PDA

View Full Version : Donít be surprised when you instantly see the ranking points


court70
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:06 AM
Donít be surprised when you instantly see the ranking points for your favorite player soar on Monday morning.

No, you did not miss a major tournament during the month of December, but the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour has massively overhauled the ranking system.

The Sony Ericsson WTA Tourís new ranking system will go into effective on Monday, January 5. The new system will count 16 of a playerís best tournaments, compared to the 17 counted in 2008.

Points have doubled in value, which will cause a significant increase to the numbers accumulated by players in 2008.

New Top Ten Rankings for 2009
1. Jelena Jankovic
Old Ranking Points: 4710
January 5 Ranking Points: 9200

2. Serena Williams
Old Ranking Points: 3866
January 5 Ranking Points: 7732

3. Dinara Safina
Old Ranking Points: 3817
January 5 Ranking Points: 7554

4. Elena Dementieva
Old Ranking Points: 3663
January 5 Ranking Points: 7196

5. Ana Ivanovic
Old Ranking Points: 3457
January 5 Ranking Points: 6912

6. Venus Williams
Old Ranking Points: 3272
January 5 Ranking Points: 6544

7. Vera Zvonareva
Old Ranking Points: 2952
January 5 Ranking Points: 5754

8. Svetlana Kuznetsova
Old Ranking Points: 2726
January 5 Ranking Points: 5450

9. Maria Sharapova
Old Ranking Points: 2515
January 5 Ranking Points: 5030

10. Agnieszka Radwanska
Old Ranking Points: 2286
January 5 Ranking Points: 4472

Optima
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:12 AM
:spit:

:rolls:

Jelena :hearts:

Cakeisgood
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:15 AM
JJ has so many hahaha

Tennisstar86
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:24 AM
Are you sure about this? I know points are going up, but i thought more points were being awarded to grand slams... not just doubling everything, cause if thats the case its pointless to doubles the points of all tournies.....the result would be the same...

SvetaKuzzy
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:31 AM
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7504/ranking2009xu1.png

Kworb
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:31 AM
Are you sure about this? I know points are going up, but i thought more points were being awarded to grand slams... not just doubling everything, cause if thats the case its pointless to doubles the points of all tournies.....the result would be the same...
It is the same... they only did this so the points are still comparable to the ATP ranking

Noctis
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:38 AM
jj 10000 points :haha:

Tennisstar86
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:46 AM
oh the ATP changed thier system too i see....

Nadal has 13160 point......

homogenius
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:49 AM
Jelena :rocker2:

louisa.
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:27 AM
:rolls: Oh I love it.
Jelena :inlove:

MaBaker
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:17 AM
JJ haters :sad:

In The Zone
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Are you sure about this? I know points are going up, but i thought more points were being awarded to grand slams... not just doubling everything, cause if thats the case its pointless to doubles the points of all tournies.....the result would be the same...

All the points have been doubled and it is now a system out of 16, not 17.

All the points are still proportionate. Serena is the same distance (result-wise) away from Jelena. (Actually closer since Jelena's 17th was erased). If Serena wins OZ and Jelena does not make the final, Serena is # 1. (Possibly closer if Serena does well at Sydney.)

The system has next to zero changes besides a few tweaks here and there to modify the system for new varying tiers (seen in the Premier 5s and Premier Non-Mandatories).

The numbers are just larger. It is the same exact system, just now of 16, not 17. The mandatories will become mandatory once they are played -- not retroactively.

Steff_forever
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:29 AM
inflationary sytem again

TheBoiledEgg
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:51 AM
they not doubling pts for 1r losers in 2009, but i bet they do for 2008 pts when they issue new ranks tomorrow.

rrfnpump
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:56 AM
16player ITF tournaments? :cuckoo: WTF :o

These new ranking system makes no sense at all and I see no improvement from the old.

TeamUla
Jan 4th, 2009, 12:00 PM
I think that all ITF events with 50k,75k and 100k should have hospitality.

Slutiana
Jan 4th, 2009, 12:12 PM
:rolls:

esquŪmaux
Jan 4th, 2009, 12:16 PM
Serena, Dinara, Svetlana, and Venus are amazing. Real women with true grit. I'm amazed by how strong-willed they are.

Ceri
Jan 4th, 2009, 12:21 PM
wow. Oh well...

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 4th, 2009, 12:38 PM
:scratch: ok

jjcrew#1
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:20 PM
:hearts::hearts:Jelena on top!:hearts::hearts:

jjcrew#1
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Serena, Dinara, Svetlana, and Venus are amazing. Real women with true grit. I'm amazed by how strong-willed they are.

Yeah to bad none of them are number one! :lol::lol:

Mina Vagante
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:33 PM
So by the end of the year, Jelena could have 20,000 points ?

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:35 PM
So by the end of the year, Jelena could have 20,000 points ?

that sounds so ridiculous :lol: so jh's record has now been passed with flying colours :rolls:

Juanes
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:36 PM
that will be not funny for player as Hantuchova (SF - Australian Open)

- 900 points i think... omg....

Mina Vagante
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:37 PM
that sounds so ridiculous :lol: so jh's record has now been passed with flying colours :rolls:

It really does sound so stupid

Direwolf
Jan 4th, 2009, 02:51 PM
so...

by next week..

JJ would be breaking Justine and Serenas ranking records??

Elisse
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:01 PM
So by the end of the year, Jelena could have 20,000 points ?

Exactly - how crazy is that!!! :lol: :help: Another 'fantastic' idea of Larry Scott!!! :o :rolleyes:

How on earth are lower ranked players ever gonna be able to catch up on some of these top points......madness! :tape:

sammy01
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:11 PM
So by the end of the year, Jelena could have 20,000 points ?

no her ponts total of 9,000+ is her whole of 2008 results turned into 2009 points, the only way she can raise her points total is to do better than last year. if she rep[eats all her 2008 results her in 2009 her 2009 points total will still be 9,000+

Mina Vagante
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:12 PM
Exactly - how crazy is that!!! :lol: :help: Another 'fantastic' idea of Larry Scott!!! :o :rolleyes:

How on earth are lower ranked players ever gonna be able to catch up on some of these top points......madness! :tape:

Yeap ! It's going to be stupid. Jelena has 18,203 yet Serena has 16,682 . Its going to be too complicated.

Soon they'll be like 293,948. :tape:

Shvedbarilescu
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:14 PM
This is obviously great news for tennis..........because it means that all the players will be twice as good as they were last year. :devil:

InsideOut.
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:16 PM
This is obviously great news for tennis..........because it means that all the players will be twice as good as they were last year. :devil:

0 x 2 = 0 :shrug:

Shvedbarilescu
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:18 PM
0 x 2 = 0 :shrug:

Ok so it won't help Brie. :shrug:

RND
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Is it that I'm too smart,or many people on this board are too dumb?:help: How the heck can any player manage to reach 20,000 points? :o It'd be an amaze already if they're breaking 10,000.

But all in all these are only 2 systems with different measurement. Does it really mean that much the points LOOK big or small? :tape:

sunsfuns
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Is it that I'm too smart,or many people on this board are too dumb?:help: How the heck can any player manage to reach 20,000 points? :o It'd be an amaze already if they're breaking 10,000.

They were exaggerating a bit... ;)

Theoretical maximum used to be a bit over 8,000 points (16 titles, all 4 GS), now it will be double that. So a truly dominant player (like Fed few years ago) will have about 14,000-15,000 points.

CrossCourt~Rally
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:33 PM
16player ITF tournaments? :cuckoo: WTF :o

These new ranking system makes no sense at all and I see no improvement from the old.


I wonder how small the doubles draws will be :tape::p

stefi62
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:47 PM
They were exaggerating a bit... ;)

Theoretical maximum used to be a bit over 8,000 points (16 titles, all 4 GS), now it will be double that. So a truly dominant player (like Fed few years ago) will have about 14,000-15,000 points.

To give a rough idea, Black/Huber, who have been very dominant in 2008, will have 10120 points tomorrow, with 11 tournaments taken into account.

sunsfuns
Jan 4th, 2009, 03:52 PM
To give a rough idea, Black/Huber, who have been very dominant in 2008, will have 10120 points tomorrow, with 11 tournaments taken into account.

They only won one GS. That's not what I call dominant!

BTW Martina Hingis won a calendar year Grand Slam in doubles just 10 years ago :)

stefi62
Jan 4th, 2009, 04:28 PM
They only won one GS. That's not what I call dominant!

1 Slam title, 2 Slam semis and 1 Slam quarters, 1 YEC title, 2 Tier I titles, 1 Tier I final, plus 5 Tier II titles, ... and finishing the year co ranked World number ones with 1800 more than the third player in the rankings, I do call it dominant over a season...

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:33 PM
Is it that I'm too smart,or many people on this board are too dumb?:help: How the heck can any player manage to reach 20,000 points? :o It'd be an amaze already if they're breaking 10,000.

But all in all these are only 2 systems with different measurement. Does it really mean that much the points LOOK big or small? :tape:

:weirdo:

sammy01
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:37 PM
:weirdo:

hes actualy totaly correct.

Tennisstar86
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:40 PM
Is it that I'm too smart,or many people on this board are too dumb?:help: How the heck can any player manage to reach 20,000 points? :o It'd be an amaze already if they're breaking 10,000.

But all in all these are only 2 systems with different measurement. Does it really mean that much the points LOOK big or small? :tape:

you're not as smart as you think you are..... 10,000 wouldnt be that hard to break...

They already explained that they changed the system to compare to the mens (which also changed) if you check their ranking Federer, Nadal, and Djoko all have over 10,000 points. Nadal as 13000+

Dawson.
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:47 PM
you're not as smart as you think you are..... 10,000 wouldnt be that hard to break...

They already explained that they changed the system to compare to the mens (which also changed) if you check their ranking Federer, Nadal, and Djoko all have over 10,000 points. Nadal as 13000+

Are you saying that matching the accomplishments of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic is not hard to do? If so, then perhaps you are not as smart as you think you are...

Conor
Jan 4th, 2009, 05:52 PM
This is just retarded :weirdo:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:17 PM
hes actualy totaly correct.

i'm not even gonna start on you :weirdo:

Serena's Hubby
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:21 PM
this is ridiculous, why don't they just leave it how it is?? why do they feel the need to make a change :o

duhcity
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:27 PM
you're not as smart as you think you are..... 10,000 wouldnt be that hard to break...

They already explained that they changed the system to compare to the mens (which also changed) if you check their ranking Federer, Nadal, and Djoko all have over 10,000 points. Nadal as 13000+

But the ATP didnt just double the points. They changed the allotment increments. someone at MTF redid the 2008 rankings if the points had been 2009 style. Noticeably Djokovic was number 2, and players with one or two big results shot up while consistent players at lower tournaments went down.

alwayshingis
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Why is everyone saying this is so ridiculous? They've just doubled the points (essentially meaningless, except that it creates a clearer ranking point disparity between the best and the rest, which is a good thing) and changed the requirement to 16 tournaments (something that many people have been wanting for years now). This is hardly a fundamental change to the ranking system as everything is staying basically the same.

TheBoiledEgg
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Why is everyone saying this is so ridiculous? They've just doubled the points (essentially meaningless, except that it creates a clearer ranking point disparity between the best and the rest, which is a good thing) and changed the requirement to 16 tournaments (something that many people have been wanting for years now). This is hardly a fundamental change to the ranking system as everything is staying basically the same.

thats ok until you when a player hits top ten, her rank formula changes, and then it changes again if she falls out of top 10 which is basically nonsense and impossible to formulate.
WTA must be working in 6 month cycles to work out that cos they not gonna keep changing her formula when she moves from 10 down to 11 and back to 10 every week or so.

alwayshingis
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:43 PM
thats ok until you when a player hits top ten, her rank formula changes, and then it changes again if she falls out of top 10 which is basically nonsense and impossible to formulate.
WTA must be working in 6 month cycles to work out that cos they not gonna keep changing her formula when she moves from 10 down to 11 and back to 10 every week or so.

Granted, that part is a little silly. I thought that the players who started the year in the top 10 had the top 10 forumla for the whole year. But if they keep changing it throughout the year, I am fully in favor of criticizing that part.

mckyle.
Jan 4th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Why is everyone saying this is so ridiculous? They've just doubled the points

That's the ridiculous part. What was the point in even changing the system? :lol:

terjw
Jan 4th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Is it that I'm too smart,or many people on this board are too dumb?:help: How the heck can any player manage to reach 20,000 points? :o It'd be an amaze already if they're breaking 10,000.

But all in all these are only 2 systems with different measurement. Does it really mean that much the points LOOK big or small? :tape:

The latter - many people on this board seem to be too dumb to understand.

To those that complain about Justine's "record" ranking points in 2007 is cheapened - not al all. We shouldn't be comparing absolute ranking points from year to year since the system undergoes tweaks and changes all the time. You don't compare ranking points when a divisor used cto be applied with today's ranking points. And we don't base a list of GOAT players on the money they earn in a season which usually goes up each year. If anyone is so obsessed with comparing Justine's total in 2007 to now - they can just multipy it by 2 to get a rough comparison.

Next the effect: The change itself won't actually make that big a difference. So it's completely OTT to get upset by it. In detail - many tournaments will be just 2 times the number of points before. If all tournaments were twice as many points - nothing would have really changed. But:

Some Premier mandatory events will have more than two times the previous number of points.
But Premier events - the old tier 2 - have less than two times the previous number of points.
Only 16 results count now - it was 17.This could tilt the rankings in favour of players who do well in big tournaments over players who do well in smaller tournaments. And it reduces the advantage of playing 17 or more tournaments. It won't be a big difference though. But it's something I thought most people wanted.

So it's not retarded and it's really not difficult to understand.

terjw
Jan 4th, 2009, 07:21 PM
That's the ridiculous part. What was the point in even changing the system? :lol:

As far as being ridiculous or retarded - no. It's not ridiculous whether they do it or not. It douesn't matter. Was obviously done though to make it in line with the ATP.

Babolatpro880
Jan 4th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Are any players going to be actually rising or falling due to the fact that only sixteen results count now instead of seventeen? Just curious.

Vlover
Jan 4th, 2009, 07:44 PM
They changed the allotment increments.

I thought this was the underline strategy for the WTA.:( If not, then the change was useless.

sunsfuns
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Are any players going to be actually rising or falling due to the fact that only sixteen results count now instead of seventeen? Just curious.

Players with very high 17th result, like Jelena, will lose some points, but not enough to affect rankings.

I wish they just left the systme alone for some years... :o

As for changing it for borderline top 10 players every week, it sounds very stupid but a properly written computer algorithm can do things a lot more complex than that. Of course it makes things very difficult for amateurs like us... :fiery:

sunsfuns
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:20 PM
As far as being ridiculous or retarded - no. It's not ridiculous whether they do it or not. It douesn't matter. Was obviously done though to make it in line with the ATP.

They didn't even do that. The new ATP rankings are going to be slanted more in favor of winners of big tournaments (GS and MS) than the new WTA rankings...

Wiggly
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Ok.
So nobody is going to jump or drop 20 places like the other time.
Half of the Tour had it career high ranking that week. :tape:

alwayshingis
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:35 PM
New rankings are out now, so you can take a look:

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/singles_numeric.asp

-VSR-
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Yeah to bad none of them are number one! :lol::lol:

Grand Slam? :tape:

Cp6uja
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:46 PM
By far biggest problem about 2009 ranking system is fact that for first time ever after ranking system changes results from previous season (2008 in this case) will be counted "better" than from new season (if not count slams where no changes it will be in average about 15%-20% in favor of 2008 results) which is almost ridiculous. In ATP you dont have such problems because no changes on tour in terms of events profile or format of counted tournaments (same number of 4 slams and 9 mandatory masters) so when you double 2008 points in ATP, nothing is really changed because for same tournaments from 2008 you will reach same (doubled) number of points this season.

In WTA we have big changes of events format, in average 2009 tournaments is way bigger and stronger (much bigger money prize and instead 5 with "must play" mandatory status will be 12 counted tournaments for TOP10 players), but worth less in points! For example 2008 1.3M$ tier-I tournament will worth in points almost same like 2009 4M$ and more than 2M$ 2009 tournament where will must play at least 7 of TOP10 players. Former tier-II 600K$ events from 2008 will worth more in ranking pts than for example 1M$ 2009 events.

So it's very very bizzare that bigger influence on player ranking and status will have tournament which she played 11 months ago, than 11 week or 11 days ago, and also for TOP10 players is more important her 2008 year ending ranking than current weekly ranking. How that is dumb i will demonstrate with "what if" example if this new roadmap is works since 2008 (not 2009). Daniela Hantuchova and Marion Bartoli finished 2007 in TOP10, unlike Dinara Safina and Elena Dementieva. Already at start of 2nd half of 2008 season Marion and Dani is not only out of TOP10, but have problems to stay in TOP20 - on other hand Dinara and Elena is not only part of TOP10 (and TOP5), but have some chances to reach #1 spot... but according this rules in august and later last season if new rules worked till 2008, Dani and Marion will be still players with TOP10 limits and obligations, not Dinara and Elena!?

St.Sebastian
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:48 PM
New rankings are up on the wta website.
At the moment only for players ranked 101+, slight changes in the player's positions there. Top-100 players' totals have been updated as well but at the moment only if you filter players by country.

juki
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:54 PM
Its kind of funny to see no one have an odd number of points, especially amongst lower-ranked players. They obviously doubled 1-point losses from last year then. Such a short-cut way of doing things :lol:

Cp6uja
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:55 PM
New rankings are up on the wta website.
At the moment only for players ranked 101+, slight changes in the player's positions there. Top-100 players' totals have been updated as well but at the moment only if you filter players by country.Here is better link:

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/singles_numeric.asp?page=1&code=&rank=1|1114

Sir Stefwhit
Jan 4th, 2009, 08:58 PM
What about changing it from your best 16 to your last 16? Then it would take care of players who accumalate points with quantity rather than quality.

sunsfuns
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:00 PM
By far biggest problem about 2009 ranking system is fact that for first time ever after ranking system changes results from previous season (2008 in this case) will be counted "better" than from new season (if not count slams where no changes it will be in average about 15%-20% in favor of 2008 results) which is almost ridiculous. In ATP you dont have such problems because no changes on tour in terms of events profile or format of counted tournaments (same number of 4 slams and 9 mandatory masters) so when you double 2008 points in ATP, nothing is really changed because for same tournaments from 2008 you will reach same (doubled) number of points this season.

I suspect you are not following ATP much...

In fact their ranking system will change even more! Only the winner will get the same amount of points this year (just doubled). It used to be 1000, 700, 450 for GS and now it will be 2000, 1200, 720. That's a HUGE change!!!

A'DAM
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Marta Domachowska 2 places up(63) with 998 points ;)
But she will drop like a stone if she will not get at least to the 3rd rd of AO :weirdo:

Cp6uja
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:30 PM
I suspect you are not following ATP much...

In fact their ranking system will change even more! Only the winner will get the same amount of points this year (just doubled). It used to be 1000, 700, 450 for GS and now it will be 2000, 1200, 720. That's a HUGE change!!!ATP with that only want to make bigger difference between Slam Title and all other slam results which will not reflect too much in favor to 2008 results because same 3 players (Nadal, Federer and Djokovic) reach 11 of 16 2008 SF's. Only 2009 ATP change which will really reflect in favor of 2008 results is reduced value of chalengers results, but that has nothing with TOP Tennis like TOP32 seeded players at slams etc... Also till 2009 in ATP will be also counted Davis Cup matches (which is in favor 2009 results).

markdelaney
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:39 PM
All this is still just encouraging players to play 30 tournaments a year as 14 first round losses won't make any difference.

Babolatpro880
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:46 PM
What about changing it from your best 16 to your last 16? Then it would take care of players who accumalate points with quantity rather than quality.

That's potentially the dumbest idea I've ever heard. WOW, someone just won a grand slam, let's NOT COUNT IT in their ranking!

I'm assuming this suggestion was sarcastic.

terjw
Jan 4th, 2009, 09:58 PM
That's potentially the dumbest idea I've ever heard. WOW, someone just won a grand slam, let's NOT COUNT IT in their ranking!

I'm assuming this suggestion was sarcastic.

I think he/she was talking about the non-obligatory events. But it's still the dumbest idea. Let's try to promote the tour by penalising a player from playing more if she's done done well in her previous events. :rolleyes:

The more you play - the harder it is to keep winning. The limit is good because it stops a player just keep playing and getting more and more points forever. But having it as the best results is good because a player can never get penalised and lose points by playing - which would be a really dumb idea.

Kworb
Jan 4th, 2009, 10:00 PM
That's potentially the dumbest idea I've ever heard. WOW, someone just won a grand slam, let's NOT COUNT IT in their ranking!

I'm assuming this suggestion was sarcastic.
I interpreted "last 16" as the last 16 played, not the worst 16 played. But either suggestion would be pretty pointless.

lotje87
Jan 4th, 2009, 10:10 PM
Rezai is falling to place 97 :weirdo:
(she is coming from 77)

TheBoiledEgg
Jan 4th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Gold Coast/Auckland pts are already taken off from 2008 on new lists.

Sydney & Hobart fall off next.

good thing they kept ranks exactly how i got them.

Sean.
Jan 4th, 2009, 10:24 PM
Alizé and Agness rose :woohoo:

I like the new system! Or is htat because of Auckland?

Sean.
Jan 4th, 2009, 10:25 PM
Oh Makiri fell :sad:

Sir Stefwhit
Jan 4th, 2009, 10:26 PM
That's potentially the dumbest idea I've ever heard. WOW, someone just won a grand slam, let's NOT COUNT IT in their ranking!

I'm assuming this suggestion was sarcastic.
If that's honestly the dumbest idea you've ever heard then you really need to live a little! I'm assuming that was an attempt at sarcasm.

In lieu of the old four-tier system, the new system splits tournaments into two categories premier and international events. Within the premier events you have three subcatagories. Even if you play excessive tournaments you'll always have a set number of mandatory events that you can enter- and the lower events shouldn't be able to take the place of the higher events with regards to points earned. That's why I was saying just count the last tournaments played- the limitations suggested wouldn't be for slams or mandatory events only the lower premier evets. I can see problems with that approach so how about how about limiting the amount of lower premier events that count toward 16 events?

Don't freakin' bite my head for making suggestion even if to you they're some of the dumbest ideas "you've ever heard".

Cp6uja
Jan 4th, 2009, 11:01 PM
ATP with that only want to make bigger difference between Slam Title and all other slam results which will not reflect too much in favor to 2008 results because same 3 players (Nadal, Federer and Djokovic) reach 11 of 16 2008 SF's. Only 2009 ATP change which will really reflect in favor of 2008 results is reduced value of chalengers results, but that has nothing with TOP Tennis like TOP32 seeded players at slams etc... Also till 2009 in ATP will be also counted Davis Cup matches (which is in favor 2009 results).OUPS... i check again ATP points distribution for 2009 and notice that except slams, ATP masters tournaments is also changed (Title worth same, but runnerups worth 60% instead 70% of title points...etc...) which means that ATP on different way make same stupid mistake like WTA - tournaments results from 2008 in average will have bigger value than newest from 2009 season (more than 20%!). But that is not excuse for WTA to be such stupid and much favor for example several months old results in front of couple weeks old and also "punish" 10 players which finish previous season at TOP10.

DragonFlame
Jan 4th, 2009, 11:27 PM
What about changing it from your best 16 to your last 16? Then it would take care of players who accumalate points with quantity rather than quality.

Very easy, for example:

a player wins the australian open as their first tournament(2000 points) of the year and plays 16 other tournaments the rest of the year. Their ranking would fall like there's no tomorrow after playing that last tournament.:help:

Tennisstar86
Jan 4th, 2009, 11:56 PM
Are you saying that matching the accomplishments of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic is not hard to do? If so, then perhaps you are not as smart as you think you are...

Actually thats exactly what im saying. because the fact is on the womens side its not that hard to do. Right now, There are a bunch of good players, but the elite players havent really set themselves apart. On the mens side the elite players have set themselves apart. Theres 4 players who are in contention for the grandslams; however, IMO there are alot more players on the mens side who should trouble these players. On the womens side, they have a ton less players who could knock them out in early rounds. Hell look at who the girls were losing to this year........

Also, Nadal won what 5 titles? In his ranking hes got 2 grand slams... In his Best Federer has had 3 grand slams in his ranking.

Serena held all 4
Justine held 3
Venus has held 2
so yes, I think the top women on tour can match the accomplishments of the men in 1 year... You act like they are gods...

tiptop
Jan 5th, 2009, 12:49 AM
Still no ranking points breakdown. :( I mean is it that hard to hire five students and let them do a breakdown..

Serena's Hubby
Jan 5th, 2009, 01:34 AM
okay i still don't get it..so the players performance in their last 16 tournaments got doubled..into this years ranking??? tell me if im wrong please..cuz Jankovic is almost like 2000 points in front of world number serena and safina..and that is uhh weird

DutchieGirl
Jan 5th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Qualifying points look more than double. :shrug:

DutchieGirl
Jan 5th, 2009, 01:41 AM
okay i still don't get it..so the players performance in their last 16 tournaments got doubled..into this years ranking??? tell me if im wrong please..cuz Jankovic is almost like 2000 points in front of world number serena and safina..and that is uhh weird
Yes, that's right. But performance wise, Serena is still the same distance from Jelena - because you're getting more (double) points for each round at tourneys now.

Fingon
Jan 5th, 2009, 01:57 AM
The wta cannot really be more stupid.

They doubled the first round losses :rolleyes:, so players who lost in the first round of any tournament now get 2 points, even though in the new system they still get 1 point :tape:

interesting also, in the new system, they get 470 points for premier events, 800 points for premier 5 and 1,000 points for mandatory.

the difference in prize money between a 700K and a premier 5 is 1.3 million, or 185%. In points is 330 points, 70%.

between premier 5 and mandatory is 125% prize money and 25% in points.

NO relation, they just put the points they felt.

And you wonder why the ranking is garbage

Babolatpro880
Jan 5th, 2009, 02:01 AM
WTA is so LAZY :lol: They just doubled a player's best sixteen without taking into account first round losses.

Serena's Hubby
Jan 5th, 2009, 02:56 AM
Yes, that's right. But performance wise, Serena is still the same distance from Jelena - because you're getting more (double) points for each round at tourneys now.

oh okay thanks!!.... and derr I'm slow lol

Pasta-Na
Jan 5th, 2009, 02:58 AM
oh my goodness :eek: :eek: :eek:

:rolls:

AnomyBC
Jan 5th, 2009, 05:36 AM
Does this mean Jelena is now the best female player of all time?

DutchieGirl
Jan 5th, 2009, 07:51 AM
No, it means she has the most points any player has had by default. :)