PDA

View Full Version : The top ten based on avg. points per tournament


DA FOREHAND
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:24 PM
1) Justine 349.07:worship: :worship:
2) Serena 279.62:worship: :worship: :worship:
3) Maria 256.33
4) Venus 147.08:worship:
5) Sveta 142.85
6) Ana 142.85
7) Amelie 134.66
8) JJ 122.46:eek: And she wants to bitch about Sharapova's rank?
9) Nicole 122.00
10)Anna 117.54


Nadia, Daniela and Bartoli are at 93.25, 78.72 and 63.48


It appears that the ranking system is designed to make the players play more, but that hasn't improved the quality of play, or the stature of the tour.

Shepster
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:28 PM
Not really, if you look at the top players (i.e. those with serious aspirations to winning every slam they enter) they all have light schedules. 17 tournaments is not an unrealistic cut off, only a handful of the top 30 play less than that - most play 21-25.

Hantu515
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:32 PM
the average doesn't work. If some USOpen WC like Audra Cohen (who has about 3 tours right now on her ranking) won the USOpen then they'd almost surely be #1. Does that mean the quality is there, NO! she'll have only played 1 WTA tournament.

Hantu515
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:34 PM
Also this means nothing because what if a player like Justine played a tier III and won it. that would be what 150ish points? it would make her average go down even though she won the tournament

Shepster
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:35 PM
the average doesn't work. If some USOpen WC like Audra Cohen (who has about 3 tours right now on her ranking) won the USOpen then they'd almost surely be #1. Does that mean the quality is there, NO! she'll have only played 1 WTA tournament.
Also you have to ask the question if say Venus had to play as many tournaments as Ana and Sveta would she keep that average? Nope, she gets the success she does through the schedule she has.

Geisha
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:36 PM
If we used this ranking system, we'd have much better SFs and Fs.

Venus vs. Justine
Maria vs. Serena

Not bad.

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:42 PM
everyone knows wta is about quantity and not quality....maybe if they were then the'd actually get people who "care"

DA FOREHAND
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:43 PM
Also you have to ask the question if say Venus had to play as many tournaments as Ana and Sveta would she keep that average? Nope, she gets the success she does through the schedule she has.

The point is they don't have to play that many tournaments? I think both of them would rather have a slam title and play less.

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:43 PM
If we used this ranking system, we'd have much better SFs and Fs.

Venus vs. Justine
Maria vs. Serena

Not bad.

Those would be better....I'd pay to see those....as well as Ana :bounce:

Shepster
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:44 PM
1 HENIN, JUSTINE BEL 2,716,410
2 WILLIAMS, SERENA USA 1,799,034
3 WILLIAMS, VENUS USA 1,505,523
4 IVANOVIC, ANA SRB 1,475,620
5 JANKOVIC, JELENA SRB 1,437,780
6 SHARAPOVA, MARIA RUS 1,201,149
7 KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA RUS 1,078,844
8 BARTOLI, MARION FRA 950,416
9 HANTUCHOVA, DANIELA SVK 813,030
10 CHAKVETADZE, ANNA RUS 795,432

- going on prize money. For a Williams fan thought you'd pimp that... ;)

azdaja
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:48 PM
the calculated results above are incorrect for players who played more than 17 tournaments. you can't simply take the number of points gained in their best 12 results and mandatory tournaments and then divide it through the number of tournaments played overall.

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:58 PM
the old rank worked that if you had played less than 14 tourns, then your total pts would still be divided by 14.

canuckfan
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:58 PM
People should praise Jankovic for playing that much and supporting the tour instead of bitching about it all the time.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:06 PM
1) Justine 349.07:worship: :worship:
2) Serena 279.62:worship: :worship: :worship:
3) Maria 256.33
4) Venus 147.08:worship:
5) Sveta 142.85
6) Ana 142.85
7) Amelie 134.66
8) JJ 122.46:eek: And she wants to bitch about Sharapova's rank?
9) Nicole 122.00
10)Anna 117.54


Nadia, Daniela and Bartoli are at 93.25, 78.72 and 63.48


It appears that the ranking system is designed to make the players play more, but that hasn't improved the quality of play, or the stature of the tour.

Wrong!

Jankovic = 4108/28 = 146.71 pts per tour

You should've figured out how the ranking works before posting these "averages".

DA FOREHAND
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:15 PM
1 HENIN, JUSTINE BEL 2,716,410
2 WILLIAMS, SERENA USA 1,799,034
3 WILLIAMS, VENUS USA 1,505,523
4 IVANOVIC, ANA SRB 1,475,620
5 JANKOVIC, JELENA SRB 1,437,780
6 SHARAPOVA, MARIA RUS 1,201,149
7 KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA RUS 1,078,844
8 BARTOLI, MARION FRA 950,416
9 HANTUCHOVA, DANIELA SVK 813,030
10 CHAKVETADZE, ANNA RUS 795,432

- going on prize money. For a Williams fan thought you'd pimp that... ;)

If you are referring to me I"m a Venus Williams fan. All of the top players are pretty well off prize money while important means little in historical context.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:16 PM
Wrong!

Jankovic = 4108/28 = 146.71 pts per tour

You should've figured out how the ranking works before posting these "averages".

I used the rankings on yahoo sports thanks for the update.Go to the head of the class

Javi.
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:18 PM
People should praise Jankovic for playing that much and supporting the tour instead of bitching about it all the time.
Indeed.:cool:

Poova
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:20 PM
This information is wrong anyway. The WTA system counts the best 17 results, so in affect you are dividing a player's best 17 by the amount of total tournaments they have played in total.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:24 PM
I used the rankings on yahoo sports thanks for the update.Go to the head of the class

:p

Averages for those who play <=17 tournaments over 52 weeks (Henin, Sharapova, Serena, Venus) are correct. But if player competed in more than 17 events you should count her points from ALL tournaments she played over the last 52 weeks (not only her 17 best results). For example, Jankovic's 18th best result (which isn't counted towards her ranking) is 100 pts.

vadin124
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:33 PM
if you calculate this for the whole of the Top 100...then some notably high players are...

Tatiana Golovin ... 13th on the list

Marion Bartoli ... 19th on the list

Lindsay Davenport ... 23rd on the list

Tamira Paszek ... 26th on the list

Yan Zi ... 44th on the list

Ioana Raluca Olaru ... 47th on the list

Dominika Cibulkova ... 52nd on the list

Martina Muller ... 54th on the list

Caroline Wozniacki ... 56th on the list

Timea Bacsinszky ... 60th on the list

Alize Cornet ... 63rd on the list

Gisela Dulko ... 68th on the list

Aravane Rezai ... 74th on the list

Alla Kudryavtseva ... 83rd on the list

Maria Elena Camerin ... 86th on the list

Angelique Kerber ... 94th on the list

treufreund
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:34 PM
Wow great for Justine considering she is missing the Aussie Open which most likely would have raised her average even more. Slams really can raise averages but don't tend to lower them unless you crash out very early.

Ana&Jelena Fan
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:20 PM
People should praise Jankovic for playing that much and supporting the tour instead of bitching about it all the time.

Couldn`t agree more. I feel very sorry when I can`t see Williams sisters more. Do you really like to see tierI tournament with three top10 players or tierII tournament without top10 player? That would be if every top player will play 15 or less tournaments per year.

FrenchY52
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:28 PM
Marion :tape:

RAA
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:33 PM
Couldn`t agree more. I feel very sorry when I can`t see Williams sisters more. Do you really like to see tierI tournament with three top10 players or tierII tournament without top10 player? That would be if every top player will play 15 or less tournaments per year.


not to get side tracked but the reason I can't support JJ playing so many tournament is that she is going to BURN HER SELF OUT. its crazy how much she plays. I don't think its "supporting the tour" when, at this rate, she could be out of tennis is 5 years. she's going to hurt herself playing so much. she needs to take it down a notch and think about the future. there really is no use playing more than 17 tourneys once you are going deep into them week after week. its just suicide.

I think 2008 will be different for her and she won't play as much.

Bruno71
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:42 PM
What if hypothetically Daniela Hantuchova had been injured or otherwise out in every tournament except Indian Wells? Her average would be 465. Would that make her more deserving of being ranked #1 than Justine? In your system, players who win Tier III tournies in addition to Tier I's are severely penalized. It's inherently flawed.

Hantu515
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:50 PM
The point is they don't have to play that many tournaments? I think both of them would rather have a slam title and play less.

and here I thought that professional tennis players enjoyed playing tennis... stupid me

Poova
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:02 PM
What if hypothetically Daniela Hantuchova had been injured or otherwise out in every tournament except Indian Wells? Her average would be 465. Would that make her more deserving of being ranked #1 than Justine? In your system, players who win Tier III tournies in addition to Tier I's are severely penalized. It's inherently flawed.
There was a minimal divisor when this system was used on the WTA Tour anyway, which used to be 12 but was then raised to 14, so even if you didn't play 14 events your score was divided by that anyway. So Dani's average would have been 33.214... but I agree with you, it's a bad system to use in general.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:35 PM
and here I thought that professional tennis players enjoyed playing tennis... stupid me
They do love to play tennis the wise ones choose when it's time to peak and have a life off the court..

ying and yang...


I think JJ would do better to cut back on the number of tournaments played, and play doubles at the events she does sign up for ala Hingis and McEnroe who also loathed practicing.

Hantu515
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:41 PM
I think they can have a life playing more than 8 weeks a year

Hantu515
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:44 PM
but I do think Jelena plays quite a bit im not argueing that but there is a lot of room between 8 and 28. 17-18 seems appropriate

DA FOREHAND
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:48 PM
but I do think Jelena plays quite a bit im not argueing that but there is a lot of room between 8 and 28. 17-18 seems appropriate

And I think 12 is about right differing in opinion i'm alright w/that. But when a player bitches about the #2 player in the world who has a slam title in her total perhaps that player should consentrate on doing well often vs playing often.

Shvedbarilescu
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:01 PM
everyone knows wta is about quantity and not quality....maybe if they were then the'd actually get people who "care"

Would you like to explain what you mean by this? :confused:

Expat
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:12 PM
Would you like to explain what you mean by this? :confused:

i guess s/he means that if quality was imp to WTA
then the players wouldnt be forced tosign on to tournaments they have no interset in playing and the schedule would be made shorter instead of playing in front of horny sheikhs who have no respect for women's rights

Shepster
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:09 PM
I think JJ would do better to cut back on the number of tournaments played, and play doubles at the events she does sign up for ala Hingis and McEnroe who also loathed practicing.
While I agree she should cut back on the overall number of tournaments I take it you didn't know she's played doubles at 12 tournaments this year (and that doesn't include her mixed doubles Wimbledon win)...

Expat
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:12 AM
While I agree she should cut back on the overall number of tournaments I take it you didn't know she's played doubles at 12 tournaments this year (and that doesn't include her mixed doubles Wimbledon win)...
does this girl not get tired or what

Ellery
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:13 AM
Justine :worship:

DA FOREHAND
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:20 AM
While I agree she should cut back on the overall number of tournaments I take it you didn't know she's played doubles at 12 tournaments this year (and that doesn't include her mixed doubles Wimbledon win)...

you're right i wasn't aware of that. certainly couldn't tell based on the bricked volleys she had in the Canadian final:eek:

Dan23
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:31 AM
And I think 12 is about right differing in opinion i'm alright w/that. But when a player bitches about the #2 player in the world who has a slam title in her total perhaps that player should consentrate on doing well often vs playing often.
What did Jelena say about the #2 player?

Il Primo!
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:36 AM
What did Jelena say about the #2 player?

To sum up, she basically said it's surprising Maria's the #2 player since she only won one tournament, or something like that.

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2007, 02:19 AM
Average points per tournament does a better job of showing you who the best players are than the current system, but the ranking system IS supposed to encourage players to enter more tournaments. The current system does that better.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 22nd, 2007, 03:37 AM
To sum up, she basically said it's surprising Maria's the #2 player since she only won one tournament, or something like that.

actually she was peeved because maria hadn't won a title yet this year before defending her acura crown

fufuqifuqishahah
Aug 22nd, 2007, 04:22 AM
actually she was peeved because maria hadn't won a title yet this year before defending her acura crown

that probably just fueled maria even more.

but jj was right though... that is... about being how strange it was. but as far as the following comment is concerned....
And I think 12 is about right differing in opinion i'm alright w/that. But when a player bitches about the #2 player in the world who has a slam title in her total perhaps that player should consentrate on doing well often vs playing often.
... i think its good that she's playing as often as she is. it's good for the tour and perhaps that's how she performs her best?