PDA

View Full Version : RANKINGS: Quality or Quantity


Foot_Fault
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Should the WTA and ATP award rankings via Quality or Quantity?

Currently I think they are on a Quantity Base type system. I hate it when a player is Penalized for Defending a Title. Nadal has been unable to rise in the rankings as much b/c of this. He's close though.

But if you commit to playing 16-18 tournaments yet not winning the "Big Ones" you're getting far better ranking points than someone who just hit at the Majors or T1's. Also, if you're defending, it sux even worse.

Is there something that could be done? Is this a debate the players should be having? I would be remised if I didn't say, you have to still be consistent when you play often...BUT...:rolleyes:

I think the RACE is a more qualitative way to measure a players success.

Look at the Mens and Womens (RACE)
1IVANOVIC, ANA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=311710)SRB2761.0010
2JANKOVIC, JELENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=100153)SRB2645.0012
3WILLIAMS, SERENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=230234)USA2465.008
4SHARAPOVA, MARIA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=310137)RUS2455.008
5DEMENTIEVA, ELENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=40289)RUS2051.0011
6KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=110552)RUS1821.0011
7WILLIAMS, VENUS (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=230220)USA1766.008
8RADWANSKA, AGNIESZKA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=312251)POL1727.0015
9SAFINA, DINARA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=190950)RUS1723.0013
10ZVONAREVA, VERA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=260142)

MEN
1stNadal, R. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=N409)955
2ndFederer, R. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=F324)685
3rdDjokovic, N. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=D643)649
4thDavydenko, N. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=D402)371
5thFerrer, D. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=F401)306
6thRoddick, A. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=R485)240
7thAlmagro, N. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=A479)238
8thWawrinka, S. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=W367)236
9thMurray, A. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=MC10)235
10thBlake, J. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=B676)216

This feel more accurate and true.

RenaSlam.
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:31 PM
Quality -- I hate that WTA got rid of quality pts.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Should the WTA and ATP award rankings via Quality or Quantity?

Currently I think they are on a Quantity Base type system. I hate it when a player is Penalized for Defending a Title. Nadal has been unable to rise in the rankings as much b/c of this. He's close though.

But if you commit to playing 16-18 tournaments yet not winning the "Big Ones" you're getting far better ranking points than someone who just hit at the Majors or T1's. Also, if you're defending, it sux even worse.

Is there something that could be done? Is this a debate the players should be having? I would be remised if I didn't say, you have to still be consistent when you play often...BUT...:rolleyes:

I think the RACE is a more qualitative way to measure a players success.

Look at the Mens and Womens (RACE)
1IVANOVIC, ANA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=311710)SRB2761.0010
2JANKOVIC, JELENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=100153)SRB2645.0012
3WILLIAMS, SERENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=230234)USA2465.008
4SHARAPOVA, MARIA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=310137)RUS2455.008
5DEMENTIEVA, ELENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=40289)RUS2051.0011
6KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=110552)RUS1821.0011
7WILLIAMS, VENUS (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=230220)USA1766.008
8RADWANSKA, AGNIESZKA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=312251)POL1727.0015
9SAFINA, DINARA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=190950)RUS1723.0013
10ZVONAREVA, VERA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=260142)


This feel more accurate and true.

Actual rankings:
1. Ivanovic
2. Jankovic
3. Sharapova
4. Kuznetsova
5. Serena
6. Dementieva
7. Venus
8. Chakvetadze
9. Safina
10. Radwanska

:eek::eek::eek:

Such a huge, HUGE difference!

P.S.
Name at least one player who's been collecting Slams and Tier Is in the recent years, yet didn't get to #1.

Foot_Fault
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Actual rankings:
1. Ivanovic
2. Jankovic
3. Sharapova
4. Kuznetsova
5. Serena
6. Dementieva
7. Venus
8. Chakvetadze
9. Safina
10. Radwanska

:eek::eek::eek:

Such a huge, HUGE difference!

P.S.
Name at least one player who's been collecting Slams and Tier Is in the recent years, yet didn't get to #1.

What has Chaka done this year? Why is she #8? Jankovic plays everything and super consistent but it comes with a BUT....
Vera has been stellar so far, why is she not in the REAL top 10?

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Should the WTA and ATP award rankings via Quality or Quantity?

Currently I think they are on a Quantity Base type system. I hate it when a player is Penalized for Defending a Title. Nadal has been unable to rise in the rankings as much b/c of this. He's close though.

But if you commit to playing 16-18 tournaments yet not winning the "Big Ones" you're getting far better ranking points than someone who just hit at the Majors or T1's. Also, if you're defending, it sux even worse.

Is there something that could be done? Is this a debate the players should be having? I would be remised if I didn't say, you have to still be consistent when you play often...BUT...:rolleyes:

I think the RACE is a more qualitative way to measure a players success.

Look at the Mens and Womens (RACE)
1IVANOVIC, ANA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=311710)SRB2761.0010
2JANKOVIC, JELENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=100153)SRB2645.0012
3WILLIAMS, SERENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=230234)USA2465.008
4SHARAPOVA, MARIA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=310137)RUS2455.008
5DEMENTIEVA, ELENA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=40289)RUS2051.0011
6KUZNETSOVA, SVETLANA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=110552)RUS1821.0011
7WILLIAMS, VENUS (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=230220)USA1766.008
8RADWANSKA, AGNIESZKA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=312251)POL1727.0015
9SAFINA, DINARA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=190950)RUS1723.0013
10ZVONAREVA, VERA (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerbio.asp?PlayerID=260142)

MEN
1stNadal, R. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=N409)955
2ndFederer, R. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=F324)685
3rdDjokovic, N. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=D643)649
4thDavydenko, N. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=D402)371
5thFerrer, D. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=F401)306
6thRoddick, A. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=R485)240
7thAlmagro, N. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=A479)238
8thWawrinka, S. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=W367)236
9thMurray, A. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=MC10)235
10thBlake, J. (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/?playernumber=B676)216

This feel more accurate and true.

The race and the rankings are equally effective at reflecting a players success. It is just that the race simply reflects a players success over the past 12 months whereas the race reflects a players success only during the current calandar year.

And this thing about the rankings punishing players who repeat their successes of the year before is absolute foolhardiness. Your results stay on the rankings for 12 months then they go off. It is that simple. No one is being punished. If quality points were added, and I wouldn't be against that, it would still be the same. Infact if quality points were in existance, Venus Williams would have LOST ranking points after Wimbledon as the players she beat this year weren't as highly ranked as the ones she beat last year.

As for Nadal he leads the race because he has quite obviously been the better player this year, but if you take into account the last 12 months then Federer probably does still deserve his marginal lead.

lolas
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:43 PM
If quality points were re-established a lot of people would start moaning again that some players with wins against top ten players were overranked and only relied there high ranking on one good win. I like quality points though.

mckyle.
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Who cares? It's just rankings. The best player will win a tournament no matter their ranking.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:46 PM
What has Chaka done this year? Why is she #8? Jankovic plays everything and super consistent but it comes with a BUT....
Vera has been stellar so far, why is she not in the REAL top 10?

Are you aware Chakvetadze is 12th in the Race and Zvonareva (11th in the rankings) while being stellar lost in the 1st round at AO and in the 2nd round at Wimbledon?
It's not like a player could be #1 in the rankings but #50 in the race unless it's the very beginning of the year, of course.

AndreConrad
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:46 PM
I think current system is trying to strike a balance between quantity and quality with respectable success. I don't think that defending points is a bad thing. The current system is trying to do the following:
1. Ensure that a player plays minimum number of tournaments in a year - the number that they should play is obviously arguable
2. Ensure that major tournaments are attended
3. Favors performance over the year so it is not that easy to advance in ranking having just a spike of form
4. By limiting the number of tournaments that count to the score it doesn't matter at some point if you play more of them. So the system ensures that quantity is not a major factor. Now what is the limit is arguable.

Nadal is going to get the top very soon if he maintains his form. Federer has more points to defend so he is in worse situation then Nadal, it just takes time.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:48 PM
If quality points were re-established a lot of people would start moaning again that some players with wins against top ten players were overranked and only relied there high ranking on one good win. I like quality points though.

There would have been basically no changes in the Top-10. It's been proved many times before.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Who cares? It's just rankings. The best player will win a tournament no matter their ranking.

AMEN!

Malva
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:57 PM
The race and the rankings are equally effective at reflecting a players success. It is just that the race simply reflects a players success over the past 12 months whereas the race reflects a players success only during the current calandar year.

And this thing about the rankings punishing players who repeat their successes of the year before is absolute foolhardiness. Your results stay on the rankings for 12 months then they go off. It is that simple. No one is being punished. If quality points were added, and I wouldn't be against that, it would still be the same. Infact if quality points were in existance, Venus Williams would have LOST ranking points after Wimbledon as the players she beat this year weren't as highly ranked as the ones she beat last year.

As for Nadal he leads the race because he has quite obviously been the better player this year, but if you take into account the last 12 months then Federer probably does still deserve his marginal lead.

I was preparing to respond to the thread starter but then I saw Chris' lucid response. He did it better than I probably could.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:57 PM
What has Chaka done this year? Why is she #8? Jankovic plays everything and super consistent but it comes with a BUT....
Vera has been stellar so far, why is she not in the REAL top 10?

She's 8th now, but has to defend her Cincinnati and Stanford title and also SF at US Open. She can be out of top 10 soon.

serenus_2k8
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:07 PM
I quite like how the ATP has the 4 Slams & Master Series events which have to count towards your ranking, and then your five best outside these because if you dont play the Masters events well, your ranking suffers so all players are constantly being tested on different surfaces etc throughout the year.

I think WTA is leaning more towards this for next year? The only problem is if you miss a couple of Masters, your ranking sucks for the rest of the year (kinda)

Jem
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:09 PM
Personally, I believe an "average" ranking is the best system. It doesn't allow you to throw out poor results and makes it meaningful everytime you step on the court. Also, I like quality points. If I were in charge of the rankings, I would create a system that:
Provided both round and quality points -- with the ranking determined by averaging your total points by the number of tournaments played -- with a minimum of 15 or 16 events (I lean toward 16).
Included mandatory events such as grand slams and 4-6 top-tier events
Create some type of incentive to reward those who support the tour more -- perhaps reduce the divisor by one for every 3-4 tournaments a player plays above the minimum required.

I don't really like being able to throw out tournaments and not count them

In The Zone
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:13 PM
The people who believe ranking systems do not reward "defending tournaments" do not know how the rankings work. It's a revolving 52-week system. In Venus' case, you just can't show up for 2 weeks a year and expect your ranking to skyrocket. It's not a 2-week system, it is a 52.

kwilliams
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:26 PM
I think quality is obviously more important than quantity but players rankings are based on their best 16 performances (included in those 16 tournaments are the mandatory tournaments) so if players overplay well at least it is their 'quality' performances that count. If quality points were reintroduced many would still be unhappy as some players would have their rankings boosted by 'lucky' wins or bad play from an opponent (did they award quality points in an opponent retired from the match?)

The race rankings might not look so favourable at the end of the year because they don't limit a player to their sixteen best tournaments (as far as I know) so players who overplay can get into the YEC that way. I remember at the end of the year when Venus, Sharapova, Hantuchova, Bartoli and I think Petrova were all vying for the last two places in the YEC. Venus had to withdraw due to her anaemia and Serena retired in her first match of the YEC and we saw Hantuchova and Bartoli playing in Madrid and not doing very well at all. So the race rankings look good now but in October when a 'quantity' player with 25 tournaments under her belt gets into the YEC ahead of a higher ranked 'quality' player with 14 tournaments under her belt suddenly the race rankings aren't all they appear.

The quantity players haven't pulled ahead/closed the gap in the race rankings yet but by October the rankings may look a little different.

faboozadoo15
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:29 PM
The people who believe ranking systems do not reward "defending tournaments" do not know how the rankings work. It's a revolving 52-week system. In Venus' case, you just can't show up for 2 weeks a year and expect your ranking to skyrocket. It's not a 2-week system, it is a 52.

AMEN. Foot_Fault is a lunatic.

Additionally, Nadal has stayed where he has in the rankings because up until now he has IN NO WAY COME ANYWHERE NEAR FEDERER. Things had previously not even been close. And if Federer had won the Australian Open or Wimbledon, Nadal would still be miles away. But with his performance at Wimbledon, he's in the driver's seat now. But only just. Federer should do much better on hardcourts and certainly indoors. I wouldn't be surprised if Federer still managed to end the year #1, even with his last debacle.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Personally, I believe an "average" ranking is the best system. It doesn't allow you to throw out poor results and makes it meaningful everytime you step on the court. Also, I like quality points. If I were in charge of the rankings, I would create a system that:
Provided both round and quality points -- with the ranking determined by averaging your total points by the number of tournaments played -- with a minimum of 15 or 16 events (I lean toward 16).
Included mandatory events such as grand slams and 4-6 top-tier events
Create some type of incentive to reward those who support the tour more -- perhaps reduce the divisor by one for every 3-4 tournaments a player plays above the minimum required.

I don't really like being able to throw out tournaments and not count them

Using your system if you played only two big events and you won them both and that is all you did the entire year, you would be ranked world number 1. It is not easy coming up with a perfect ranking system, but this one here is badly thought out and wouldn't work at all. :shrug:

Donny
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:32 PM
Who cares? It's just rankings. The best player will win a tournament no matter their ranking.

Co-sign on this.The rankings on the women's tour is meaningless to me.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:35 PM
AMEN. Foot_Fault is a lunatic.

Additionally, Nadal has stayed where he has in the rankings because up until now he has IN NO WAY COME ANYWHERE NEAR FEDERER. Things had previously not even been close. And if Federer had won the Australian Open or Wimbledon, Nadal would still be miles away. But with his performance at Wimbledon, he's in the driver's seat now. But only just. Federer should do much better on hardcourts and certainly indoors. I wouldn't be surprised if Federer still managed to end the year #1, even with his last debacle.

I would say that is wishful thinking on your part but time will tell. I would say it is likely to be just a matter of time before the rankings reflect that Nadal is currently the best player in the world, I expect the shift will take place after the US Open.

Shepster
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:38 PM
Should the WTA and ATP award rankings via Quality or Quantity?

Currently I think they are on a Quantity Base type system.
Only 8 players in the top 100 haven't played the 17 tournament quota over the last 12 months, they've got the mix pretty much spot on.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:43 PM
I personally feel that the rankings should be a quotient of the points earned over the amount of the last 15 tournaments played :shrug:

That way, it protects players who have been injured, but it also encourages players to get "rid" of bad results by playing more events :shrug:

But of all of the tournaments played this year, the #1 seed has won 9 events, so being the #1 seed (or even higher/est ranked player) doesn't guarantee success (i.e. 2008 Wimbledon).

Dodoboy.
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:47 PM
I personally feel that the rankings should be a quotient of the points earned over the amount of the last 15 tournaments played :shrug:

That way, it protects players who have been injured, but it also encourages players to get "rid" of bad results by playing more events :shrug:

But of all of the tournaments played this year, the #1 seed has won 9 events, so being the #1 seed (or even higher/est ranked player) doesn't guarantee success (i.e. 2008 Wimbledon).

That is a great idea!!

Lunaris
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:56 PM
I think quality is obviously more important than quantity but players rankings are based on their best 16 performances (included in those 16 tournaments are the mandatory tournaments) so if players overplay well at least it is their 'quality' performances that count. If quality points were reintroduced many would still be unhappy as some players would have their rankings boosted by 'lucky' wins or bad play from an opponent (did they award quality points in an opponent retired from the match?)

The race rankings might not look so favourable at the end of the year because they don't limit a player to their sixteen best tournaments (as far as I know) so players who overplay can get into the YEC that way. I remember at the end of the year when Venus, Sharapova, Hantuchova, Bartoli and I think Petrova were all vying for the last two places in the YEC. Venus had to withdraw due to her anaemia and Serena retired in her first match of the YEC and we saw Hantuchova and Bartoli playing in Madrid and not doing very well at all. So the race rankings look good now but in October when a 'quantity' player with 25 tournaments under her belt gets into the YEC ahead of a higher ranked 'quality' player with 14 tournaments under her belt suddenly the race rankings aren't all they appear.

The quantity players haven't pulled ahead/closed the gap in the race rankings yet but by October the rankings may look a little different.
First, it's 17 best tournaments, not 16. Check your facts again.
Second, quality points would change nothing. It has been proven many times when someone actually made an effort to count the ranking points including the quality points.
Third, Hantuchova lost 5-7 4-6 to red hot Sharapova which is not bad, 2-6 6-7(8) to Ivanovic when she was robbed of two points in the tiebreaker because of bad line calls (quality of that tiebreaker was fantastic btw.), and bageled Kuznetsova. How is that not doing well at all? It was a respectable showing imo.

Sally Struthers
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:14 PM
I liked the old divisor rankings. Who cares if someone can get to #1 without playing a lot and doing well in the big events? That's all that really matters anyway :shrug:

Foot_Fault
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Nadal is going to get the top very soon if he maintains his form. Federer has more points to defend so he is in worse situation then Nadal, it just takes time.
I thought this was and interesting statement. Federer has so much to defend as well as Nadal. But there's no real reward for defense. It should be a hefty reward...

-Sonic-
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:39 PM
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

I think we should all just copy/paste our responses every time a ranking system thread appears... I think I've already written whats going through my head about 30 times since I've been a member.

sasha&tennis
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:40 PM
I personally think that to much is made of ranking pts. Most players on the wta tour have become injured chasing #1. Venus & Serena's injuries started when they played more chasing #1 & 2 in the world. Maria Sharapova has even become injured chasing #1. I really don't care if Venus is ranked #1 or 101 in the world as long as she wins when it matters most. Serena winning the 2007 Australian Open ranked 80 something in the world & Venus winning Wimbledon ranked 30 something in the world just proved my theory even more.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:40 PM
I personally feel that the rankings should be a quotient of the points earned over the amount of the last 15 tournaments played

I worked out the system for some of the players, and this is what the top 15 would probably look like:


1. Maria Sharapova [RUS] 257.73
2. Serena Williams [USA] 241.73
3. Ana Ivanovic [SRB] 236.8
4. Venus Williams [USA] 201.33
5. Jelena Jankovic [SRB] 183.47
6. Elena Dementieva [RUS] 175.13
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova [RUS] 158.06
8. Dinara Safina [RUS] 119.6
9. Daniela Hantuchova [SVK] 118.4
10. Agnieska Radwanska [POL] 115.13
11. Vera Zvonareva [RUS] 109.87
12. Lindsay Davenport [USA] 102.8
13. Anna Chakvetadze [RUS] 86
14. Patty Schnyder [SUI] 79.67
15. Viktoria Azarenka [BLR] 71.53

Dodoboy.
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:46 PM
I worked out the system for some of the players, and this is what the top 15 would probably look like:


1. Maria Sharapova [RUS] 257.73
2. Serena Williams [USA] 241.73
3. Ana Ivanovic [SRB] 236.8
4. Venus Williams [USA] 201.33
5. Jelena Jankovic [SRB] 183.47
6. Elena Dementieva [RUS] 175.13
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova [RUS] 158.06
8. Dinara Safina [RUS] 119.6
9. Daniela Hantuchova [SVK] 118.4
10. Agnieska Radwanska [POL] 115.13
11. Vera Zvonareva [RUS] 109.87
12. Lindsay Davenport [USA] 102.8
13. Anna Chakvetadze [RUS] 86
14. Patty Schnyder [SUI] 79.67
15. Viktoria Azarenka [BLR] 71.53

That is very intresting. Although i would argue that Jelena should be a lot closer to Venus.

faboozadoo15
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:00 PM
I would say that is wishful thinking on your part but time will tell. I would say it is likely to be just a matter of time before the rankings reflect that Nadal is currently the best player in the world, I expect the shift will take place after the US Open.

I did say Nadal is in the driver's seat. But Unless things radically change, Federer will outlast him in every tournament played on hardcourts or indoors. That and Nadal has trouble staying healthy on any surface but clay.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:05 PM
I did say Nadal is in the driver's seat. But Unless things radically change, Federer will outlast him in every tournament played on hardcourts or indoors. That and Nadal has trouble staying healthy on any surface but clay.

The biggest threat for Nadal during the rest of the year is Djokovic , not Federer

Novak should win the US Open. So , the keys are going to be the OG and the MC

slamchamp
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:08 PM
The biggest threat for Nadal during the rest of the year is Djokovic , not Federer

Novak should win the US Open. So , the keys are going to be the OG and the MCoh please, that won't happen. Federer is not sucking like at the beginning of the year and Nadal sucks on hardcourt. So I say Fed will defend his title

faboozadoo15
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:08 PM
The biggest threat for Nadal during the rest of the year is Djokovic , not Federer

Novak should win the US Open. So , the keys are going to be the OG and the MC

Well, no. Djokovic dented his chances by losing in the second round of a major. Federer is ahead of Djok in the race, and he's heading into his season. He's the 4 time defending US Open champ, and he always does well indoors and during the US Open series. Add the motivation of the Olympics and the likelihood that Nadal will spend time on the bench, and Federer could hold onto #1.

AndreConrad
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:26 PM
I worked out the system for some of the players, and this is what the top 15 would probably look like:


1. Maria Sharapova [RUS] 257.73
2. Serena Williams [USA] 241.73
3. Ana Ivanovic [SRB] 236.8
4. Venus Williams [USA] 201.33
5. Jelena Jankovic [SRB] 183.47
6. Elena Dementieva [RUS] 175.13
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova [RUS] 158.06
8. Dinara Safina [RUS] 119.6
9. Daniela Hantuchova [SVK] 118.4
10. Agnieska Radwanska [POL] 115.13
11. Vera Zvonareva [RUS] 109.87
12. Lindsay Davenport [USA] 102.8
13. Anna Chakvetadze [RUS] 86
14. Patty Schnyder [SUI] 79.67
15. Viktoria Azarenka [BLR] 71.53

So once I have perfect last 15 I don't play anymore to not screw it up?

In The Zone
Jul 14th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Well, no. Djokovic dented his chances by losing in the second round of a major. Federer is ahead of Djok in the race, and he's heading into his season. He's the 4 time defending US Open champ, and he always does well indoors and during the US Open series. Add the motivation of the Olympics and the likelihood that Nadal will spend time on the bench, and Federer could hold onto #1.

I actually fully agree. Nadal doesn't have # 1 locked up. He would have to play .. un-Nadal like to get there. This would mean actually being healthy on a hardcourt and not crumbling to someone who can smack the ball corner to corner.

This is why the ranking system of both tours is difficult. You need to promote the tour and encourage play while also trying to rank the players properly. I believe Federer deserves to be # 1 and if he plays like he did in the Wimbledon final, I don't see him having a problem if Nadal flops like he usually does.

As for the women, Serena is in the driver's seat to potentially pull a Clijsters/Mauresmo/Rios -- being # 1 without a slam. However, she has a strong argument -- tremendous non-slam results while the other players have one good tournament and then disappear. The ranking system is about the best player based on the past 52 weeks -- nothing more, nothing less. The only ranking that matters is the # 1 spot. And that's debatable.

Dawson.
Jul 14th, 2008, 09:51 PM
what a retarded thread!!!

the rankings show how well the player has played over the past 12 months
the race shows how well they have played this year so far

at the end of the year, the rankings & the race will be very similar anyway so i dont get your point :shrug:

Cp6uja
Jul 14th, 2008, 10:07 PM
Talking about TOP32, players selected to be #1-#32 seeds at slams, WTA ranking is balanced between Quality and Quantity and ATP ranks is based on Quality.

Why?

Because TOP32 in ATP all playing in last 52 weeks at 4 slams and 9 mandatory masters, so 13 out of their 17 ranked results is from same 13 mandatory tournaments where they all playing each others. In WTA just 5 of 17 results which is included in players current rankings is from mandatory tournaments where ALL best players playing and that is why in WTA have more complainings about official and real ranking than in ATP. For example, if we look all 4 mandatory events winners in 2008 so far (Maria/AO, Serena/Mia, Ana/RG and Venus/W) out of this four mandatory tournaments only at Rome and Doha more than 2 out of this 4 players played at same tournament!? But Rome/08 case is actualy exception with bizzare explanation - they all must to go in Rome b/c that famouos "Hero" photoshoot, but of course they easy find way to escape direct confrontation: Ana tanked her 1st match and Serena and Maria won match or two and simple withdraw from tournament. On other hand in ATP we already have 9 tournaments where compete ALL three Big3, and almost all TOP32 so nobody dont have right to complain that ranking is not based on players real results and performances.

Next season we will have WTA shedule reform, so instead 5 of 17 in WTA will be 8 of 15(?) mandatory tournaments counted where played all best worlds players. So Quality will much more dominate in WTA rankings since next season for sure.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 14th, 2008, 10:41 PM
So once I have perfect last 15 I don't play anymore to not screw it up?

:lol: sure....why not :lol:




























:unsure:....good luck making a living not playing any events. Of course the points would expire at some point...but that's why it's 15 events and not 12 months, because players who are injured can come back EXACTLY where they were (on a relative scale).

Tennisstar86
Jul 14th, 2008, 10:53 PM
the problem with goin by the race is that when they did that on the mens side 1 year you had joe smo ranked #1....and good players not even in the top ten.... quality points should be added IMO.... I mean hell you win a tier 1 beating noone in the top 20...not gonna name any names and you get the same points as someone who did it beating all top teners? just seems wrong....

LudwigDvorak
Jul 14th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Are you aware Chakvetadze is 12th in the Race

I find that more embarrassing than the fact she's #8 in the world right now. her USO series results were stellar. She deserves top ten for the points she's defending in the next few weeks/months and the title she got this year.

But the fact she's been so horrible and is #12 in the race...well, she's been playing nearly every week, so I guess that helps, but she's had literally only three good tournaments, and two of them weren't even that good. I don't know. I know I whine about Anna a lot, but how high she is in the race is embarrassing. Everyone sucks this year. :shrug:

Tennisstar86
Jul 14th, 2008, 11:04 PM
I would say that is wishful thinking on your part but time will tell. I would say it is likely to be just a matter of time before the rankings reflect that Nadal is currently the best player in the world, I expect the shift will take place after the US Open.

not really... I mean Nadal doesnt have a great hardcourt record...and hes yet to make it past the quarters at the Open.... I wouldnt be shocked if Federer defended especially if djoko is on the opposite side of the draw as the US final is the day after the Semi and i dont think djoko has the juice for that....
I wouldnt be shocked if Rafa loses early at the Open and then i dont Federer might not even have to win...just make the final to get his #1 spot...

Mikey B
Jul 14th, 2008, 11:18 PM
the race has always been the more reliable and realistic ranking system... if you wana check out who is doing the best, look at the race...

rjd1111
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Quality -- I hate that WTA got rid of quality pts.

Another one of those Willaims Sister rules.

rjd1111
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:30 AM
Wimbledon '08

Numbers 1 2 3 4 out by the 3rd round.

The best Player should be No 1, not just players who play

every week and go deep in the draw.

I remember a few years ago Venus was ranked No 2.

Hingis was no 1 and Cappy and Lindsey were 3 & 4.

In a tourney Venus beat all 3 of them.

That next Monday Morning Venus dropped to No 4.

Thats just wrong.

Its kinda like in a championship fight. One fighter

knocks out his opponet and the opponet gets the

championship belt. Tiger wins the masters and they

give the green jacket to the guy who finished third.

Venus beat Serena at Wimb and Serena goes up in rank

and Venus doesn't.

They should start fresh every year

at zero just like the race.

danieln1
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:32 AM
Quality points were the best ever, it was so fair that a player that beat the number 1 player in the world would get more points than a player that beat another in the same round was ranked 133!

Tennisstar86
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:36 AM
Wimbledon '08

Numbers 1 2 3 4 out by the 3rd round.

The best Player should be No 1, not just players who play

every week and go deep in the draw.

I remember a few years ago Venus was ranked No 2.

Hingis was no 1 and Cappy and Lindsey were 3 & 4.

In a tourney Venus beat all 3 of them.

That next Monday Morning Venus dropped to No 4.

Thats just wrong.

Its kinda like in a championship fight. One fighter

knocks out his opponet and the opponet gets the

championship belt. Tiger wins the masters and they

give the green jacket to the guy who finished third.

Venus beat Serena at Wimb and Serena goes up in rank

and Venus doesn't.

They should start fresh every year

at zero just like the race.

good in theory, but once again not possible cause you end with with joe smo as the number 1 ranked player.... and since many top players dont play sydney... the AO seedings would be totally screwed up...

rjd1111
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:54 AM
good in theory, but once again not possible cause you end with with joe smo as the number 1 ranked player.... and since many top players dont play sydney... the AO seedings would be totally screwed up...

Good point. But they could do something like they

do in league bowling. Whatever your average was at

the end of the season you keep for the first part

of the next season. After the first month or so your

new average takes over.

Also the GS don't have to follow the ranking with their seeds.

The point is they can find a better ranking system.

Volcana
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:12 AM
What exactly do you think the ranking system is for?


Going back, I medan WAY back, we have rankings to take the bias out of seeding. Using rankings to seed tournaments is, supposedly, fair. Over the years, there have been lots of different ranking systems. None were perfect, butat least players didn't get the #1 seed by slepping with the sponsors.


Personally, I think the ranking system SHOULD reward quantity over quality. Why? because top players playing is what draw fans to tournaments. In effect, the ranking system is used to reward players for playing more. It does mean the ranking system doesn't tell us who the best players are, but nobody ever said it actually did that.


The ranking system is just a FAIR way of seeding tournaments. Part of that is supporting tournaments by playing. The best player may not support the tour very much. Serena once held the #1 ranking whle counting only eight tournaments. She was clearly the best player, but did she support the tour much? I think not.


Is Ana Ivanovic the best tennis player on the WTA tour? Not IMHO. Is she deserving of the #1 ranking? Absolutely.

Geisha
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:38 AM
What exactly do you think the ranking system is for?


Going back, I medan WAY back, we have rankings to take the bias out of seeding. Using rankings to seed tournaments is, supposedly, fair. Over the years, there have been lots of different ranking systems. None were perfect, butat least players didn't get the #1 seed by slepping with the sponsors.


Personally, I think the ranking system SHOULD reward quantity over quality. Why? because top players playing is what draw fans to tournaments. In effect, the ranking system is used to reward players for playing more. It does mean the ranking system doesn't tell us who the best players are, but nobody ever said it actually did that.


The ranking system is just a FAIR way of seeding tournaments. Part of that is supporting tournaments by playing. The best player may not support the tour very much. Serena once held the #1 ranking whle counting only eight tournaments. She was clearly the best player, but did she support the tour much? I think not.


Is Ana Ivanovic the best tennis player on the WTA tour? Not IMHO. Is she deserving of the #1 ranking? Absolutely.

How about this?

The Tour lessens the amount of tournaments that make up players' rankings - let's say from 17 to 15. And, the most recent results hold the most percentage of the points. So, Venus has 100 points. 70 of those points come from Wimbledon. But, because it is the most recent tournament, and it is a Grand Slam where all players competed, she should gain extra points. And, after a month, that percentage decreases, and so on.

Volcana
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:50 AM
How about this?

The Tour lessens the amount of tournaments that make up players' rankings - let's say from 17 to 15. And, the most recent results hold the most percentage of the points. So, Venus has 100 points. 70 of those points come from Wimbledon. But, because it is the most recent tournament, and it is a Grand Slam where all players competed, she should gain extra points. And, after a month, that percentage decreases, and so on.There used to be a seeding system where, after your points where six months old, they lost half there value.


No mathematical system is going to tell you who the best player is when then the players play different tournaments, different opponents, and differents numbers of tournament and matches. Math requires some constants.


That's why I consider weeks-at-#1 meaningless interms of how good a player is relative to her peers. at best, it tells you a player is one of the three or four best players. At worst, maybe only one of the seven or eight best. But tell you who's the best player? In order!?!?! Not even close. Is Jelena Jankovic really the 2nd best player n the WTA tour? Is Anna Chakvetadze really a beter tennis player than Venus Williams?


The problem isn't the ranking system. The problem is fans pretending it's something it's not. And can never be.

oleada
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Are some people here forgetting that until Wimbledon, Venus' results were nothing to write home about? She had only made it past the quarterfinals of a tournament once nor had she beaten a top ten player. Yes, she did great at Wimbledon but you're not the best player on tour if you've only played well two weeks out of the year.

For those complaining about Ana, she has the best slam results of anyone this year (F-W-3R) and a tier I title. All players have been inconsistent this year (with the exception of Jankovic). Serena hadn't brought her best to the slams until Wimbledon. Maria is in a slump. Elena has been doing well, but not top ten calibre. Safina didn't wake up until Miami. Anna has been erratic, but has some good results here and there (Paris W, Rome SF). And I already talked about Venus.

So I guess what I am trying to say, is that the rankings are fine as they are.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:39 AM
In 1994 Sanchez won RG and USO, reached AO final and Wimbledon 4th round. She also won 6 other titles.
At the same time, Graf won AO, reached USO final, RG semifinal and lost in the 1st round at Wimbledon. She also won 6 other rtitles.
Yet, Graf ended the season as #1. Why? Because she benefited from playing 4 less tournaments.
Is it fair? I think, it's not.
Every ranking system has its flaws.

rjd1111
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:52 PM
What exactly do you think the ranking system is for?


Going back, I medan WAY back, we have rankings to take the bias out of seeding. Using rankings to seed tournaments is, supposedly, fair. Over the years, there have been lots of different ranking systems. None were perfect, butat least players didn't get the #1 seed by slepping with the sponsors.


Personally, I think the ranking system SHOULD reward quantity over quality. Why? because top players playing is what draw fans to tournaments. In effect, the ranking system is used to reward players for playing more. It does mean the ranking system doesn't tell us who the best players are, but nobody ever said it actually did that.


The ranking system is just a FAIR way of seeding tournaments. Part of that is supporting tournaments by playing. The best player may not support the tour very much. Serena once held the #1 ranking whle counting only eight tournaments. She was clearly the best player, but did she support the tour much? I think not.


Is Ana Ivanovic the best tennis player on the WTA tour? Not IMHO. Is she deserving of the #1 ranking? Absolutely.


Rankings in any sport is supposed to be a reflection of the best
players of that sport. It is not a disciplinary tool to be used
to reward/punish players.

Foot_Fault
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Are some people here forgetting that until Wimbledon, Venus' results were nothing to write home about? She had only made it past the quarterfinals of a tournament once nor had she beaten a top ten player. Yes, she did great at Wimbledon but you're not the best player on tour if you've only played well two weeks out of the year.

For those complaining about Ana, she has the best slam results of anyone this year (F-W-3R) and a tier I title. All players have been inconsistent this year (with the exception of Jankovic). Serena hadn't brought her best to the slams until Wimbledon. Maria is in a slump. Elena has been doing well, but not top ten calibre. Safina didn't wake up until Miami. Anna has been erratic, but has some good results here and there (Paris W, Rome SF). And I already talked about Venus.

So I guess what I am trying to say, is that the rankings are fine as they are.

I don't think this thread is pointed at any specific player. I do feel a the Tours need to look at the "defending points" theory. That being said, i think Volcano's last post was spot on for me. People are delusional in stating that b/c a player may be ranked a little higher than the next that they're a better player. I don't think the system really justifys a players calibur to the 100% truth.

Serenidad.
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:54 PM
I worked out the system for some of the players, and this is what the top 15 would probably look like:


1. Maria Sharapova [RUS] 257.73
2. Serena Williams [USA] 241.73
3. Ana Ivanovic [SRB] 236.8
4. Venus Williams [USA] 201.33
5. Jelena Jankovic [SRB] 183.47
6. Elena Dementieva [RUS] 175.13
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova [RUS] 158.06
8. Dinara Safina [RUS] 119.6
9. Daniela Hantuchova [SVK] 118.4
10. Agnieska Radwanska [POL] 115.13
11. Vera Zvonareva [RUS] 109.87
12. Lindsay Davenport [USA] 102.8
13. Anna Chakvetadze [RUS] 86
14. Patty Schnyder [SUI] 79.67
15. Viktoria Azarenka [BLR] 71.53

There is no way Venus should be ranked that high. I hate to say this, but even over Jelena. Everything else seems fairly reasonable.

sasha&tennis
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Even if they don't do quality points they should at least give points to players who defend their titles. If you win again you get nothing if you lose you lose points how does that make any sense. Nadal has been trapped at # 2 for the past 2 years because he does not get any points for winning the french open because he is the defending champion and Venus stays at #7 because she defended her wimbledon title. What is the point in defending a title if the rankings are not going to reflect it? This is another reason I could care less about the ranking system.

rjd1111
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:35 PM
There is no way Venus should be ranked that high. I hate to say this, but even over Jelena. Everything else seems fairly reasonable.

Venus won a slam. JJ hasn't

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:25 PM
Even if they don't do quality points they should at least give points to players who defend their titles. If you win again you get nothing if you lose you lose points how does that make any sense. Nadal has been trapped at # 2 for the past 2 years because he does not get any points for winning the french open because he is the defending champion and Venus stays at #7 because she defended her wimbledon title. What is the point in defending a title if the rankings are not going to reflect it? This is another reason I could care less about the ranking system.

It's a 52-week rolling system. Is it so hard to understand?

Geisha
Jul 16th, 2008, 01:07 AM
Even if they don't do quality points they should at least give points to players who defend their titles. If you win again you get nothing if you lose you lose points how does that make any sense. Nadal has been trapped at # 2 for the past 2 years because he does not get any points for winning the french open because he is the defending champion and Venus stays at #7 because she defended her wimbledon title. What is the point in defending a title if the rankings are not going to reflect it? This is another reason I could care less about the ranking system.

The Nadal example is one where I think it works against your argument. Because his titles are mostly on claycourt (for the past three years), I don't think he should be #1 or gain points for defending titles. After all, he keeps winning claycourt tournaments, but he isn't (wasn't) all-court. Did that make sense?

In The Zone
Jul 16th, 2008, 01:10 AM
Venus won a slam. JJ hasn't

But Jelena made the SF in Melbourne, SF in RG, SF in IW, Final in Miami, QF in Charleston, QF in Berlin, Won Rome .... What did Venus do? ... SF in Bangalore, QF in Rome, QF in Miami. I think the rankings correctly have Jelena above Venus.

The ranking system is not meant to accurately put the better players over the lesser players. If it were trying to accurately rank players over one another, why would they even play tennis matches? If clearly this one player is better than another. That's not the case, however. It is meant to be a determinant for seedings and entry into tournaments. It is a 52-week system. Venus can keep winning Wimbledon now until 2099 but unless she does something outside of Wimbledon, her ranking will not go up. Wimbledon is not the only tournament on the calendar.

You still have to play tennis and you still have to win matches.