PDA

View Full Version : How many titles should maria win to get higher rank?


mashamaniac
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:05 PM
I honestly don't understand wta's rankings system! it is absolutely ridiculous! i mean how many more titles should maria win in order to get to a higher rank on ranking system??:confused:
she's won two titles so far,one GS and one tier I but still at #5?? even there's no way to reduce her gap with #4 who's JJ and i think that's cruelty...or should they change the way that ranking's system works!
will she reach to #4 if she win at least 5 more titles in next 3 months!!!!:lol:

LindsayRulz
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:08 PM
The ranking system is based on 52 weeks, not 4-5. If Maria stays as consistant as she has been so far she'll be #1 at the end of the year though.

Uranium
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:08 PM
:yawn:

Slutati
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:10 PM
She's not gonna win anymore so...

slamchamp
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:10 PM
uranium?

serenus_2k8
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Why do you not understand it? Its pretty simple really? You cant win a slam (good as it is) and automatically hop up to number one :lol:

espresso
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:12 PM
She's won 2 tournaments and you expect her to be #1 already? :rolleyes:

FYI the #1 has won 2 tournaments also (not a GS I agree) but she's still won 2.

slamchamp
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:14 PM
Why do you not understand it? Its pretty simple really? You cant win a slam (good as it is) and automatically hop up to number one :lol:
he's not talking about reaching n1 with one slam, he's saying she should at least be 1 spot better after winning a GS and a tier 1

mashamaniac
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:14 PM
She's not gonna win anymore so...

So when was the last time tatiana won a single match??:rolleyes:

goldenlox
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:14 PM
She should be #2 after Miami. The way she's playing, it's only a matter of time.

Russianboy
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:15 PM
She's won 2 tournaments and you expect her to be #1 already? :rolleyes:

its not like she won a T2 and T3 :wavey:

she won a GS and killed everybody there.. beat peer in israel 1 and 1 and now she won a T1

Russianboy
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:15 PM
So when was the last time tatiana won a single match??:rolleyes:

:rolls:

Slutati
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:16 PM
So when was the last time tatiana won a single match??:rolleyes:
Australian open Rd1:p

mashamaniac
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:16 PM
She's won 2 tournaments and you expect her to be #1 already? :rolleyes:

FYI the #1 has won 2 tournaments also (not a GS I agree) but she's still won 2.

Go and buy yourself glasses plz...:wavey:

mashamaniac
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:17 PM
Australian open Rd1:p

Then kudos to her...:worship:

markhingis
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:18 PM
he's not talking about reaching n1 with one slam, he's saying she should at least be 1 spot better after winning a GS and a tier 1

you see, she was in the final of AO 2007, this year she won so she didn't get much points!

Ballbasher
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:18 PM
:lol:
Well Maria had to defend a FInal in Melbounre. What do you expect? In Doha she closed the gap and now she's ready too vertake the others ;)

Destiny
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:19 PM
Soon she will rise
Rise!!!
Rise Maria!!!

espresso
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:22 PM
its not like she won a T2 and T3 :wavey:

she won a GS and killed everybody there.. beat peer in israel 1 and 1 and now she won a T1

She won 1 tournament last year :tape: :spit: this is what her ranking is based on so far :wavey:

Mikey B
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:24 PM
doesnt matter what ranking she is, if she's playing well she's going to everything at this rate... she's never played well being ranked highly, her trips to the top have been the worst times of her career: late 05 and early 07.. why complain? she could drop lower for all i care as long as she's winning! lol!

Nicolás89
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Why do you not understand it? Its pretty simple really? You cant win a slam (good as it is) and automatically hop up to number one :lol:

Serena won Australia once and climbed from 8 to 2. ;)

Dodoboy.
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Even as a WS fan i really think this year could be Maria's!

All the signs are pointing too it!

But then again i bet most people thought Serena was going to dominate last year after winning the 2 most important tournaments in the first few months of the season!

heytennis
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:28 PM
She's very close to overtaking the #2-#4 spots.

theFutureisNow
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:30 PM
I don't have any problems with the way the rankings work.


It is a little weird though that Maria didn't improve her ranking from #5 after winning a slam and tier 1 she wasn't defending.

If this isn't the only time in history this has happened, it's got to be close.

bellascarlett
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:31 PM
:lol: The threadstarter wasn't suggesting Maria should be number one...people should chill. The TS is just asking how long it will take before Maria gets to at least number 4 in the rankings. After her great start to the season, you'd think she'd move up from number 5 but she's still there. But that's the way the rankings work. Jelena & Ana got far in the AO as well. I really don't know about Kuzzy though.

Actually I think it's a decent question. How many titles more or less will it take for Maria to get out of number 5?...I'm not a rankings person so I don't know as well but then again, I don't really care much as long as Maria plays like she has been. What's great about it though is that she can cause much damage earlier on. AO is a good example.

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:34 PM
In the past 52 weeks:

Ivanovic has won a Tier 1, and two Tier 2s
Kuznetsova has won a Tier 2
Jankovic has won two Tier 1s and a Tier 3
Sharapova has won a GS, and two Tier 1s

Clearly, Sharapova has won the most big titles except for Henin over the past year. The problem is, she hasn't played 17 tournaments and the WTA wants to reward players who play a lot / penalize players who don't play "enough".

Dodoboy.
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I am assuming the Tokyo points have been taken off but she has from not till after French Open : 650 points to defend she has already got a good start by winning Doha so a ascent up the rankings is not too unachievable!

bellascarlett
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:36 PM
doesnt matter what ranking she is, if she's playing well she's going to everything at this rate... she's never played well being ranked highly, her trips to the top have been the worst times of her career: late 05 and early 07.. why complain? she could drop lower for all i care as long as she's winning! lol!

True. She hasn't played comparatively well when at number one. But next time, if she gets there, I hope and expect that she'll be more ready.

serenus_2k8
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:38 PM
You cant just go on which titles you have won, Ana made 2 GS finals dont forget so she has a hell of a lot of poins from those 2 events alone, despite not winning.

morningglory
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:44 PM
It's not the # of titles alone... its the quality of the tourny too :lol:
That said, the ranking system IS fair enough... since it's based on a whole year, I think (from only two tournies) it's unfair to let Maria just pass JJ who's played SO often... for now...

Mic-190286
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Last year between the start of the year and Indian Wells Sharapova won 895 points, this year she has 1430, so she has 'only' gained 535 points, the gap will close soon.

Dave.
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:47 PM
This shows how great Henin, Ivanovic, Jankovic and Kuznestova were last year. Sharapova has alot to do to catch up with them. She's had a perfect start, but still it's only been 2 tournaments.

égalité
Feb 24th, 2008, 06:50 PM
She won 1 tournament last year and did nothing after that.

Why should she be number 1 for being the best player for the first 2 months of the season? :weirdo:

She'll probably get there after the U.S. Open. Be patient. :kiss:

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:11 PM
You cant just go on which titles you have won, Ana made 2 GS finals dont forget so she has a hell of a lot of poins from those 2 events alone, despite not winning.

Ana has gained 297 more points than Maria in 5 more tournaments played. I'd be willing to bet that if Maria were to play 5 more tournaments, she would gain over 297 points. Again, the ranking system rewards players who play more, because it uses point totals (up to 17 tournaments, of course). So a player who doesn't play 17 tournaments is at a severe disadvantage, and a player who players well over 17 tournaments is rewarded (because their shitty performances don't count.) Is this good, or is it bad? I don't know. After all, the WTA needs players to show up to tournaments, and it is harder to play week after week. I will say that it doesn't give a true representation of who the best players are, however. Anyone with eyes and an unbiased brain can tell that Maria has been the 2nd best player in the world over the past 52 weeks.

terjw
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:13 PM
It's possible that she could go up in the rankings after Dubai next week if she wins but she's still got 150 points to make up on JJ and 200 to make up on Kuzy. If not - then she should move up at Indian Wells and Miami.

I understand where the TS is coming from thinking Maria should be higher. Her results since the YEC make you think she should be higher. This is why I think that after 13 weeks your points earned should depreciate - say by 1/40the each week - so when you get to 52 weeks yout oldest score wouldn't artificially all come off in one go - it'd be coming off gradually all the time and it would only the last 1/40th of the year old score that would come off.

I have no doubt that if they adopted that system - Maria would be #2.

Think about it. Imagine Maria had her run from the YEC to now 10 months ago and was struggling now. In other words exactly the same overall results the last 52 weeks but no good recent results. Would we think of her as she should be higher. I don't think I would. I'm sure recent results count more in most people's minds than results 11-12 months ago.

I don't think the rankings are too bad. It's not they are that wrong. It's just that in these times if you don't apply some depreciation to older scores - I think the rankings sometimes lag behing a bit and take a bit longer than you might expect to catch up with the perceived reality. But they will catch up.

Kipling
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:14 PM
Who cares about the ranking, honestly? I'm sure she'd rather collect majors than weeks at #1. If she keeps winning, the ranking will take care of itself eventually.

1000
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:15 PM
So can Maria get to the number 4 ranking if she wins Dubai next week?

1000
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:16 PM
I love how everyone is saying her results have been the second best in the world the past 52 weeks because right before YEC people were just barely putting her in the top 10

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:18 PM
She won 1 tournament last year and did nothing after that.

Why should she be number 1 for being the best player for the first 2 months of the season? :weirdo:

She'll probably get there after the U.S. Open. Be patient. :kiss:

:weirdo: No one said she should be number 1. The thread starter talks about her moving up (to #4) from her number 5 ranking in which she started the year, and automatically a bunch of trolls come in the thread saying ":weirdo: Why should she be number 1 after 2 good tournaments?" :help:

random fan
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:19 PM
So can Maria get to the number 4 ranking if she wins Dubai next week?

Well if Ivanovic retires or looses in 1st round and Sharapova wins it all, she will be No.2

mashamaniac
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:21 PM
I agree with both you tamus and terjw! some members seem to not read my words then come up with these idiotic replies!!

mashamaniac
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Well if Ivanovic retires or looses in 1st round and Sharapova wins it all, she will be No.2

of course she can't lose in 1st round so Hopefully nikki will help maria there in the 2nd round...:worship::devil:

random fan
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:28 PM
of course she can't lose in 1st round so Hopefully nikki will help maria there in the 2nd round...:worship::devil:

Sorry, I should have said If Ivanovic looses her first match

heytennis
Feb 24th, 2008, 07:34 PM
Ana has gained 297 more points than Maria in 5 more tournaments played. I'd be willing to bet that if Maria were to play 5 more tournaments, she would gain over 297 points. Again, the ranking system rewards players who play more, because it uses point totals (up to 17 tournaments, of course). So a player who doesn't play 17 tournaments is at a severe disadvantage, and a player who players well over 17 tournaments is rewarded (because their shitty performances don't count.) Is this good, or is it bad? I don't know. After all, the WTA needs players to show up to tournaments, and it is harder to play week after week. I will say that it doesn't give a true representation of who the best players are, however. Anyone with eyes and an unbiased brain can tell that Maria has been the 2nd best player in the world over the past 52 weeks.

I'm a big Maria fan.. but no. You could argue that Venus has been better. Maria is playing well now but she doesn't deserve a high ranking quite yet. Too many shitty performances last year.

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 08:41 PM
I'm a big Maria fan.. but no. You could argue that Venus has been better. Maria is playing well now but she doesn't deserve a high ranking quite yet. Too many shitty performances last year.

Titles
Venus: Tier IV, Tier III, GS
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slams Performances
Venus: 3R, QF, SF, W
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Venus (slightly)

W-L
Venus: 51-12 (.810)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Venus: 6-7 (.462)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup


I don't see why you would say Venus has been better. :shrug:

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Titles
Venus: Tier IV, Tier III, GS
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slams Performances
Venus: 3R, QF, SF, W
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Venus (slightly)

W-L
Venus: 51-12 (.810)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Venus: 6-7 (.462)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup


I don't see why you would say Venus has been better. :shrug:

why don't you make the same comparison with Sveta, Ana and Jelena? You'll find the deserve their rank more:weirdo:

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 08:59 PM
why don't you make the same comparison with Sveta, Ana and Jelena? You'll find the deserve their rank more:weirdo:

Hold on, I'm fixin' to. But I'm kind of busy right now so it might take me a while.

random fan
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:02 PM
Stop pretending ranking is anything, but a useful tool to keep good players from running into each other early on in the tournaments. We all know that among top dogs it is all about Grand Slams. They just do not chase ranking that is not what they care about. Just take a look at Venus and Serena during these last 3 years...

Mic-190286
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:16 PM
:weirdo: No one said she should be number 1. The thread starter talks about her moving up (to #4) from her number 5 ranking in which she started the year, and automatically a bunch of trolls come in the thread saying ":weirdo: Why should she be number 1 after 2 good tournaments?" :help:

maybe they weren't replying to the thread starter but to some of the other posters getting carried away

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:41 PM
Titles
Ana: Tier II, Tier II, Tier I
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slam Performances
Ana: 4R, SF, F, F
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Ana

W-L
Ana: 48-15 (.762)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Ana: 13-6 (.684)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Titles
Sveta: Tier II
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slam Performances
Sveta: 3R, QF, QF, F
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Maria

W-L
Sveta: 53-20 (.726)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Sveta: 6-10 (.375)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Titles
Jelena: Tier III, Tier I, Tier I
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slam Performances
Jelena: 4R, QF, SF, SF
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Push?

W-L
Jelena: 67-25 (.728)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Jelena: 6-13 (.316)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup

DimaDinosaur
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:47 PM
Take a math class :rolleyes:

Expat
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:48 PM
Titles
Sveta: Tier II
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slam Performances
Sveta: 3R, QF, QF, F
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Maria

W-L
Sveta: 53-20 (.726)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Sveta: 6-10 (.375)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup

as expected dreadful numbers from sveta
why is she even being compared
3 top 10 wins in grand slams and u know what caliber she is of

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:49 PM
Titles
Ana: Tier II, Tier II, Tier I
Maria: Tier I, Tier I, GS
Edge: Maria

Slam Performances
Ana: 4R, SF, F, F
Maria: 3R, 4R, SF, W
Edge: Ana

W-L
Ana: 48-15 (.762)
Maria: 44-9 (.830)
Edge: Maria

Top-10 W-L
Ana: 13-6 (.684)
Maria: 9-3 (.750)
Edge: Maria

Note: W-L does not include Fed Cup

well there you have it. Grand slams give more points so Ana>Maria. Additionally, what o****s is total number of wins more than w/L ratio. Maria played only 12 or so tournaments because had she had played more, she would have lost. It's no one else's fault that she played so little.

Il Primo!
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:51 PM
This shows how great Henin, Ivanovic, Jankovic and Kuznestova were last year. Sharapova has alot to do to catch up with them. She's had a perfect start, but still it's only been 2 tournaments.


Maybe I'm a little severe with Ivanovic but her year was not greater than Maria's. No need to mention Kuz and Sveta who're ranked that high fo being tournaments whores.

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:55 PM
Maybe I'm a little severe with Ivanovic but her year was not greater than Maria's. No need to mention Kuz and Sveta who're ranked that high fo being tournaments whores.

wow i din't know Sveta had a twin:weirdo:

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:58 PM
maybe they weren't replying to the thread starter but to some of the other posters getting carried away

NOBODY in the thread said Maria should be number 1.

OsloErik
Feb 24th, 2008, 09:58 PM
Maybe I'm a little severe with Ivanovic but her year was not greater than Maria's. No need to mention Kuz and Sveta who're ranked that high fo being tournaments whores.

They're the same person, no? But I know what you mean. Yes, Jankovic over played last year and that does help explain her ranking. Although I don't know when 21 tournaments (Kuznetsova's number) became a lot. I guess when people stopped playing 15 a year.

Being fit and healthy and competitive in more tournaments than your peers should not put an asterisk next to you ranking. Otherwise, the tour would be dramatically less interesting. So long as a player is going deep in tournaments, there shouldn't be a question that they are capable of quality in addition to quantity.

OsloErik
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Tamus: you are making a mistake with your numbers. The RATIO of wins and losses doesn't matter; it's the total number of wins that matters. You get ranking points for winning matches, not for not losing matches. Sharapova was pretty good at not losing matches in tournaments last year; she just didn't play them. But that doesn't give her points.

Il Primo!
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:01 PM
well there you have it. Grand slams give more points so Ana>Maria. Additionally, what o****s is total number of wins more than w/L ratio. Maria played only 12 or so tournaments because had she had played more, she would have lost. It's no one else's fault that she played so little.

But there's a flaw cause in their last five slams, Maria won more points than Ana.
Last year the won the same amount of point and this year Maria won more points than Ivanobic.:wavey:

And the rest of you post is speculation

wow i din't know Sveta had a twin:weirdo:

It's called a typo. Eitheir you're clever enough to notice it and shut your mouth or you're a cum bag and can't help to aggress the poster:)

Il Primo!
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:04 PM
They're the same person, no? But I know what you mean. Yes, Jankovic over played last year and that does help explain her ranking. Although I don't know when 21 tournaments (Kuznetsova's number) became a lot. I guess when people stopped playing 15 a year.

Being fit and healthy and competitive in more tournaments than your peers should not put an asterisk next to you ranking. Otherwise, the tour would be dramatically less interesting. So long as a player is going deep in tournaments, there shouldn't be a question that they are capable of quality in addition to quantity.

Yeah you're right. It's not Janko's and Kuz's ranking that really bother me. It's just the fact that people need to realise they're not the 2nd and 3rd best players (especially Sveta that I find worthless). People tend to forget being the best and being the first is NOT the same thing.

OsloErik
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Here's another part of the problem: Sharapova didn't actually gain a whole lot of points at the Australian. It was her best tournament on record after the US Open last year, and it is again, the difference being roughly 300 points. On top of that, Jankovic, Ivanovic, and Kuznetsova had a pretty big lead on her to begin with.

Another problem? Ivanovic doesn't have much to defend until clay season begins. She and Sharapova will be adding points at the same time (although Sharapova has been adding more lately) and it's hard to catch someone who has a several hundred point lead when she can still gain points too.

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:07 PM
But there's a flaw cause in their last five slams, Maria won more points than Ana.
Last year the won the same amount of point and this year Maria won more points than Ivanobic.:wavey:

And the rest of you post is speculation



It's called a typo. Eitheir you're clever enough to notice it and shut your mouth or you're a cum bag and can't help to aggress the poster:)

only the last 4 slams count, don't you know it?:weirdo: There is no speculation, Maria had a slump in 2007 and didn't play much (she played less than Serena:tape:), so she didn't get many points. Until the Championship many people were wondering why she was still in the top ten:help:

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:10 PM
Yeah you're right. It's not Janko's and Kuz's ranking that really bother me. It's just the fact that people need to realise they're not the 2nd and 3rd best players (especially Sveta that I find worthless). People tend to forget being the best and being the first is NOT the same thing.

:silly:

you are making it up by yourself. Who is stating that ranking is what makes a player better than another one in general? It just means that a player was superior to another in the past 52 weeks, and that's undoubtful.

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Tamus: you are making a mistake with your numbers. The RATIO of wins and losses doesn't matter; it's the total number of wins that matters. You get ranking points for winning matches, not for not losing matches. Sharapova was pretty good at not losing matches in tournaments last year; she just didn't play them. But that doesn't give her points.

I never said that Sharapova should be ranked higher than Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, or Jankovic. The ranking system is what it is, and everyone deserves to be ranked where they are; they all play by the same rules. Do I think that the ranking system could be improved? Yes.

My numbers are meant to show who had the better year (previous 52 weeks), which the ranking system doesn't always show. If you play more tournaments, of course you have a better chance at winning more of them. Yet Sharapova still outclasses everyone save Henin if you consider both quality and quantity of tournaments won over the past year. And winning percentage is always more indicative of who's the better player than total matches won is. If you're going to bet on someone to win a match, you bet on who wins more frequently, not on who wins more. I think the general consensus would be that Sharapova is a better player than Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, and Jankovic - and my numbers back up that consensus.

Tamus
Feb 24th, 2008, 10:43 PM
Yeah you're right. It's not Janko's and Kuz's ranking that really bother me. It's just the fact that people need to realise they're not the 2nd and 3rd best players (especially Sveta that I find worthless). People tend to forget being the best and being the first is NOT the same thing.

Which was exactly my point. Sharapova is the fifth ranked player for the past year, but she was the 2nd best player over that same period of time.

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 11:06 PM
I never said that Sharapova should be ranked higher than Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, or Jankovic. The ranking system is what it is, and everyone deserves to be ranked where they are; they all play by the same rules. Do I think that the ranking system could be improved? Yes.

My numbers are meant to show who had the better year (previous 52 weeks), which the ranking system doesn't always show. If you play more tournaments, of course you have a better chance at winning more of them. Yet Sharapova still outclasses everyone save Henin if you consider both quality and quantity of tournaments won over the past year. And winning percentage is always more indicative of who's the better player than total matches won is. If you're going to bet on someone to win a match, you bet on who wins more frequently, not on who wins more. I think the general consensus would be that Sharapova is a better player than Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, and Jankovic - and my numbers back up that consensus.

no you are a wrong, if a player can play a lot of tournaments and goo deep in them then she should be rewarded more than someone who hardly plays but when she does she goes deep. Quantity and quality need equilibrium, it would be too easy for power players with low athleticism (i.e. Sharapova) to play only 10 times a year and still get full rankings from it.

spiritedenergy
Feb 24th, 2008, 11:09 PM
Which was exactly my point. Sharapova is the fifth ranked player for the past year, but she was the 2nd best player over that same period of time.

wrong again

Maria was the 5th best player in the last 52 weeks, If you have something to argue, call the WTA:weirdo:

Sean.
Feb 24th, 2008, 11:12 PM
Rankings are good. Can you imagine Henin vs Sharapova 1r of RG and Wimby?

If you want to know how good a player is playing not including last years performace look at the race rankings

I don't see what the problem is

Tennisstar86
Feb 24th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Which was exactly my point. Sharapova is the fifth ranked player for the past year, but she was the 2nd best player over that same period of time.

lol.... not really.... Maria is the Best player over the last month... That is all....Prior to the YEC she was barely top ten.....(rememver people if Venus hadnt have withdrawn Sharapova wouldnt have even made the YEC....)


Lol it'll be interesting to see where the trolls go during the clay court season....

terjw
Feb 24th, 2008, 11:57 PM
OK Tamus and spiritedenergy. I think you can both argue your point till the cows come home. I don't think you can categorically say one is wrong and the other is right. Perhaps it's not really such a clearcut thing either way who's 2nd best over the last 52 weeks

FWIW - I myself definitely think the rankings give a better picture of who is the better over the whole of the last 52 week period. I do think it's important to take into account the number of matches played. It is Mathematically proven that it is a lot easier to have a higher W:L ratio the fewer matches you play. Taking an extreme case - if you played one match and won it - you have a 100% W:L record. But that certainly doesn't prove you are better than say someone who has a 90% W:L ratio over may more marches. Also - in the rankings - there's a cap on the tournaments played so you can't just mount up the points forever by playing a lot.

The very well researched facts by Tamus don't take this into account. However, I don't think either sides of this argument are so obvious as to claim that no reasonable person could come to any other conclusion.

Having said that - I think there's no doubt that Maria is the second best player right now - maybe she's even the best. Ask any player who they'd least like to have to face in the early rounds of a competition or go to the bookies for the betting odds.

perseus2006
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Pova is making real progress towards the Top 4. Here is a post I made in another thread:

It is an understatement to say that Pova did well in Doha. She is the 2008 Doha Champion!!!

This was one crazy tournament in terms of performance by all the top seeds except Pova. They all bombed out early. For the players ahead of Pova in the rankings, they gave up nearly the maximum number of points possisble for the tournament of the differentials between each of them and Pova. Take a look below - info taken from the chart in the first post in this thread.

Before and After Doha Point differentials between Pova and the Top 4:

.............Before....After
Justine......3769......3004
Ana...........697.......287
Kuzy..........699.......159
Jelena........634.......144

Pova has moved within striking distance of the Top 4 at Dubai.

random fan
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:01 AM
Having said that - I think there's no doubt that Maria is the second best player right now - maybe she's even the best. Ask any player who they'd least like to have to face in the early rounds of a competition or go to the bookies for the betting odds.

Exactly bookies do it for a living and unlike computer take current form of players into account

Tamus
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:16 AM
OK Tamus and spiritedenergy. I think you can both argue your point till the cows come home. I don't think you can categorically say one is wrong and the other is right. Perhaps it's not really such a clearcut thing either way who's 2nd best over the last 52 weeks

FWIW - I myself definitely think the rankings give a better picture of who is the better over the whole of the last 52 week period. I do think it's important to take into account the number of matches played. It is Mathematically proven that it is a lot easier to have a higher W:L ratio the fewer matches you play. Taking an extreme case - if you played one match and won it - you have a 100% W:L record. But that certainly doesn't prove you are better than say someone who has a 90% W:L ratio over may more marches. Also - in the rankings - there's a cap on the tournaments played so you can't just mount up the points forever by playing a lot.

The very well researched facts by Tamus don't take this into account. However, I don't think either sides of this argument are so obvious as to claim that no reasonable person could come to any other conclusion.

Having said that - I think there's no doubt that Maria is the second best player right now - maybe she's even the best. Ask any player who they'd least like to have to face in the early rounds of a competition or go to the bookies for the betting odds.

I must point out that mathematically speaking, it is also easier to have a lower W:L ratio the fewer matches you play. W-L ratio is completely objective, while everything else (such as quality of opponents played, fatigue, injury, etc.), while it may be valid, is subjective and cannot be gaged mathematically.

terjw
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:26 AM
I must point out that mathematically speaking, it is also easier to have a lower W:L ratio the fewer matches you play. W-L ratio is completely objective, while everything else (such as quality of opponents played, fatigue, injury, etc.), while it may be valid, is subjective and cannot be gaged mathematically.

The more matched you play - the harder it is to get away from 50%. So if you are up at the top - it's very much harder for you to have a higher W:L ratio if you've played more matches. If you are at the bottom - it's easier to not have a really dreadful W:L ratio the more matches you play.

You are completely wrong that this cannot be gauged Mathematically. I have a degree in Maths. What are your credentials?

goldlion
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:35 AM
Maria has not much points to defend aside from Roland Garros.

Indian Wells - 4R
Miami - 4R
Istanbul - SF (who cares this T3 or T4)
Wimbledon - 4R
Birmingham - F (who cares this T3)
US Open - 3R
Moscow - 2R
YEC - Final

So, do the calculation. With the poor performace last year, her ranking will rise soon.

maryjane
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:41 AM
i don't understand why it's so difficult to understand the system.the fact that she won the first two tournaments she played,includeed the gran slam,doesn't mean she has to be higher in the ranking.it's always been like this,also in the atp ranking.if she played so bad the last year she started the year with less points than other players and now she's trying to close the gap.to be so surprised after only two torunaments,altough she won them,is ridicolous.

mckyle.
Feb 25th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Svetlana:

Indian Wells Final
Berlin Final
Rome Final
French Open Quarterfinal
Wimbledon Quarterfinal
New Haven Win
US Open Final
Moscow Semifinal
Sydney Final

Maria:

French Open Semifinal
Birmingham Final
San Diego Win
Tour Championship Final
Australian Open Win
Doha Win

Ana:

Berlin Win
French Open Final
Wimbledon Semifinal
Los Angeles Win
Luxembourg Win
Tour Championship Semifinal

Jelena:

Charleston Win
Rome Win
French Open Semifinal
Birmingham Win
S'Hertogenbosch Final
Los Angeles Semifinal
Toronto Final
US Open Quarterfinal
Beijing Final
Stuttgart Semifinal

Justine: :eek:

Doha Tier 2 Win
Miami Final
Warsaw Win
Berlin Semifinal
French Open Win
Eastbourne Win
Wimbledon Semifinal
Toronto Win
US Open Win
Stuttgart Win
Zurich Win
Tour Championship Win

Tamus
Feb 25th, 2008, 01:17 AM
The more matched you play - the harder it is to get away from 50%. So if you are up at the top - it's very much harder for you to have a higher W:L ratio if you've played more matches. If you are at the bottom - it's easier to not have a really dreadful W:L ratio the more matches you play.

You are completely wrong that this cannot be gauged Mathematically. I have a degree in Maths. What are your credentials?

Don't try to play me like I'm stupid. You're assuming that as a player approaches an infinite number of matches played, eventually their winning percentage will taper off to 50%, no matter the quality of the player. This is not true, because some tennis players are simply better than others, and might win 80% of their matches, even as they play more and more matches. So, let's use the example of rolling a die in this situation (for a good player, which undoubtedly, the players ranked at the top are.) You would expect to roll a 1-5 five out of six times (.833). Maybe if you roll six times you get a 1-5 all six times (1.000). Or you have the same chance of rolling a 1-5 less than five times. Maybe, if you roll six times you get a 1-5 only four times (.667). The more times you roll, however, the percentage of times that you roll a 1-5 will "approach" 83.3%. The point is, you have as equal of a chance of getting lower than 83.3% as you have as getting higher than 83.3%, in any given amount of rolls.

So, by saying that for top players, mathematically, it is harder to win a greater percentage of matches the more you play because it is harder to get away from 50%, you are wrong. This is like applying a coin toss example when a die rolling example is more appropriate. You are basically saying that that player is average and should only be winning 50% of her matches.

Mathematically, playing more matches just means that your winning percentage is more indicative of how good a player you really are (i.e., what your winning percentage "should" be.) Of course, many factors can change how good a player really is, be it experience, injury, fatigue, age, etc. This is what I meant by the rest is just subjective. There is no way to truly determine how good a player is, as it can constantly be changing and affected by many factors, which goes way beyond math.

So to say that it was mathematically easier for Sharapova to win 83% of her 53 matches than for Jankovic to win 73% of her 92 matches, you would be wrong. It just means that you can better expect Jelena to win 73% of all her matches, than you can expect Maria to win 83% of all her matches. Maria could win more or she could win less by playing more, we don't know.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Feb 25th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Maria should be #4 if she wins Dubai... am I correct? :scratch:

random fan
Feb 25th, 2008, 01:50 AM
No.3, and if Ivanovic doesn't get past her 1st match No.2

ZeroSOFInfinity
Feb 25th, 2008, 02:05 AM
^^^
Wow... that would be a huge jump for her... :)

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 25th, 2008, 03:00 AM
Serena won Australia once and climbed from 8 to 2. ;)

serena didn't play AO 04 and she leaped over everyone who didn't defend so lost while she could only gain...

masha had a final to defend....the only thing better she could do was win the title and she did....she's not gonna jump like rena did

AcesHigh
Feb 25th, 2008, 07:01 AM
This is so simple I don't see why anyone should be confused.

Btw, Sharapova deserves her spot. She's the 5th best player over the last 52 weeks and if she wants to prove she's #1, she can do that with results.