking currently. If player competes in 12, then no wonder she isn't top ranked. :rolleyes:

Carmen Mairena
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:44 PM
:retard:

timafi
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:46 PM
dumb ass thread :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SAEKeithSerena
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:48 PM
there are only 17 tournaments that count to the ranking currently. If player competes in 12, then no wonder she isn't top ranked. :rolleyes:


absolutely my friend:worship:

pierce0415
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:02 PM
That's totally hilarious about Nadia and Patty! The truth reveals itself once again.

:worship: yes it shows that Nadia and Patty are way overrated while Justine, Lindsay and Mary are underanked

Helen Lawson
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:05 PM
there are only 17 tournaments that count to the ranking currently. If player competes in 12, then no wonder she isn't top ranked. :rolleyes:

I think Serena actually spent the majority of her 52 weeks or so at No. 1 with like only 12 tournaments. But not every player is Serena. :D

Ceze
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:13 PM
there are only 17 tournaments that count to the ranking currently. If player competes in 12, then no wonder she isn't top ranked. :rolleyes:true :yeah:

Buitenzorg
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:14 PM
Well, really HINGIS is deserve to be at TOP 10 :)

Buitenzorg
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Personally Justine is really #1 anyway! :kiss:

Kworb
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:15 PM
If your system was used, they would only play the Grand Slams and perhaps some Tier 1s.. :rolleyes:

saint
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:22 PM
I think you have to work really hard to play at a high level consistently and as only 17 tourneys count I don't think the system is inflated. Momo has won a grandslam two tier ii events and reached the quarters and final of another two tourneys so being no 2 was earnt the hard way.

bailey
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:33 PM
:tape: to you, because your stat is totally wrong! You can not divide Amelies 3538 points with 21, because those 3538 points are the result of her best 17 tournies! So, it should be:


1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Kim: 3,566 / 17 = 209.7
3 Amelie: 3,538 / 17 = 208.1
4 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
5 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
6 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Nadia: 2,160 / 17 = 127.06
9 Elena D: 2,043 / 17 = 120.2
10 Patty: 1,900 / 17 = 111.8
11 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2

fammmmedspin
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:34 PM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:

Or put another way it tells you who doesn't play a full tour, who has played well for a short time instead of over a year, who is the best injured player who won't turn up or who keeps the playing field uneven by only playing when they have rested and trained to have a good chance of winning.

harloo
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:36 PM
They played the most consistent tennis under the system and they deserve the spots. Let it go!;) :lol:

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:40 PM
Amelie should have stopped at two tournaments this year. Once she had the AO she was worth an average of 350 points. That would have been enough to guarantee her year-end no. 1, I imagine. :)

jenny161185
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:00 PM
haha ofcourse they should theyve won the last 3 big events and usually always finish runner up/ winners in the tourneys they enter

Melly Flew Us
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:13 PM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these....

blah blah, blah.

otherwise you have to add up the points from all tournaments. which you haven't bothered to do.

so i did it for you:
justine 233.167
mary 193.615
lindsay 193.357
amelie 192.818
kim 191.947
maria 171.6
venus 149.2
patty 103.211
elena 97.4762
martina 97.1667
nadia 93
myskina
67.2222
ana 60.8
serena 57
schiavone 56.6957

DragonFlame
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:26 PM
who cares for a rankingspot that much, it doesn't reflect who's the best . :o besides, we all know who the real no1. outside of the rankings is right now. and she'll get there in the rankings when she gets her ranking based on more tournies anyways ;) after the clayseason there's hardly anything to defend :devil:

Belco
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:32 PM
:lol:

MinnyGophers
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:51 PM
Amelie should have stopped at two tournaments this year. Once she had the AO she was worth an average of 350 points. That would have been enough to guarantee her year-end no. 1, I imagine. :)

Agreed, stupid system :worship:

njnetswill
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:54 PM
How about if a player only plays one event and wins it? instant number one! :worship:

CrossCourt~Rally
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:56 PM
How about if a player only plays one event and wins it? instant number one! :worship:

:haha:

hablo
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:57 PM
:lol: @ this thread

-Em-
Mar 8th, 2006, 10:57 PM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:


lo, you're such an idiot dude, definitely my 'fave' wtaworld troll atm :) and you can't even count properly. so sad :rolleyes:

xin_hui
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:07 PM
with seles,davenport gone, you are my favourite thread-starter:hearts:


[/sarcasm]:rolleyes:

hablo
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:17 PM
with seles,davenport gone, you are my favourite thread-starter:hearts:


[/sarcasm]:rolleyes:
:spit: don't you know Kim and Momo will never deserve their rankings ? get with the programme :p:haha:

azmad_88
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:20 PM
Mary Pierce WONT be number 1 this year.:)
is that what you trying to tell us

RJWCapriati
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:22 PM
I think it should be like this -

1. J. Capriati
2. M. Pierce
3. L. Davenport
4. M. Seles
5. P. Schynder

Thats just me .... :yeah:

No Name Face
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:28 PM
they did win the last two slams, no?

IceHock
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:47 PM
yeah i know they dont deserve it at ALL/mauresmo has only been the most dominant player from ao on clijsters has been unbelievable since lastyear iw.just because they play more tourneys doesnt mean they dont deserve it give it a break really dumb thread

iPatty
Mar 9th, 2006, 12:04 AM
You, my friend, are a moron.

:bs:

marmite1
Mar 9th, 2006, 12:09 AM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:

:rolleyes:

PLP
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:21 AM
I think it should be like this -

1. J. Capriati
2. M. Pierce
3. L. Davenport
4. M. Seles
5. P. Schynder

Thats just me .... :yeah:

But two of these players aren't even active so WTF? I love Jen and Monica but...? :confused:

Anyway, I think it would be an interesting system but it isn't the way things currently work and I don't see it changing. Also, If you want to be a top player you have to actually PLAY, it's only logical. I am glad Justine isn't #1 because I find her annoying...She used to be one of my favs and I don't deny she is incredibly talented. I think she has a wonderful game and I REALLY wish I could like her again but I don't yet... :rolleyes: maybe someday I will. I believe Kim and Amelie deserve their current rankings, no question, P

tennisrox
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:24 AM
:rolleyes:

Dave B
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:33 AM
AM has the best top two tournies out there...a GS and the YEC. It is tough to argue she is not the top player in terms of results, and she will soon be number one.

anlavalle
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:43 AM
Kim won the US Open last year and 8 more titles and Amelie won the masters, Oz and two more tournaments this year, so I think they totally deserve their current rankings.
so What is the point of been a pro player if you play only a few tournaments

Scotso
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:55 AM
Amelie should be ahead of Kim.

pineapple
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:25 AM
How about substracting the number of useless posts from the total number of post?! :)

tennisbum79
Mar 9th, 2006, 05:08 AM
I say they deserve it. They got where they are by winning. It is not their fault if some other players elected to play part time.

darrinbaker00
Mar 9th, 2006, 05:44 AM
How about substracting the number of useless posts from the total number of post?! :)
Like yours, for instance?

pineapple
Mar 9th, 2006, 06:02 AM
Like yours, for instance?
Ooops! :o Busted! :retard: :o
I just couldn't help trying to say that all those "what if" threads annoy me. Forgive me and carry on.

améliemomo
Mar 9th, 2006, 06:59 AM
Mary Pierce WONT be number 1 this year.:)
is that what you trying to tell us

I think that's it too

chuCKnorris
Mar 9th, 2006, 07:52 AM
Amelie should be ahead of Kim.
and she will on 20th March. Just a little patience... :p

DutchieGirl
Mar 9th, 2006, 08:54 AM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:

and guess what - we odn't use that ranking system, so they DO deserve to be #1! :p

mr_burns
Mar 9th, 2006, 09:01 AM
playewrs who play less then 17 aren't good for the tour...so what, they don't deserve it either

alex.2812
Mar 9th, 2006, 09:18 AM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:

Pierce doesn't deserve to be #2

Maryamator
Mar 9th, 2006, 09:26 AM
sorry but this year pierce doesnt deserve to be number 2!

suzie
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:21 AM
So your proposal for a new ranking system would be an average of the number of points earned in the number of tournaments played... is it?? :scratch:

It's absolutely useless to discuss "deserved" or "not deserved" rankings. Players ALWAYS deserve their rankings because according to the current system that's how they're "compared" to each other at a certain time. You can disagree with the current raking system criteria (and therefore discuss it), you cannot disagree with players rankings. How hard is it to understand the logic of this?!?

mandy7
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:22 AM
If you divide the number of points a player has by the number of tournaments they played to get the points, you get rankings like these. This much better reflects a player's ability and does not allow players to inflate their ranks from playing over 20 tournaments a year.

1 Justine: 2,798 / 12 = 233.2
2 Mary: 2,517 / 13 = 193.6
3 Lindsay: 2,707 / 14 = 193.4
4 Kim: 3,566 / 19 = 187.7
5 Maria: 2,574 / 15 = 171.6
6 Amelie: 3,538 / 21 = 168.5
7 Venus: 1,492 / 10 = 149.2
8 Elena D: 2,043 / 21 = 97.3
9 Martina H: 583 / 6 = 97.2
10 Nadia: 2,160 / 27 = 80 :tape:
11 Patty: 1,900 / 25 = 76 :tape:

is it their fault other ppl get injured or don't wanna play as often as they do?

azmad_88
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:24 AM
So your proposal for a new ranking system would be an average of the number of points earned in the number of tournaments played... is it?? :scratch:

It's absolutely useless to discuss "deserved" or "not deserved" rankings. Players ALWAYS deserve their rankings because according to the current system that's how they're "compared" to each other at a certain time. You can disagree with the current raking system criteria (and therefore discuss it), you cannot disagree with players rankings. How hard is it to understand the logic of this?!?

yeah imagine if player A just played one GS tournametn a year and won it.So she will get 700 points
and player B played 2 tournametns ONE gs and ONE tier 1 tournament and won both.She will get 1000 points

But through this peicewateevr system
PLayer A will get 700 ranking points
Player B will get 500 ranking points

Sevenseas
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:25 AM
Both girls worked very hard, put their hearts and souls into it, so well deserved! :worship:

suzie
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:58 AM
yeah imagine if player A just played one GS tournametn a year and won it.So she will get 700 points
and player B played 2 tournametns ONE gs and ONE tier 3 tournament and won both.She will get 1000 points

But through this peicewateevr system
PLayer A will get 700 ranking points
Player B will get 500 ranking points
Pretty "undeserved" :p unless you add a minimum number of tournaments per year... let's say 15 (less than that is not realistic or even fair) but that would hurt players rankings who couldn't play all 15 (e.g. last year's GS' winners Justine, Serena, Venus). IMO a maximum of tournaments still is a better criteria... the way I see it what lacks the current ranking system is a balanced quality points policy but that's another (unfortunately lost) discussion.

Rankings have nothing to do with favourite players. It doesn't take a tennis expert to understand that you can hardly find fair and unbiased rankings where Kim and Amélie won't stand as the 2 top players for a year time now. ;)

Jenny.C.Fan
Mar 9th, 2006, 11:24 AM
amelie deserves to be no1 and kim no2 they have been the best players on tour for the last half a year.

natacha1
Mar 9th, 2006, 11:57 AM
Mauresmo deserves to be on the nr 1 spot, and she will be the nr. 1.
Kim just has bad luck this year with her injurys.

Allez-H
Mar 9th, 2006, 12:10 PM
Both girls worked very hard, put their hearts and souls into it, so well deserved! :worship:

True :yeah:

Harju.
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:06 PM
It's still March and someone has already planned to win the troll award of the year :o

Barbarela
Mar 9th, 2006, 02:06 PM
It's still March and someone has already planned to win the troll award of the year :o

Don't say no more for today! :worship:

You have said everything! :lol:

Slumpsova
Mar 9th, 2006, 02:28 PM
nice try ! :haha:

tennisluver99
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:23 PM
It's awful that Kim and Amelie are ranked 1 & 2. It was so much better when slamless Davenport and Sharapova were ranked 1 & 2.

SelesFan70
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:24 PM
:smash:

timafi
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:27 PM
It's still March and someone has already planned to win the troll award of the year :o
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: