PDA

View Full Version : Breaking News: WTA Tour too dumb to understand their own system


GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:15 PM
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/3/newsroom/stories/?ContentID=987

"If Mauresmo loses, she will finish fourth in the Yellow Group and give Hingis the right to play in the semis. If Mauresmo beats Henin-Hardenne in straight sets, she'll finish No.1 in the group, but if the Frenchwoman needs three sets, Henin-Hardenne is first."

:weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo:

I guess they've been reading WTAWorld threads.

tenn_ace
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:19 PM
isn't pierce57965794 employed by WTA?

Paneru
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:21 PM
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/3/newsroom/stories/?ContentID=987

"If Mauresmo loses, she will finish fourth in the Yellow Group and give Hingis the right to play in the semis. If Mauresmo beats Henin-Hardenne in straight sets, she'll finish No.1 in the group, but if the Frenchwoman needs three sets, Henin-Hardenne is first."

:weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo:

I guess they've been reading WTAWorld threads.

Hey, it's their championship so
maybe they know something you don't. ;)

Lady
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:21 PM
Does this really count as Breaking News tho?
Didn't we all know it for a while?

I mean, is anyone actually surprised that they got it wrong?

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Hey, it's their championship so
maybe they know something you don't. ;)
Unlikely.

SelesFan70
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:23 PM
And if a butterfuly flaps its wings in China.... :scratch:

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:24 PM
The only reason this system exists is because the WTA, ATP, and ITF
have chased away all the fans and media.

If members of the sports media tried to explain this system to fans,
they would be ripping it nonstop. Because it's impossible to explain the possibilities.

This is a stupid, incomprehensible system.

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:25 PM
This is a stupid, incomprehensible system.
Yes, for dumbasses like you or WTA staff. :)

Lady
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Yes, for dumbasses like you or WTA staff. :)

Seriously, it's rather simple, isn't it?
All you have to remember is 2 rules.

SelesFan70
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:29 PM
Seriously, it's rather simple, isn't it?
All you have to remember is 2 rules.

1. Win
2. In straight sets

:lol:

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:31 PM
This is incredibly stupid.
Nadia beat Mauresmo, lost to Justine and Hingis.
Hingis lost to Justine and Amelie and beat Nadia.

How does that determine who's in and who's out?

Play a regular draw.

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:33 PM
This is incredibly stupid.
Nadia beat Mauresmo, lost to Justine and Hingis.
Hingis lost to Justine and Amelie and beat Nadia.

How does that determine who's in and who's out?

Play a regular draw.
Nadia sucked and losted - get over it!

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Nadia beat Mauresmo in 2 sets.
What she did is equivalent to what Hingis did.

This system is pathetic.

And it's only around because tennis is totally out of mainstream sports now.

It's a little cult sport that goes unnoticed, even when deciding champions.

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Nadia beat Mauresmo in 2 sets.
What she did is equivalent to what Hingis did.

This system is pathetic.

And it's only around because tennis is totally out of mainstream sports now.

It's a little cult sport that goes unnoticed, even when deciding champions.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

What a bitter old fool.

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:40 PM
Nadia sucked and losted - get over it!

losted :rolls:

It's lost you dumb fuck :o


And, just to make a point, there is a chance that you guys are wrong about the system. In both '03 and '04 the set % was used to determine who moved on, and in '05 they used H2H. There is a chance that they tried it for one year then decided to switch back. I mean, do you have the actual written rule??? I understand why you're insisting it's H2H, but isn't there a chance you're wrong?

tenn_ace
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Nadia sucked and losted - get over it!

Why are you ALWAYS so abrasive?

MH0861
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:43 PM
losted :rolls:

It's lost you dumb fuck :o


And, just to make a point, there is a chance that you guys are wrong about the system. In both '03 and '04 the set % was used to determine who moved on, and in '05 they used H2H. There is a chance that they tried it for one year then decided to switch back. I mean, do you have the actual written rule??? I understand why you're insisting it's H2H, but isn't there a chance you're wrong?

Well in '04, it was a three way tie between Davenport, Serena and Myskina, and they used the Set %. Last year, there was a tie between Davenport and Sharapova and they used the H2H... it depends on how many people are tied.

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Why are you ALWAYS so abrasive?
I'm not. But goldenlox is among the people who must be handled that way.

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:45 PM
losted :rolls:

It's lost you dumb fuck :o


And, just to make a point, there is a chance that you guys are wrong about the system. In both '03 and '04 the set % was used to determine who moved on, and in '05 they used H2H. There is a chance that they tried it for one year then decided to switch back. I mean, do you have the actual written rule??? I understand why you're insisting it's H2H, but isn't there a chance you're wrong?
Did you write that article? :tape:

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:46 PM
Did you write that article? :tape:

yup :)

tenn_ace
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:46 PM
I'm not. But goldenlox is among the people who must be handled that way.


I never had that impression. She's always been nice to me.

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:46 PM
Well in '04, it was a three way tie between Davenport, Serena and Myskina, and they used the Set %. Last year, there was a tie between Davenport and Sharapova and they used the H2H... it depends on how many people are tied.

woops :o lol. I didn't realize that there were 3 people tied... i didn't even both looking at that :tape:

But, still, if the WTA Tour is writing an article like that, they must have some grounds on which to base their information :shrug:. Yes, they are stupid, but i'm just saying it's a possibility

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:48 PM
I never had that impression. She's always been nice to me.
Goldenlox is male, I believe.

So you haven't seen him/her raving like a nutcase about Anna K. yet, I believe.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:51 PM
I doubt that anyone is certain about this system.
And I'm not anti this system because Nadia is out.

This system isn't about who wins the matches.
It's very possible there will be a 3-way tie in a 4 player group.
It could be both groups.

They should bring in Patty, Dinara, Nicole, Jelena Ana, Anna C,
and the rest of the top 16, and play a draw like every other tournament.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Goldenlox is male, I believe.

So you haven't seen him/her raving like a nutcase about Anna K. yet, I believe.You are an idiot

spencercarlos
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:53 PM
This is incredibly stupid.
Nadia beat Mauresmo, lost to Justine and Hingis.
Hingis lost to Justine and Amelie and beat Nadia.

How does that determine who's in and who's out?

Play a regular draw.
I understand you feeling because Nadia lost one more set than she won, like Hingis but 4/5 > 3/4 and mathematics don´t lie.

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 01:56 PM
I doubt that anyone is certain about this system.
And I'm not anti this system because Nadia is out.

This system isn't about who wins the matches.
It's very possible there will be a 3-way tie in a 4 player group.
It could be both groups.

They should bring in Patty, Dinara, Nicole, Jelena Ana, Anna C,
and the rest of the top 16, and play a draw like every other tournament.

This system makes perfect sense, for several reasons:
1. If it is a 2-way tie and H2H is used, it breaks the tie and there is no chance of it being tied after that (wheras sets oculd be tied)

2. The BETTER player should get into the semifinals. Therefore, if Hingis beats Petrova then it is right to assume that in that match she was the better player (or petrova played so bad that she just handed the match over). Anyway, by using H2H, the player who played better against the person they are tied with will get into the semis, and rightfully so. Do you honestly think Petrova should make the semifinals OVER Hingis, even though she lost to her? By rights, Hingis was better than Petrova and should make it over her.
........

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:01 PM
This system makes perfect sense, for several reasons:
1. If it is a 2-way tie and H2H is used, it breaks the tie and there is no chance of it being tied after that (wheras sets oculd be tied)

2. The BETTER player should get into the semifinals. Therefore, if Hingis beats Petrova then it is right to assume that in that match she was the better player (or petrova played so bad that she just handed the match over). Anyway, by using H2H, the player who played better against the person they are tied with will get into the semis, and rightfully so. Do you honestly think Petrova should make the semifinals OVER Hingis, even though she lost to her? By rights, Hingis was better than Petrova and should make it over her.
........When this tournament started, I was all for this system.
I knew I would see Maria-Kim, Justine-Amelie.
Those were guaranteed with round robin.

But now that I've seen it, I much prefer a draw.
Especially when I see the possibility of 3 players at 1-2.
No fair way to pick the one SF player

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:03 PM
When this tournament started, I was all for this system.
I knew I would see Maria-Kim, Justine-Amelie.
Those were guaranteed with round robin.

But now that I've seen it, I much prefer a draw.
Especially when

well then, please excuse the WTA tour for trying to be creative and not have every single tournament the same. It would be EXTREMELY boring if they just played an 8 or even 16 person draw, which is predetermined (or almost) by their seeds.

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:05 PM
When this tournament started, I was all for this system.
I knew I would see Maria-Kim, Justine-Amelie.
Those were guaranteed with round robin.

But now that I've seen it, I much prefer a draw.
Especially when I see the possibility of 3 players at 1-2.
No fair way to pick the one SF player

so basically you're saying this:

You liked the system
Petrova lost and you thought she had a chance ofnot making, so you weren't sure about it anymore
Petrova didn't make it, and you were no long in favor of the system

That's basically what you're saying :shrug:

GoDominique
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Especially when I see the possibility of 3 players at 1-2.
No fair way to pick the one SF player
Sweetie, this possibility has been known ever since. That fact that you needed this tournament to learn about it is quite telling.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:08 PM
so basically you're saying this:

You liked the system
Petrova lost and you thought she had a chance ofnot making, so you weren't sure about it anymore
Petrova didn't make it, and you were no long in favor of the system

That's basically what you're saying :shrug:Nadia lost 2 matches.
I'm fine with her not being in the semis.
Look at all the discussion in different threads about what the possibilities are.

If tennis fans, the real day to day fans, are confused,
how can this be a good system?

spencercarlos
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Nadia lost 2 matches.
I'm fine with her not being in the semis.
Look at all the discussion in different threads about what the possibilities are.

If tennis fans, the real day to day fans, are confused,
how can this be a good system?
I don´t like the system period, the 16 players draw was way better.
They just tried to copy cat the ATP and i think they failed once again. But what can i tell you they have used a fucked up ranking system since 1997 trying to get players into playing more tournaments=getting hurted=more injuries=more withdraws=players way overranked and so on.. So :(

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:13 PM
Especially when I see the possibility of 3 players at 1-2.
No fair way to pick the one SF player

and once again, GoDom has a point. There is one very good way to pick a SF player, and they've found it.

As stated above, the point is to get the best players, of that week, into the semifinals. So, if you lose match w/l, that's the obvious way to tell who has played the best.

The other obvious way would be set w/l. It's the next highest scoring in a match (after the actual match win). You're telling me a player like this:
1-2 in matches, lost their 2 matches in straights, won their one match in 3
should make it over a player like this:
1-2 in matches, won their match in straights, lost both their matches in 3
???
So, a player who is 1-2 and 2-5 should even be CONSIDERED as making it over someone who is 1-2 and 4-4? nope, don't think so.

moby
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:14 PM
But, still, if the WTA Tour is writing an article like that, they must have some grounds on which to base their information :shrug:. Yes, they are stupid, but i'm just saying it's a possibilityExactly. I can't find the rules on the ranking within each group. And that is WTA's fault - they should make it readily accessible.

In any case though, the WTA is inconsistent. :tape:

The initial stance, inferred from their saying that Martina's win over Nadia meant that Amelie could not end the year at number one i.e. Justine would not finish fourth in her group, clearly showed the H2H being used as a tiebreaker in two-way situations.

The latest write-up says that percentage of sets won is the first tiebreaker for all situations.

Arguments can be made for both methods, but please stick to one. :help:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:16 PM
WTA are just pathetic :o :o havent got a clue on how to do things at all :o


the only thing thats worse is the WTA dont have a clue on how to schedule matches.

Hingis might have beaten Mauresmo had it been Mauresmo's 3rd match as well.
Nadia plays her 3rd match before Mauresmo plays her 2nd :cuckoo:

the system is just not that hard to follow........ its rather basic for anyone who knows their mathematics.

Larry Scott you are a TOOL, as are the Madrid organisers.

lynch79
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:17 PM
Yeah, the old system was much better: Nadia out in round of 16!:lol:

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:18 PM
If tennis fans, the real day to day fans, are confused,
how can this be a good system?

they're not "confused". They just were unsure of the rule. It's very simple really:

1. Best record advances
2. If their records are tied, their H2H is used


if 3 are tied:
1. Set w/l % is used.
2. if that's tied, game w/l % is used.


:shrug: They weren't confused, but no one really knew the rules. Which, i'll admit, can be placed on the shoulders of the WTA for 1, not cleary stating the rule, and 2, for fu**ing up an article on the official website :tape:

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:20 PM
WTA are just pathetic :o :o havent got a clue on how to do things at all :o


the only thing thats worse is the WTA dont have a clue on how to schedule matches.

Hingis might have beaten Mauresmo had it been Mauresmo's 3rd match as well.
Nadia plays her 3rd match before Mauresmo plays her 2nd :cuckoo:

the system is just not that hard to follow........ its rather basic for anyone who knows their mathematics.

Larry Scott you are a TOOL, as are the Madrid organisers.Do you think this system is fair and makes sense?

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:20 PM
WTA are just pathetic :o :o havent got a clue on how to do things at all :o


the only thing thats worse is the WTA dont have a clue on how to schedule matches.

Hingis might have beaten Mauresmo had it been Mauresmo's 3rd match as well.
Nadia plays her 3rd match before Mauresmo plays her 2nd :cuckoo:

the system is just not that hard to follow........ its rather basic for anyone who knows their mathematics.

Larry Scott you are a TOOL, as are the Madrid organisers.


that's exactly what i'm saying :D

The WTA messed up by not posting the rule, and by screwing it up in their articles. however, it's not the rule that's confusing, it's the lack of an OFFICIAL and WRITTEn rule that is confused.

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:21 PM
Do you think this system is fair and makes sense?

i do. but you already know that. It makes perfect sense, and it's fair up until, like The Boiled Egg said, the scheduling. They could do a hell of a lot better than that.

lynch79
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:23 PM
i do. but you already know that. It makes perfect sense, and it's fair up until, like The Boiled Egg said, the scheduling. They could do a hell of a lot better than that.

I like the round-robin format, but yeah the scheduling was a mess. :o

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:25 PM
Do you think this system is fair and makes sense?

of course its fair, it was known at the start for everyone.

lynch79
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:32 PM
Yeah, the system is fair, because if there's a 3-way tie, it's fair to favour (mathematically) the one who's lost her two matches in 3 sets, it just shows she was the better player compared to the other two in the tournament. I mean, Amelie was pathetic against Nadia, and Nadia lost in straight sets against Justine. At least Martina fought hard in every single match. So, if Amelie loses today, Martina fully deserves to advance. It's a mathematic system, but it's also fair in the end.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:33 PM
they're not "confused". They just were unsure of the rule. It's very simple really:

1. Best record advances
2. If their records are tied, their H2H is used


if 3 are tied:
1. Set w/l % is used.
2. if that's tied, game w/l % is used.


:shrug: They weren't confused, but no one really knew the rules. Which, i'll admit, can be placed on the shoulders of the WTA for 1, not cleary stating the rule, and 2, for fu**ing up an article on the official website :tape:So this is it if both Kim and Sveta lose,
Lena, Kim, and Sveta - set w/l, then game w/l

I need a real draw.

moby
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:35 PM
So this is it if both Kim and Sveta lose,
Lena, Kim, and Sveta - set w/l, then game w/l

I need a real draw.It's really not that hard. :o

The problem for most people, as has been stated, is one of misinformation on the correct rules (because it's not been officially available), and not one of analysis.

metamorpha
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:38 PM
The scheduling is UNFAIR. If Hingis cast out, then the schedule should be blamed , as two players who played three days in a row couldn't make it. Round Robin itself is fine, though.

Is there any player who played three matches in a row beside Hingis and Nadia?

lynch79
Nov 10th, 2006, 02:42 PM
The scheduling is UNFAIR. If Hingis cast out, then the schedule should be blamed , as two players who played three days in a row couldn't make it. Round Robin itself is fine, though.

Is there any player who played three matches in a row beside Hingis and Nadia?

Also Kim and Svetlana. But at least they play their third match in the last day, NOT when the others have still to play their second match. Martina and Nadia's scheduling was unfair.

Beat
Nov 10th, 2006, 03:40 PM
What she did is equivalent to what Hingis did.

she beat herself?

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 04:28 PM
she beat herself?Yes, and they both went 1-2

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Nov 10th, 2006, 04:41 PM
I agree that the schedule had some problems. They wanted 3 matches a day and the group stage is totally 4 days. If you have that system, then you always get an unfair schedule. When Nadia ended her 3rd match, Mauresmo had only played once. 4 matches a day would be the best of course, but I think that will be a problem with tv airing.

And about who's through when Amelie lose? I really don't understand why there's so much discussion about it. The rules are simple and not new. The same as soccer. What can be difficult about it.:confused:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 10th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I agree that the schedule had some problems. They wanted 3 matches a day and the group stage is totally 4 days. If you have that system, then you always get an unfair schedule. When Nadia ended her 3rd match, Mauresmo had only played once. 4 matches a day would be the best of course, but I think that will be a problem with tv airing.

And about who's through when Amelie lose? I really don't understand why there's so much discussion about it. The rules are simple and not new. The same as soccer. What can be difficult about it.:confused:

they dont play football in US, so they dont understand the rules :o :o

twight6
Nov 10th, 2006, 04:58 PM
they dont play football in US, so they dont understand the rules :o :o

it's not that, it's that you don't have set scores, 3 way ties, then 2 way ties, game %, only 3 matches for each player :help:

Aaron68
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:10 PM
I seriously do not understand the complaints. The system isn't complicated.

The reason why a Round Robin is preferable to a 16 player draw is that these eight players battled all year long to be the ELITE. Having one bad day and losing to the 15th ranked player in the world, when you have accomplished so much during the whole of the season is not fair.

Those players who can't make the final eight don't deserve a chance at the championship. Let the players who proved to be the best over the course of the year, the WHOLE year, battle it out.

As to the scheduling, someone's always going to get screwed. If Martina makes the SF, then she will be happy to have had a day off before that match. It all depends on how you look at it. But let's face it: most tournaments, you play every day anyway.

-Sonic-
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:11 PM
Nadia beat Mauresmo in 2 sets.
What she did is equivalent to what Hingis did.

This system is pathetic.

And it's only around because tennis is totally out of mainstream sports now.

It's a little cult sport that goes unnoticed, even when deciding champions.

fuck off then

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:14 PM
I seriously do not understand the complaints. The system isn't complicated...

It is complicated.
Sveta can win and be out, or lose and be in.
That's what complicated is.

Aaron68
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:20 PM
It is complicated.
Sveta can win and be out, or lose and be in.
That's what complicated is.

It's not complicated at all. You just aren't used to it. Why you aren't used to it, when they have used this system for YEARS, I have no idea.

By the way, the ATP is going to be using a RR format for some regular tournaments next year. Anyone who watches football can understand how this works. Anyone who watches many Olympic sports can understand how this works.

All you are saying is that a player's advancement is not completely up to her. But that's not true. Go 3-0, you will advance every single year. Go 2-1, and you will advance 90% of the time. True, if you go 1-2, you might get through anyway, but you need help.

There are what? 1500 women ranked? Those players who make it to the Top 8 by working their butts off all year long deserve a lot more than a "1 and out" tournament.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Majors are 1 and out

Aaron68
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Majors are 1 and out

Oh, really?! I didn't know that!

Seriously, Slams have a 128 woman field. If you can't see the difference, I don't know how to explain it to you.

This is the YEC. The Elite Eight players in the World work all year to make it here. It's that simple.

And the system is not at all complicated, no matter how many times you claim it is.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:35 PM
Oh, really?! I didn't know that!

Seriously, Slams have a 128 woman field. If you can't see the difference, I don't know how to explain it to you.

This is the YEC. The Elite Eight players in the World work all year to make it here. It's that simple.

And the system is not at all complicated, no matter how many times you claim it is.If it comes down to a % of games won, ofcourse it's complicated.
The idea all year is to win your match.
Not count up the games thruout the tourny.

Aaron68
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:43 PM
If it comes down to a % of games won, ofcourse it's complicated.
The idea all year is to win your match.
Not count up the games thruout the tourny.

Oh, so like in football, the goal is to win games all year right? Not count up goals allowed and goals scored, right? RIGHT?!

Or, in American football, the goal is not to count up "Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed."? Right?

Give me a break. There are tie-break procedures in every sport. And having a RR, one that ANYONE can understand, is a good idea.

You just want to complain for the same of complaining.

goldenlox
Nov 10th, 2006, 05:49 PM
I will be complaining if Sveta breaks Sharapova's winning streak and doesn't make the semis.
Now, I wouldn't call this complaining.
I'm being realistic about a system that is supposed to break 3 way ties over a 3 match span.