PDA

View Full Version : Wouldn't it be ironic...


manu
Nov 11th, 2006, 11:48 PM
...if Amélie would win tomorrow's match and be the 2006 Australian Open, Wimbledon and World Champion, but lose her #1 ranking the next day? I'm not saying this to discredit the system or Justine (I'm a Justine fan), but it would just feel a little weird IMO, even though Justine would have made the 5 biggest finals in tennis this year... Anyway, let's hope for an electric, exciting and totally fabulous match between 2 of the best (if not THE 2 best) players of 2006! :yeah: May the best win tomorrow :)

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:01 AM
The ranking system is set up to reward consistency, not greatness.
You can win all 4 majors, and not be #1 in points.

Lindsay just finished #1 in 2 straight years without winning a major or a YEC or Miami

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:04 AM
didn't you get that memo? dang.

it's all justine's evil plan to lose to mauresmo, claim the #1 rank, to frustrate mauresmo and her fans. she rigged the ranking points system, single-handedly.

check your email, the details are all in there.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:07 AM
I have never liked this ranking system.
This year is typical.
The average fan only knows the majors, and the WTA is giving #1 ranking to 1 slam win in the last 12 majors.


0 for 4, 0 for 4 - Lindsay.
1 for 4 - Justine

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:09 AM
The ranking system is set up to reward consistency, not greatness.
You can win all 4 majors, and not be #1 in points.

Lindsay just finished #1 in 2 straight years without winning a major or a YEC or Miami

First, no one from this generation has won all four Grand Slam titles in a calendar year.

Only Martina Hingis and Justine Henin-Hardenne have made it to the finals of all four grand slam tournaments in a calendar year.

The ranking system is set-up to reward winners and those that play well. Justine only played 13 events (including YEC), making it to the finals of 9 of those (doesn't include Fed Cup). No one on tour can claim that greatness.

Amelie Mauresmo made it to the finals of 7 of 17 tournaments she played.

All the crying and whining isn't going to change the greatness of Justine Henin-Hardenne. You will just have to live in your misery.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:09 AM
i think you need to do the following
1) hack the computer system, and change the ranking results
2) work for wta tour, and craft the ranking system yourself
3) scrape the points system for rank #1 only (since you still need to seed players and all that). consider having 5 slams in the world, and whoever wins the most just wins #1 ranking.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:10 AM
I'm not intending to knock Justine, a great player.
But everyone would rather win 2 majors than 1.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:12 AM
agreed. i'm sure every tennis player wants to win a slam. but this has no bearings then to this statement:
WTA is giving #1 ranking to 1 slam win in the last 12 majors

your statements are incongruent

manu
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:12 AM
Once again, this is NOT a thread to criticize the ranking system nor Justine. Justine's reached every important final there is in tennis this year, and won 1 (maybe 2) of them, so I think those results speak for themselves. She's been very consistent at the highest level imaginable. But IF Amélie WOULD win tomorrow's match, it would just seem a little weird to me to see the Australian Open, Wimbledon and World Champion NOT finish on top of the rankings... you know what I mean? It's just about the feeling, not the system, not Justine... I'm just wondering what other people would think about that.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:16 AM
i think the word consistency is not understood properly. perhaps you can go to dictionary.com

that aside, yes, the ranking system doesn't let the 2GS (potential YEC) to be world #1 this year. that's because, if you only show up during majors, during those sparse tournaments, it's not going to reward you with enough to take that position. CONSISTENTLY GOOD is they key, and what the ranking means.

of course, if you can change the system and make it more perfect, go ahead! tell wta tour how to do it!

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:20 AM
They don't want to change the system because they want the top players to play a lot.
Not train on their own and just play the majors.
Or maybe tank a match at Eastbourne or Sydney to be fresh for the major.

bandabou
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:29 AM
:lol: seems like the Juju-fans are getting a bit touchy here...relax. I guess they're having flash-backs of Kim being no.1 while Juju was winning the majors. The reaction at the time was: keep the no.1, we take the majors.... fast forward to 2006...

SJW
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:32 AM
:lol: seems like the Juju-fans are getting a bit touchy here...relax. I guess they're having flash-backs of Kim being no.1 while Juju was winning the majors. The reaction at the time was: keep the no.1, we take the majors.... fast forward to 2006...

I agree. Why the change in attitude? Oh right...

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:35 AM
well, i think justine fans were ok with justine not being ranked #1, and accepted the fact, and moved on. but here, we have many mauresmo fans thinking that mauresmo should be number 1 instead.

it's called acceptance of reality, and how the system works. delusion is often anesthetic in nature.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:41 AM
I'm not a Mauresmo fan.
The topic was, if Amelie wins tomorrow, is Justine a deserving #1.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:44 AM
no justine isn't a deserving #1. because goldenlox doesn't think so.

justine isn't a deserving #1 because she could get to the finals on all surfaces. justine isn't a deserving #1 too because she didn't play that much last year, and have many points to gain this year, less to defend this year.
justine isn't a deserving #1 because she didn't win one more major than mauresmo.
justine isn't a deserving #1 because she has lost several times to mauresmo. (so those who bagelled and beat mauresmo in majors, can be contenders of the #1 rank too yay!)

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:48 AM
I don't understand the bagel references. A major isn't a round robin.
They're not going by games win/loss %.
At a major, you win and you advance.
Who cares what the score is.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:50 AM
who cares about the score indeed. but to be bagelled at an alarming high frequency, only lends credibility to the ranking too.

SHOUTS: i'm a top rank player who gets bagelled by others frequently. because, i'm the most deserving and best #1 player in the world. GO ME!

I don't understand the bagel references. A major isn't a round robin.
They're not going by games win/loss %.
At a major, you win and you advance.
Who cares what the score is.

the wta ranking isn't about number of grand slams only either.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:58 AM
the wta ranking isn't about number of grand slams only either.This is the issue.
They both played Sydney and Melbourne.
They both played Eastbourne and Wimbledon.
Who got more points from those 4 tournaments?

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:02 AM
if you want to measure greatness by your narrow minded nature, it's ok. you want to measure it in the number of grandslams, which is the ONLY area that mauresmo has an edge on, and use it to argue who has a better year, better player, more deserving to be number 1, that's ok too.

the fact is, the measurement is a lot broader, and a lot more comprehensive, hence the ranking system in the 1st place to give a BIG picture.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:07 AM
When players retire, they talk about # of majors.
I know Borg won 11, I have no idea about what he did besides the majors.
For the very elite, that's it. Number of majors won. Not semipovas, not finalists.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:08 AM
when mauresmo retires, i will talk about her 2 majors (pending more to add until then).

and right now, i will talk about justine's 5 to mauresmo's 2.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Right. # of majors.
They will never talk about who finished #1 for 2006.
2006 was Amelie's year. Always.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:15 AM
good for you. you can live with that opinion for the rest of your life. i'm glad for you.

2006 may be amelie's year. 2006 is also the year the justine is the year-end #1.

facts don't lie. humans who interprete them for their own gains, do.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:16 AM
I'll give another example.
2004 will always be the year of the Russians.
Never Lindsay's year.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:18 AM
i will give you another example. your opinion is the truth. FIN.

i'm glad for you. can you wish for world peace now.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:20 AM
If Amelie wins tomorrow, and isn't POY, it's a travesty.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:22 AM
If amelie wins tomorrow, justine will remain as the WTA tour year end number 1. have won more slams than amelie this far. had a more consistent 2006 (stats prove that).

i feel sad that mauresmo won this many slams this year but not be the best deserving #1 player (we can go on and on for superlatives). perhaps she should have.....implemented her own ranking system.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:25 AM
Just think, one can say the whole year came down to the end of that 3rd set at Wimbledon

bandabou
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:27 AM
well, i think justine fans were ok with justine not being ranked #1, and accepted the fact, and moved on. but here, we have many mauresmo fans thinking that mauresmo should be number 1 instead.

it's called acceptance of reality, and how the system works. delusion is often anesthetic in nature.

:rolls: :lol: Accepted it? Really? :lol: :rolls:

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:28 AM
just think, one can say the whole year came down to.....mauresmo winning wimbledon.

and one can say the perspective of who is the best, deserving, and real #1, came down to.....goldenlox's opinion.

the rest of the year is....irrelevant. the rest of the world is.....irrelevant. the official ranking system is......irrelevant.

that was how the iraq war started.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:30 AM
If Sveta had the choice of having the year Amelie had, or Justine had,
there is no doubt she would take Amelie's year.
Every player would.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:39 AM
we are not talking about who trading whose year.

simply put. justine is more consistent this year. mauresmo had won 1 more GS than she had.

pooh14
Nov 12th, 2006, 02:39 AM
i think #no1 ranking represents consistency throughout the year for each and every tournament, not only the slam.

winning slam is great, but to just consider that for the year end ranking would discredit all the tournaments.

in my opinion, both winning slams and #no1 ranking is great.