PDA

View Full Version : 'True Rank'


megaburp
Oct 28th, 2006, 07:50 PM
As stated here in the past, the WTA bases it's ranking system on number of events entered, (as a reward for playing in more 'sponsers' events). However, the system is therefore not a true evaluation of player talent. The more accurate measure would be to obtain the players points earned per event played and devide this total by the actual number of events entered, (call it a 'power rating'). With that in mind, the 'True Rankings' as of 10/17/06 (with individual pt av accumlation per events played) are as follows: which results in some surprizes (top 10 only). For the top 100 do your own tabulations on your own time. Lindsay Davenport was right when she said, 'from my perspective, she's the top player in the world right now', (a reference to Hardenne). However, Watch out for Maria, she's on the rise with her recent US Open title. 1)Hardenne 289.42 2)Sharapova 238.36 3) Mauresmo 207.83 4)Clijisters 140.67 5)Kuznetsova 117.52 6) Hingis 100.68 7)Petrova 91.44 8)Dementiva 85.35 9)Davenport 81.67 10) Vaidisova 73.21

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:01 PM
Actually, Serena's #10

She's got 301 points with 4 events, so that puts her at 75.25

and Venus isn't far behind @ 74.5

:cool: so I agree :yeah:

ClaudiaZ-S
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:02 PM
Actually, Serena's #10

She's got 301 points with 4 events, so that puts her at 75.25

and Venus isn't far behind @ 74.5

:cool: so I agree :yeah:

It's easy to get a good ratio with 4 events! :p :rolleyes:

aNYthing
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:08 PM
It's easy to get a good ratio with 4 events! :p :rolleyes:

This is exactly why the wta does not use this supposed "true ranking"

Paul.
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:10 PM
i think this is quite ridiculous, thinking about it, because a player could just take the whole year off training and then win zurich at the end of the year and be number one in the world :lol:

barryproudfoot
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:11 PM
i think this is quite ridiculous, thinking about it, because a player could just take the whole year off training and then win zurich at the end of the year and be number one in the world :lol:

I think Anne Koethavong should do that next year :cool:

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:12 PM
It's easy to get a good ratio with 4 events! :p :rolleyes:

2 semis, the 4th round of US Open and that one tournament in Australia :p?

If it was easy, then why aren't more people getting that far in tourneys all the time?

Paul.
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:14 PM
2 semis, the 4th round of US Open and that one tournament in Australia :p?

If it was easy, then why aren't more people getting that far in tourneys all the time?

i see what you're saying but you cant exactly call 4 tourneys "all the time" :lol:

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:14 PM
by the way, I did vote 'yes' it made a valid point, but only to real tennis fans. Because injuries are so prevalent, I think the WTA should find some mixture of the two. Golf has a VERY interesting system where they take the past 2 years. :shrug: I dunno, either way, Serena will be #1 this time next year anyway. She's got NOTHING to defend all year :lol:

RenaSlam.
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:15 PM
:worship:

ClaudiaZ-S
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:15 PM
I think Anne Koethavong should do that next year :cool:

Elena Baltacha should do it too :devil: Wimbledon is her goad :p

Aaron68
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:15 PM
This is exactly why the wta does not use this supposed "true ranking"

Correct. Amelie quits after the AO, has a ranking of 700 which no one can EVER surpass, and ends the year as #1. That's the extreme case.

There should be a number of tourneys which count toward one's ranking. The problem is now that that number is too high. Tennis, in this day and age, is too hard on the body, too demanding.

The season should be shorter, ending earlier, and the number of tourneys which count toward your ranking should be dropped to around 14 or 15.

Also, the difference between *winning* a tournament and being a runner-up or worse should be increased, as should the difference between Slams and Tier I's, and Tier I's and below.

ClaudiaZ-S
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:16 PM
can U add a third option: both :p

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:16 PM
i see what you're saying but you cant exactly call 4 tourneys "all the time" :lol:

you're taking it out of context :hug: :lol:, why don't more players make it that far in tournaments, if those points were so easy

Paul.
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Correct. Amelie quits after the AO, has a ranking of 700 which no one can EVER surpass, and ends the year as #1. That's the extreme case.

There should be a number of tourneys which count toward one's ranking. The problem is now that that number is too high. Tennis, in this day and age, is too hard on the body, too demanding.

The season should be shorter, ending earlier, and the number of tourneys which count toward your ranking should be dropped to around 14 or 15.

Also, the difference between *winning* a tournament and being a runner-up or worse should be increased, as should the difference between Slams and Tier I's, and Tier I's and below.

well, that isnt strictly true, because the rankings are over 52 weeks, so she would have to wait till december and then she would be number 1 - but only for a month :p

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Correct. Amelie quits after the AO, has a ranking of 700 which no one can EVER surpass, and ends the year as #1. That's the extreme case.

There should be a number of tourneys which count toward one's ranking. The problem is now that that number is too high. Tennis, in this day and age, is too hard on the body, too demanding.

The season should be shorter, ending earlier, and the number of tourneys which count toward your ranking should be dropped to around 14 or 15.

Also, the difference between *winning* a tournament and being a runner-up or worse should be increased, as should the difference between Slams and Tier I's, and Tier I's and below.

I agree, the minimum should be 10 or so.

Paul.
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:18 PM
you're taking it out of context :hug: :lol:, why don't more players make it that far in tournaments, if those points were so easy

i dont get it :lol:

megaburp
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Actually, Serena's #10

She's got 301 points with 4 events, so that puts her at 75.25

and Venus isn't far behind @ 74.5

:cool: so I agree :yeah:
Your absolutlely right. An inadvertant omission. In the case of Davenport, I had reviewed her total and bumped Schnyder from the top 10. However, the Williams sisters are right up there and considering their continued problems with injuries it is impressive that they remain in the top 20, although that won't last unless they can get back into action soon. Perhaps they should consult new trainers for injury prevention techniques and methods, and I think they need to possibly train a little harder sometimes but young people have a lot of distractions and sometimes it's hard to focus. In any case their are a number of outside factors that influence the rankings, including injuries that prevent some of the top players from holding onto their higher rankings. It was a very unfortunate injury for Mary Pierce the other day when she was trying to make a come back from other conditions. How are you coming along Serena? Hope to see you back in action soon. Take Care!

Rexman
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:23 PM
The problem with also is why would anyone ever enter anything other than a Grand Slam? You could, in theory, hurt your ranking, by playing a tier II event.

Aaron68
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:25 PM
well, that isnt strictly true, because the rankings are over 52 weeks, so she would have to wait till december and then she would be number 1 - but only for a month :p

You are right. But all I said was that she would end the year as #1, which is correct. So, after the AO, we would know the YE #1. Also, Amelie would be in the YEC, having played one tournament all year. It's just an extreme example to show how silly it is.

Obviously, the WTA and tennis fans want to see the top players actually PLAY tennis. If you aren't playing tennis, then you are a tennis player in name only. But the system as it stands now is too grueling. A few tweaks, a slightly shorter season, and more points for winning would help everyone, AFAIC.

Paul.
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:28 PM
You are right. But all I said was that she would end the year as #1, which is correct. So, after the AO, we would know the YE #1. Also, Amelie would be in the YEC, having played one tournament all year. It's just an extreme example to show how silly it is.

Obviously, the WTA and tennis fans want to see the top players actually PLAY tennis. If you aren't playing tennis, then you are a tennis player in name only. But the system as it stands now is too grueling. A few tweaks, a slightly shorter season, and more points for winning would help everyone, AFAIC.

oh yeah! i didnt really think of that! she would be very out of shape in the YEC :lol::lol:

Aaron68
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:28 PM
The problem with also is why would anyone ever enter anything other than a Grand Slam? You could, in theory, hurt your ranking, by playing a tier II event.

Right.

If you take the 4 Slams and the YEC, that's five. Add 9 Tier I tourneys. That's 14. That's a good number, and it isn't some huge change from now. It's a small change.

:inlove:
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:30 PM
I think that is quite ridiculous. :lol:

mike/topgun
Oct 28th, 2006, 08:38 PM
simply amazing:lol:

megaburp
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Probably those who vote N on the poll referencing this origiinal thread are partial to players rated lower by 'True Rank'. Those being the players who enter 25, 30 and more tournaments a year which of course raises their point total and therefore their ranking value simply because they play in more events as opposed to players who earn more points with higher finishes in fewer events (but who still manage to remain higher ranked nevertheless) or other players whose injury factor in not considered. Clearly, true rank rates the best players the highest, as should be the case. If rlooking for a true player talent evaluation, stick with the 'True Rank' system because the WTA rankings obviously do not stack up accurately. Only close.

LH2HBH
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:19 PM
As stated here in the past, the WTA bases it's ranking system on number of events entered, (as a reward for playing in more 'sponsers' events). However, the system is therefore not a true evaluation of player talent. The more accurate measure would be to obtain the players points earned per event played and devide this total by the actual number of events entered, (call it a 'power rating'). With that in mind, the 'True Rankings' as of 10/17/06 (with individual pt av accumlation per events played) are as follows: which results in some surprizes (top 10 only). For the top 100 do your own tabulations on your own time. Lindsay Davenport was right when she said, 'from my perspective, she's the top player in the world right now', (a reference to Hardenne). However, Watch out for Maria, she's on the rise with her recent US Open title. 1)Hardenne 289.42 2)Sharapova 238.36 3) Mauresmo 207.83 4)Clijisters 140.67 5)Kuznetsova 117.52 6) Hingis 100.68 7)Petrova 91.44 8)Dementiva 85.35 9)Davenport 81.67 10) Vaidisova 73.21

The current ranking system is tabulation of points earned by players entering official, sanctioned events. I don't understand what you mean by sponsored. All events are "sponsored" and they all earn points depending on what tier event they are based on the size of the prize money and the draw.

The current ranking system is an accurate representation of points earned in a rolling 52-week system. If players choose to enter 4 tournaments per year that is their choice.

Players who play 12-20 tournaments in a season are the players who are dedicated to the sport week in and week out they deserve their points and their rankings. Their true ranking IS their true ranking.

Martina Navratilova is more talented than Jelena Jankovic. Do I think she should be ranked higher than her? No.

azdaja
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:23 PM
this is nonsense. the present system is alright. players should be required to play a certain number of tournaments and results from them should count. whether or not 17 is too much is debatable, of course, but it's alright in my opinion.

megaburp
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:24 PM
The final point is, 'True Rank' rates a player on their average finish per total events entered. That would be their average tournament finish for all events entered in the current season. This tells you what kind of a performance you can currently expect from them on average. It is of course current based on the last year or so of averages. The same player may have performed better or worse in past years and that also tells you whether they are improving or digressing. Younger players often improve, (or not) and older players gradually fade away. Then there are the other outside factors like focus/concentration, fatigue, injury, personal issues, needed corrections in technique or training, love life, family, outside careers and whatever else may effect their game. Some of these cannot be factored in except for results obtained in spite of them; but with the 'True Rank' system, injury is compensated to some extent.

megaburp
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:48 PM
The current ranking system is tabulation of points earned by players entering official, sanctioned events. I don't understand what you mean by sponsored. All events are "sponsored" and they all earn points depending on what tier event they are based on the size of the prize money and the draw.

The current ranking system is an accurate representation of points earned in a rolling 52-week system. If players choose to enter 4 tournaments per year that is their choice.

Players who play 12-20 tournaments in a season are the players who are dedicated to the sport week in and week out they deserve their points and their rankings. Their true ranking IS their true ranking.

Martina Navratilova is more talented than Jelena Jankovic. Do I think she should be ranked higher than her? No.
your right, all events are 'sponsered'. the more events a player and their body can attend the better for events and their 'sponsers'. however, is this a safe and responsible approach to the wear and tear factor on players? the younger ones can probably enter far more events w/o dyer consequnces, but over time it will begin to take a toll. certainly it would be better to limit the number of events, or required events and be able to present a fresher and healthier product that in the end would also be more entertaining to watch. However, the more sponsers and the more events there are is going to generate more capital, right? It seems money is always the bottom line factor in generating motivation. The best solution would be to limit ranking points to the slams and top tier events. The other events would still allow for more player exposure, fan access and sponser generating income w/o affecting the ranking system. Top players could still pick and choose to enter some of the secondary events on a limited basis as they are feeling fit or maybe just rotate those obligations annually and those outside events could still proper w/o endangering the health of certain players who may try to keep up when they should be getting more breaks and needed rest.

P_Fer
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:54 PM
I voted no but I think it does have some valid points

mike/topgun
Oct 28th, 2006, 09:55 PM
but with the 'True Rank' system, injury is compensated to some extent.
that's right...

azdaja
Oct 28th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Probably those who vote N on the poll referencing this origiinal thread are partial to players rated lower by 'True Rank'. Those being the players who enter 25, 30 and more tournaments a year
no :shrug: in fact, i suspect those who voted yes, did it because their faves don't play much.

the system you proposed is good for statistics, but otherwise it's silly. you have to demand something from players, not just good average statistics. it's the same in every sport.

GoDominique
Oct 28th, 2006, 10:09 PM
Probably those who vote N on the poll referencing this origiinal thread are partial to players rated lower by 'True Rank'. Those being the players who enter 25, 30 and more tournaments a year which of course raises their point total and therefore their ranking value simply because they play in more events as opposed to players who earn more points with higher finishes in fewer events (but who still manage to remain higher ranked nevertheless) or other players whose injury factor in not considered. Clearly, true rank rates the best players the highest, as should be the case. If rlooking for a true player talent evaluation, stick with the 'True Rank' system because the WTA rankings obviously do not stack up accurately. Only close.
Shut up.

LH2HBH
Oct 28th, 2006, 10:16 PM
How about we call the current system "True Rank"

and we call your system "Megaburps Idiotic Made-Up Rank System"

megaburp
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:39 PM
some folks just can't face the facts. the truth is the truth and the stats don't lie.

Chewie
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:10 AM
This site list much better format:
http://tedstennis.tripod.com/index.html

Based on win-loss ratio and average opponent rating(how tough draws a player has). It also gives some penalty losses for not playing 17 tournaments. Bigger tournaments are weighted a bit more too.

Legend:
W-L: win - loss
adj rating: adjusted rating with penalty losses
avg op rating: average opponent rating
pl: penalty losses
unadj rating:unadjusted rating, where penalty losses are not added and it doesn't matter how many tournaments you played.

I have found this site being very accurate information concerning at what level a player is really playing. It's also interesting to see how tough draws player has had.

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:53 AM
Lets use some example comparisons. Elena Dementiva (WTA #7) is a fine player with youth on her side. Yet she's over ranked at this time by WTA standards, having played in 23 tournamnets. She's simply not a better player at this time then say Martina Hingis (WTA #8), who has played in ony 19 events yet trails Elena by only 50 points. The latter has a long history of performance including an extended ranking at the top over the course of her career. Injuries and a leave of 3 years have affected her standing since then, and probably several players have also passed her level of play since that time too. This was only used as an example and is not mean't to demean Elena'a game in any way. She still has great potential and may yet get to the top of the rankings some day.

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:02 AM
I might clarify that it is productive for younger players and others to have the opportunity to play in 2nd tier events and develope their game. However again, I would reiterate that they should not nessicarliy be awarded points toward their rankings for these addtional tournaments against usually lesser competition, unless perhaps a DIV II ranking were devised for this purpose. Certainly not point values on a scale of the majors and tier one events.

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:10 AM
1 ( 1) HENIN-HARDENNE Justine 53-7 3062.9 2660.4 3.0 3109.1
2 ( 2) MAURESMO Amelie 55-13 3044.6 2686.0 0.0 3044.6
3 ( 3) SHARAPOVA Maria 54-11 3007.7 2646.8 1.8 3027.3
4 ( 4) KUZNETSOVA Svetlana 60-18 2947.3 2617.9 0.0 2947.3
5 ( 5) HINGIS Martina 52-17 2920.9 2621.3 0.0 2920.9
6 ( 6) CLIJSTERS Kim 40-12 2916.7 2646.2 1.8 2934.7
7 ( 7) PETROVA Nadezhda 52-19 2869.1 2585.3 0.0 2869.1
8 ( 9) DEMENTIEVA Elena 48-23 2854.4 2619.9 0.0 2854.4
9 ( 8) DAVENPORT Lindsay 23-10 2828.7 2687.8 4.8 2880.3
10 ( 11) SAFINA Dinara 47-22 2826.6 2592.5 0.0 2826.6
11 ( 10) SCHNYDER Patty 49-27 2819.7 2604.3 0.0 2819.7
12 ( 13) CHAKVETADZE Anna 36-20 2808.2 2623.8 0.0 2808.2
13 ( 12) IVANOVIC Ana 35-17 2803.7 2599.4 0.0 2803.7
14 ( 14) VAIDISOVA Nicole 36-17 2783.0 2573.7 0.0 2783.0
15 ( 19) HANTUCHOVA Daniela 37-25 2773.5 2615.4 0.0 2773.5
16 ( 15) JANKOVIC Jelena 41-28 2773.2 2609.3 0.0 2773.2
17 ( 17) LI Na 39-22 2760.0 2574.3 0.0 2760.0
18 ( 16) SCHIAVONE Francesca 37-22 2745.1 2569.2 0.0 2745.1
19 ( 20) ZVONAREVA Vera 32-22 2727.7 2591.2 0.0 2727.7
20 ( 18) MYSKINA Anastasia 31-18 2726.2 2561.0 0.0 2726.2
21 ( 21) GOLOVIN Tatiana 26-19 2722.7 2603.1 0.0 2722.7
22 ( 22) PEER Shahar 37-19 2713.2 2520.0 0.0 2713.2
23 ( 23) PIERCE Mary 12-8 2693.3 2663.3 5.4 2760.0
24 ( 24) WILLIAMS Serena 12-4 2680.1 2621.3 7.8 2824.0
25 ( 25) KRAJICEK Michaela 27-17 2679.5 2542.4 0.0 2679.5
26 ( 27) STOSUR Samantha 32-26 2676.5 2561.8 0.0 2676.5
27 ( 26) SUGIYAMA Ai 31-25 2676.3 2560.6 0.0 2676.3
28 ( 29) SREBOTNIK Katarina 32-24 2676.0 2546.9 0.0 2676.0
29 ( 30) WILLIAMS Venus 13-6 2660.7 2600.8 6.6 2757.6
30 ( 28) ZHENG Jie 26-17 2657.1 2525.7 0.0 2657.1
31 ( 31) GRONEFELD Anna-Lena 30-25 2654.2 2546.2 0.0 2654.2
32 ( 34) DANIILIDOU Eleni 38-25 2645.6 2493.1 0.0 2645.6
33 ( 33) BARTOLI Marion 49-30 2639.5 2450.8 0.0 2639.5
34 ( 36) SANTANGELO Mara 34-27 2636.0 2516.6 0.0 2636.0
35 ( 35) SHAUGHNESSY Meghann 27-22 2628.9 2525.6 0.0 2628.9
36 ( 32) PENNETTA Flavia 29-18 2626.0 2478.7 0.0 2626.0
37 ( 37) KIRILENKO Maria 23-24 2622.5 2564.0 0.0 2622.5
38 ( 38) MEDINA GARRIGUES Ana Isabel 34-25 2610.9 2479.0 0.0 2610.9
39 ( 39) PENG Shuai 18-17 2604.4 2550.0 0.0 2604.4
40 ( 40) PERRY Shenay 35-19 2594.2 2424.4 0.0 2594.2
41 ( 41) RUANO-PASCUAL Virginia 23-16 2588.5 2486.5 1.2 2598.1
42 ( 43) SAFAROVA Lucie 25-23 2584.3 2507.9 0.0 2584.3
43 ( 42) SMASHNOVA Anna 21-16 2577.5 2492.9 0.0 2577.5
44 ( 45) LIKHOVTSEVA Elena 16-21 2575.4 2573.7 0.0 2575.4
45 ( 44) GARBIN Tathiana 44-21 2569.2 2369.5 0.0 2569.2
46 ( 49) BONDARENKO Alyona 42-30 2562.2 2412.9 0.0 2562.2
47 ( 47) DUSHEVINA Vera 21-24 2559.7 2531.2 0.0 2559.7
48 ( 48) BAMMER Sybille 23-27 2557.4 2518.7 0.0 2557.4
49 ( 55) CAMERIN Maria Elena 29-27 2550.3 2467.6 0.0 2550.3
50 ( 51) VESNINA Elena 30-29 2543.7 2463.3 0.0 2543.7

This, according to that site, is their version of the top 50!

*notice the bolded players, and their adjusted rankings

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Lets use some example comparisons. Elena Dementiva (WTA #7) is a fine player with youth on her side. Yet she's over ranked at this time by WTA standards, having played in 23 tournamnets. She's simply not a better player at this time then say Martina Hingis (WTA #8), who has played in ony 19 events yet trails Elena by only 50 points. The latter has a long history of performance including an extended ranking at the top over the course of her career. Injuries and a leave of 3 years have affected her standing since then, and probably several players have also passed her level of play since that time too. This was only used as an example and is not mean't to demean Elena'a game in any way. She still has great potential and may yet get to the top of the rankings some day.

But Martina plays more tier III , even tier IV .

More easy points for her than Elena .


off topic : Elena has played in 20 tourneys not 23 like you said

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:29 AM
But Martina plays more tier III , even tier IV .

More easy points for her than Elena .


off topic : Elena has played in 20 tourneys not 23 like you said
I'm referencing the '2006 WTA Rankings' as listed in the sports section of yahoo.com for Tennis. This shows Elena's rank at #7 with 23 events played. Investigating deeper into the player bio it also lists the results of each event the player entered with wins/losses/scores in the event, or if applicable, a championship result.

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:46 AM
But Martina plays more tier III , even tier IV .

More easy points for her than Elena .


off topic : Elena has played in 20 tourneys not 23 like you said
Looking further, I found several discrepancies in the yahoo stats. The 2006 WTA rankings shows 23 tournaments for Elena; while her profile there shows 20 WTA tournmanets with a WTA record of 43-17. Whatever. In Jan she defeated Hingis 6-2, 6-0 in the Toray Pan Pacific final as Hingus was just initiating her comeback from a 3 year absence. Hingis turned the tables when they met again in the Qatar Open around May in the 3rd round by a count of 6-3, 6-2.

Havok
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:04 AM
The best ranking system is being currently used by the ATP tour and it properly ranks players according to their overall results. For the men you can't hide awful results at Slams and TMS events since they AUTOMATICALLY count towards your rank whether you like it or not. Also only your best 5 of all your other optional events are taken into consideration. It's a great way to make sure everyone plays the TMS events (Monte Carlo, Madrid and Paris always get shafted though, due to their schedule locations :o) and rewards those who actually plays them all. As for the women, they just make up their schedule however they see fit and simply play tons so that all of their shitty results are replaced by better results. Also the race to the YEC is such a fucking joke for the WTA. It counts every single event playerd, when it SHOULDN'T. It should reflect exactly the rankings when the year ends, and it's waaaaaaaaaaaay off, as long as you participate in more than 17 events :o. Case in point Patty Schnyder had a shot at making the YEC over Hingis and Clijsters :o. Thank god she didn't, just barely though :tape:.

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:06 AM
It's just a personal opinion, however it must be obvious to those well informed that Serena or Venus are far more talented players then many players currently ranked ahead of them outside perhaps the top 5 with whom they are equally competitive when on top of their games. That is when they're not injured and apply themselves diligently.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:08 AM
I liked the Quality point system myself

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:09 AM
what about a system that keeps the last 17 tournaments on a rotating schedule, that way, injured players aren't punished for being out.

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:10 AM
The best ranking system is being currently used by the ATP tour and it properly ranks players according to their overall results. For the men you can't hide awful results at Slams and TMS events since they AUTOMATICALLY count towards your rank whether you like it or not. Also only your best 5 of all your other optional events are taken into consideration. It's a great way to make sure everyone plays the TMS events (Monte Carlo, Madrid and Paris always get shafted though, due to their schedule locations :o) and rewards those who actually plays them all. As for the women, they just make up their schedule however they see fit and simply play tons so that all of their shitty results are replaced by better results. Also the race to the YEC is such a fucking joke for the WTA. It counts every single event playerd, when it SHOULDN'T. It should reflect exactly the rankings when the year ends, and it's waaaaaaaaaaaay off, as long as you participate in more than 17 events :o. Case in point Patty Schnyder had a shot at making the YEC over Hingis and Clijsters :o. Thank god she didn't, just barely though :tape:.
I think your being fairly realistic about the topic, as opposed to many star fazed posters on this site.

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:17 AM
If they used a player's (last 17/best 17) tournaments for the ranking, Serena would be #5 in the world :haha: with 2884 points (Bejing 2004-US Open 2006)....she'd be ranked behind Venus @ #4 with 2986 points (Antwerp 2005-Luxembourg 2006)

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:22 AM
:haha: If they used a player's last 17/best 17 tournaments for the ranking, Serena would be #4 in the world :haha: with 2884 points (Bejing 2004-US Open 2006)

And wouldnt Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graff be right up there too :lol:

IceHock
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Nah, not happenin

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:25 AM
they're not active players :rolleyes: but I mean, conceptually, using a player's last 17 tournaments (if they have played less than 10 tournaments/year because of injury) is a kinda legitimate idea.

DomenicDemaria
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:33 AM
There can never be a system that shows 'true rankings'. Each system has good things about them and flaws. I believe the system with quality points was better than the new one. Someone who wins a tier 1 beating no top 20 players gets the same points as someone who beats 3 top 5 players.

morningglory
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:58 AM
I agree partially... there should be a cap on the minimum no.'s of tourneys played... I'd say around 10... a player with less than ten get's zero's weighed in into their average... Otherwise a player who only wins a tier 1 and doesn't play the rest of the year might be no.1...

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:21 AM
One final thought on this this is to rank a players winning percentage from their current match record and again this bears out my theory on the point system average for the 'true rank'[ method: 1) Hardenne 52-7 .881 2) Sharapova 55-8 .873 3) Mauresmo 46-11 .807 4) Clijisters 33-9 .804 5) Kuznetsova 56-18 .757 6)Hingis 52-17 .754 7) S. Williams 12-4 .750 8) Petrova 47-15 .746 9) Davenport 21-8 .724 10) Dementiva 43-17 .716 (etc.) as in 11) Safina 44-21 .698 12) Vaidasova 35-16 .686 13) V Williams 12-6 .667

megaburp
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:43 AM
Oh, and finally, one more final, final thought. Former or current #1's Mauresmo, Hardenne, Sharapova, Clijisters, Hingis, Davenport, S Williams, V Williams.

perseus2006
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:50 AM
The truth:

The data used for Megabump's list is faulty, erroneous and questionable.

Naldo spouts off at length about ranking systems he knows nothing about. The WTA Ranking includes points from the Four Slams and Miami plus the best results from up to 12 other tournaments in a 52 week moving window.

The Race uses points from all tournaments played in the current year. The Race system was devised to encourage players to play!!! Some have gone overboard, still other do not play. The Race system does need some work but it has little impact on the top 8.

Patty, BTW, is #9 in both systems. She must be doing something right!!!