PDA

View Full Version : For those that still doubt that the ranking system stinks


Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 04:19 PM
OK, Justine was dominant in 2007, had a great year, no doubts, still, it wasn't as dominant as say Graf or Navratilova or Evert or even Serena in 2002.

She won 2 GSs out of 3 played and got to the semis of the other.

Now, let's look at the point difference with #2 Kuznetsova before Australian Open.

Justine: 6,430 points
Sveta: 3,810 points

difference: 2,620 points.

Now, let's take Roland Garros (1,000 points), Wimbledon (450 points) and US Open (1,000 points off)

That's a total of 2,450 point.

Justine would still be # 1 by a difference of 170 points.

In other words, up to Sydney she has played 16 tournaments, take out the 3 GSs and with 13 tournaments and no Grand Slams she would still be # 1.

Grand Slams = irrelevant.

whatever Larry Scott.

serenus_2k8
Jan 20th, 2008, 04:23 PM
Im kinda confused about what this proves? 7 out of the top 10 seeds are still in, so the ranking system must be doing something right?

Although it is a totally different story on the mens side, I never doubted that the ranking system is effective? :confused:

goldenlox
Jan 20th, 2008, 04:27 PM
Slams are ITF. Rankings are done by the WTA and they want players in those WTA tournaments.

DefyingGravity
Jan 20th, 2008, 04:53 PM
I honestly think that it just shows that Justine brings her best tennis when she decides to play...at least the three slam winners of last year are in the top 8 as well.

thrust
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:04 PM
Justine has had the best record for the past two years, therefore, she is the #1 ranked player. All tournaments count, not just the Slams. The Slams do count more and, therefore, award the most points. Still, one must perform well the whole season not just at the Slams to be ranked #1.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:06 PM
cuz u know, Sveta, Jelena, Ana, Anna, & Maria won Grand Slams last year :rolleyes:

look, as an extreme example... let's say so-and-so won a Grand Slam, and did absolutely nothing for the rest year, whether it was cuz of injury or because so-and-so just sucked that bad the rest of the year. That person SHOULD NOT be in the top 10, and the ranking system protects against that. If Grand Slams were worth more, than someone like Marion Bartoli (i'm not hating here) would be ranked even higher, which is unfair and not reflective of her performance outside of Grand Slams.... er... that ONE GS.

Tennisstar86
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:11 PM
really it just shows that the real #2's arent up there. because:

Kuznetsova clearly isnt the #2 player...Jankovic god bless her... plays to much... her Grand slam results last year were not top 5....and Ana you could say got a bad draw with Venus at the US Open... the reason Justine is so far ahead is because the other people who did well in the slams, didnt play much...

Nicolás89
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:16 PM
If Henin wouldn't had win the french and the US Open, Ivanovic and Kuznetsova would had.
300 hundred points more for each.
1# Kuznetsova 4.110
2# Henin 3.980

Also without her Grand Slams points she would not be able to defend her 2006 points so take off 700 - 450 - 450 points for her.
1# Kuznetsova 4.110
...
....
.....
9# Henin 2.280

(Correct me if I'm wrong)

Dodoboy.
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:24 PM
i think youre right^^

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Absurd! You remove points from Henin but those extra points would have been won by other top players.

Slams are actually given A LOT of points.

chuvack
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:46 PM
OK, Justine was dominant in 2007, had a great year, no doubts, still, it wasn't as dominant as say Graf or Navratilova or Evert or even Serena in 2002.

She won 2 GSs out of 3 played and got to the semis of the other.

Now, let's look at the point difference with #2 Kuznetsova before Australian Open.

Justine: 6,430 points
Sveta: 3,810 points

difference: 2,620 points.

Now, let's take Roland Garros (1,000 points), Wimbledon (450 points) and US Open (1,000 points off)

That's a total of 2,450 point.

Justine would still be # 1 by a difference of 170 points.

In other words, up to Sydney she has played 16 tournaments, take out the 3 GSs and with 13 tournaments and no Grand Slams she would still be # 1.

Grand Slams = irrelevant.

whatever Larry Scott.


somebody is as drunk as a skunk.

Or maybe you just forgot that if Henin had not won those two Slams, some other player would have taken the winner's points.

Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:47 PM
cuz u know, Sveta, Jelena, Ana, Anna, & Maria won Grand Slams last year :rolleyes:

look, as an extreme example... let's say so-and-so won a Grand Slam, and did absolutely nothing for the rest year, whether it was cuz of injury or because so-and-so just sucked that bad the rest of the year. That person SHOULD NOT be in the top 10, and the ranking system protects against that. If Grand Slams were worth more, than someone like Marion Bartoli (i'm not hating here) would be ranked even higher, which is unfair and not reflective of her performance outside of Grand Slams.... er... that ONE GS.


I don't agree.

Take Venus for example, she won Wimbledon but she didn't perform too well in other tournaments, yet, she was still perceived as a better player than let's say Jankovic or Kuznetsova.

Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:50 PM
somebody is as drunk as a skunk.

Or maybe you just forgot that if Henin had not won those two Slams, some other player would have taken the winner's points.

and maybe you are not drunk, just plain stupid.

Yes smartass, somebody would have taken those points, you don't know who do you?

Second, I didn't say it was with Justine not playing or winning those slams, I said you can take those points off and she is still #1.

and, you are an idiot.

Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:52 PM
If Henin wouldn't had win the french and the US Open, Ivanovic and Kuznetsova would had.
300 hundred points more for each.
1# Kuznetsova 4.110
2# Henin 3.980

Also without her Grand Slams points she would not be able to defend her 2006 points so take off 700 - 450 - 450 points for her.
1# Kuznetsova 4.110
...
....
.....
9# Henin 2.280

(Correct me if I'm wrong)

and how do you know that?

Somebody else (e.g. Venus, Serena, Maria) could have been in the final and beat them.

The seeds would have been different, they could even not reach the finals.

Again, I didn't say if Justine didn't play, I said if they took the points away.

LudwigDvorak
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:56 PM
I don't agree.

Take Venus for example, she won Wimbledon but she didn't perform too well in other tournaments, yet, she was still perceived as a better player than let's say Jankovic or Kuznetsova.

Venus quarterfinal-ed and better at all events played in 2007 aside from three--Istanbul 2R, Miami 3R, and Paris 3R. She played 13 events. She doesn't even have 17 events tacked on. If she makes the Melbourne QF, she's #5 with 14 events.

1700 of her 2720 pts would be from the Wimbledon win, SF in USO, and QF in Melbourne if she advances no further. That's pretty good to me. :shrug:

chuvack
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:56 PM
and maybe you are not drunk, just plain stupid.

Yes smartass, somebody would have taken those points, you don't know who do you?

Second, I didn't say it was with Justine not playing or winning those slams, I said you can take those points off and she is still #1.

and, you are an idiot.



Thanks. Have you got an extra one of those Foster's oilcans in the fridge?

GoDominique
Jan 20th, 2008, 05:58 PM
I wish they would take away your rights of posting here. Dumbest thread ever.

Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 06:00 PM
Venus quarterfinal-ed and better at all events played in 2007 aside from three--Istanbul 2R, Miami 3R, and Paris 3R. She played 13 events. She doesn't even have 17 events tacked on. If she makes the Melbourne QF, she's #5 with 14 events.

1700 of her 2470 pts would be from the Wimbledon win, SF in USO, and QF in Melbourne if she advances no further. That's pretty good to me. :shrug:

that's not what I said, what I said that her overall results didn't warrant a higher ranking than she has but with her Wimbledon win, the perception was that she was probably the 3rd best player after Justine and Serena. Her results elsewhere are irrelevant to that consideration.
Justine was #1, Serena and Venus, the other slam winners were #7 and 8, yes, I know they don't play much, and that's the problem, the ranking system reward quantity, not quality, it has been like that since they dropped the average system that was a lot more accurate (like punishing first round losses for example and making the # of tournament above some threshold irrelevant)

Nicolás89
Jan 20th, 2008, 06:08 PM
and how do you know that?

Somebody else (e.g. Venus, Serena, Maria) could have been in the final and beat them.

The seeds would have been different, they could even not reach the finals.

Again, I didn't say if Justine didn't play, I said if they took the points away.

But yoou said first "the ranking system stinks".
The ranking system works on defending points so if you don't have GS' points you will lose what you gained the year before, Henin without her GS' points would barely satay in the top 10, thats how the ranking system works and thats why it does not stinks.

Your argument stinks on weakness I'd say, saying "if we take these points off of X player" to prove the ranking system stinks, it is just ridiculous, because the ranking system does not work on that way.

Tennisstar86
Jan 20th, 2008, 06:08 PM
that's not what I said, what I said that her overall results didn't warrant a higher ranking than she has but with her Wimbledon win, the perception was that she was probably the 3rd best player after Justine and Serena. Her results elsewhere are irrelevant to that consideration.
Justine was #1, Serena and Venus, the other slam winners were #7 and 8, yes, I know they don't play much, and that's the problem, the ranking system reward quantity, not quality, it has been like that since they dropped the average system that was a lot more accurate (like punishing first round losses for example and making the # of tournament above some threshold irrelevant)

SF at US OPEN? which was pretty much considered the final by everyone?

And last time i checked there still is a threshold....case in point Jankovic has played so much that one of her tournament wins last year wasnt even gonna count toward her ranking anymore....

You're an idiot....:rolleyes:

Expat
Jan 20th, 2008, 06:31 PM
while they may be no 1 in a year they wouldnt be recognised as such if they dont do well in the slams
i am sure no one acknowledges the person (martina if i am correct) who ended 2000 as no 1 with jennifer winning the first 2 slams and venus williams the last 2
however generally speaking
the average 17 plus bonus points would be a better way of ranking than ranking someone coming through a weak draw as the 4th quarter is right now
the current ranking is geared towards maximizing wta tour money and its all right to support the tour
however the seedings for the slams should be made independent of rankings so that the actual contenders dont meet each other quickly
no way is venus the 23rd most likely to win wimbledon even if she is playing really bad
if it was a combination of seedings plus past form she would be somewhere near the 8th seed if wimbledon organizers had their way

Whitehead's Boy
Jan 20th, 2008, 07:40 PM
I said you can take those points off and she is still #1.

That's because you fail to distribute the extra points to other players. :help:For the thread to be meaningful, you would have to prove after a distribution of points (by guessing who would have won those Slams instead of Henin) Henin is still number 1.

You can't just remove points to a player to make a point, it's a mathematical absurdity. You have to simulate different possibilities and show Slams don't give enough points.

But they actually do give enough points. The only thing your thread shows is that Henin was successful outside Slams too.

Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 08:10 PM
That's because you fail to distribute the extra points to other players. :help:For the thread to be meaningful, you would have to prove after a distribution of points (by guessing who would have won those Slams instead of Henin) Henin is still number 1.

no, you miss the point, guessing is guessing, you don't know who would have won them, why attribute them to Kuznetsova? even if you give French Open points to Ivanovic she wouldn't be #1. If Justine hadn't played US Open probably Venus or Serena would have been in the finals and my guess they would have beaten Kuznetsova just as easily.

You can't just remove points to a player to make a point, it's a mathematical absurdity. You have to simulate different possibilities and show Slams don't give enough points.

how is it a mathematical absurdity? it depends on what are you trying to show, and what I am trying to show is the disproportionate amount of points given by non-GS events.

2 = 1 is a mathematical absurdity, you can say it's a logical absurdity but not a mathematical one unless you can prove the reasoning (not the postulates) is false.

But they actually do give enough points. The only thing your thread shows is that Henin was successful outside Slams too.
that's not the point, if you take a look, there is no relation whatsover with the amount of points given by different tournaments, or different rounds.

For example, GS first round is 2 points, second round is 60 point, they earn 58 points for winning a first round match. Third round is 90 points, 30 points difference, so ranking wise it's more important winning a first round than a second round match, senseless.

If you look at the points table, it's obvious is has been built without any proper consideration, they just got it approximate, let's give more points for winning a tier 1 than a tier 2.

They bumped up GS points to compensate for quality points giving roughly what they thought was the same for winning it, which is not accurate either, you have the absurdity that a tournament like Linz gives the same points as Sydney for example, with a much weaker field.

I can enumerate hundreds of flaws in the system, that the wta, in attemps to fix it without giving up their stupid ideas makes worse and worse to a point it's meaningless.

Fingon
Jan 20th, 2008, 08:53 PM
while they may be no 1 in a year they wouldnt be recognised as such if they dont do well in the slams
i am sure no one acknowledges the person (martina if i am correct) who ended 2000 as no 1 with jennifer winning the first 2 slams and venus williams the last 2
however generally speaking
the average 17 plus bonus points would be a better way of ranking than ranking someone coming through a weak draw as the 4th quarter is right now
the current ranking is geared towards maximizing wta tour money and its all right to support the tour
however the seedings for the slams should be made independent of rankings so that the actual contenders dont meet each other quickly
no way is venus the 23rd most likely to win wimbledon even if she is playing really bad
if it was a combination of seedings plus past form she would be somewhere near the 8th seed if wimbledon organizers had their way


finally someone who understands it.

You mentioned Martina Hingis, on top of that, Martina was #1 in 1997 while Steffi Graf was holding 3 GS titles.

Davenport, Sharapova, Clijsters and Mauresmo had been #1 without holding a slam title.

the only thing I disagree is that the system is NOT working towards supporting the tour. The reason why they switched from an average to an accumulative system was that Steffi Graf and Monica Seles didn't play that much.

They haven't really made the very top players play a lot, Justine, Maria, Venus, Serena, they still don't play that much.

the WTA has tried so many stupid things that I can't keep track of it, last of them is the ridiculous mandatory tournaments, if they wanted to push players to play Miami, fine them, but don't distort the rankings to do it.

One absurdity people are not aware of is that even a player with a wild card has the tournament considered mandatory

saki
Jan 20th, 2008, 10:15 PM
The ranking system isn't perfect. But it can never really be designed to cope well with what we currently have - one player who is consistently reaching GS SFs and Fs and a load of players who occasionally do but don't consistently. There isn't one other player in the top ten who is performing consistently well at every GS. Any ranking system is going to struggle to find a worthy #2 in that scenario.

It's totally not really about playing a lot, either. Justine only played 14 tournaments last year. Venus played the same number.

égalité
Jan 20th, 2008, 10:19 PM
So because she was a billion times better than everyone else this year, slams are irrelevant? Tell that to Marion Bartoli's ranking.

People overvalue slams anyway. Playing well for two weeks shouldn't get you to #1. Playing well for 52 weeks should.

Tennisation
Jan 20th, 2008, 10:22 PM
what the hell is the purpose of this thread? No one is arguing that Justine isn't the #1 player in the world.:rolleyes: