PDA

View Full Version : *JR* rankings


Marlene
Jul 5th, 2011, 09:49 PM
This is another WTA rankings experiment - the *JR* rankings with double-up points, a spin-off of the Marlene (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=19843261#post19843261) rankings® with time-factors.

The WTA-points have been replaced with "double-up" points; here's what the new point scale looks like for slams:

WTA: R128: 5 -- R64: 100 -- R32: 160 -- R16: 280 -- QF: 500 -- SF: 900 -- F: 1400 -- W: 2000
DUP: R128: 4 -- R64: 32 --- R32: 64 --- R16: 128 -- QF: 256 -- SF: 512 -- F: 1024 -- W: 2048

The double-up'ing begins with the first win, and 32 pts is the "base" for Slams. A first round loss prompts a symbolic 1/8 of the base pts (mainly because I use 0 pts to keep track of players who didn't participate but should've). There is a similar double-up system for the qualification rounds; completing the qualification gives 3/4 of the base pts (i.e. 24 pt in Slam-qualies - I chose this fraction because it sorta fits with the WTA system).

ETA: After the WTA-points have been replaced with "double-up" points, the lists are sorted after the usual WTA criteria. 1st rnd BYEs followed by a win is counted as a win; a 1st rnd BYE and a 2nd round loss equals a 1st rnd loss.

For non-Slam events, the base pts are determined by the draw size (relative to the slam draws). I figured this was the way to go because it's logical rather than subjective and it's in the same spirit as the double-up points system. So, for Indian Wells and Miami which have 96M/64q draws (or 128M depending on how you look at it) I use a 24 pts base:

WTA: R128: 5 -- R64: 50 -- R32: 80 -- R16: 140 -- QF: 250 -- SF: 450 -- F: 700 -- W: 1000
DUP: R128: 3 -- R64: 24 -- R32: 48 -- R16: 96 --- QF: 192 -- SF: 384 -- F: 768 -- W: 1536


The 64M/64q draws (Cincinnati, Montreal/Toronto) get a 18 pts base which means 576 pts for the winner and 288 pts for the finalist. 64M/32q draws (Beijing, Birmingham, Charleston, Dubai, Madrid, Rome, Tokyo) get a 16 pts base; that's 512 pts for the winner. I haven't made a distinction between PRE, PRE-5 and MAN events at this point, but it's doable. Tournaments like Auckland, Båstad, Copenhagen, Doha, Eastbourne and a whole lotta others have 32M/32q draws; they get a 11 pts base. And so on. ITF tournaments get half of what a similar WTA event would get, i.e. an 32M/32q ITF event gets 5.5 pts. For the YEC and Bali I've picked a pts base that results in something not too different from the WTA points.

Enough talk; here is the inaugural *JR* ranking list:



20110704
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (jr/wta)
1 (1) Wozniacki 6644 (9915) 0.670
2 (2) Clijsters 6573 (7625) 0.862
3 (4) Azarenka 4010 (6465) 0.620
4 (6) Li 3916 (5855) 0.668
5 (5) Sharapova 3904 (6141) 0.635
6 (7) Kvitova 3610 (5437) 0.664
7 (3) Zvonareva 3604 (6695) 0.538
8 (8) Schiavone 2450 (4860) 0.504
9 (9) Bartoli 2286 (4230) 0.540
10 (11) Petkovic 1614 (3305) 0.488
11 (18) Ivanovic 1522 (2555) 0.595
12 (10) Stosur 1402 (3405) 0.411
13 (13) Pavlyuchenkova 1372 (2995) 0.458
14 (12) Kuznetsova 1324 (3220) 0.411
15 (27) Lisicki 1288 (1886) 0.682
16 (17) Peng 1248 (2580) 0.483
17 (19) Wickmayer 1163 (2470) 0.470
18 (14) Radwanska 1152 (2995) 0.384
19 (15) Jankovic 1128 (2775) 0.406
20 (16) Goerges 1117 (2715) 0.411
21 (22) Hantuchova 1027 (2195) 0.467
22 (20) Cibulkova 971 (2455) 0.395
23 (25) Vinci 816 (1985) 0.411
24 (28) Kleybanova 795 (1845) 0.430
25 (26) Kanepi 788 (1911) 0.412



Comments: It's very close between Wozniacki and Clijsters, and it's basically the YEC points that tip the scale - if I up the YEC points a little bit (so that the difference between finalist and winner increases) then Clijsters sneaks ahead. But, NB; Clijsters was ahead of Wozniacki until Wimbledon.

Lisicki makes a big jump up the list (from #27 to #15) thanks to her Birmingham (W) and Wimbledon (SF) points. In the WTA system she's ranked alongside the usual winning-a-couple-of-matches-at-each-tournament type of players but in the double-up system her points are "bigger". It's the same story with Ivanovic (from #18 to #11) because her two tournament wins are rewarded in the double-up rankings.

For Radwanska it's the opposite - she wins 3-4 matches at each tournament (a good average) but she never goes all the way. Therefore she doesn't score as many double-up points as WTA points, and she drops from #14 to #18. Jankovic; same thing.


So, what do you think? Comments and suggestions are welcome, i.e. if you think Charleston should have a 15 pts base instead of 16 or something.

SVK
Jul 5th, 2011, 09:51 PM
Hantuchova above Cibulkova in this one?...I approve!

But LOLOLOLOLOL @ Ivanovic at 11...you can not be serious:p

Marlene
Jul 5th, 2011, 09:52 PM
More *JR* ranking lists:


20110606
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (jr/wta)
1 (2) Clijsters 6842 (8215) 0.832
2 (1) Wozniacki 6644 (9915) 0.670
3 (4) Li 4641 (6475) 0.716
4 (3) Zvonareva 4564 (7935) 0.575
5 (5) Azarenka 3618 (5920) 0.611
6 (6) Sharapova 3264 (5221) 0.625
7 (7) Schiavone 2380 (4646) 0.512
8 (25) SerenaWilliams 2048 (2000) 1.024
9 (9) Bartoli 2026 (3740) 0.541
10 (8) Kvitova 1987 (4018) 0.494
11 (11) Petkovic 1608 (3280) 0.490
12 (14) Pavlyuchenkova 1404 (3055) 0.459
13 (10) Stosur 1402 (3405) 0.411
14 (19) Ivanovic 1345 (2330) 0.577
15 (12) Kuznetsova 1296 (3210) 0.403
16 (15) Jankovic 1252 (3050) 0.410
17 (13) Radwanska 1227 (3056) 0.401
18 (17) Kanepi 1132 (2545) 0.445
19 (18) Wickmayer 1099 (2350) 0.467
20 (16) Goerges 1057 (2560) 0.412
21 (20) Peng 1010 (2240) 0.451
22 (24) Kleybanova 859 (2005) 0.428
23 (27) Gajdosova 846 (1940) 0.436
24 (32) VenusWilliams 832 (1560) 0.533
25 (22) Peer 792 (2170) 0.364


20110613
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (jr/wta)
1 (2) Clijsters 6842 (8215) 0.832
2 (1) Wozniacki 6644 (9915) 0.670
3 (3) Zvonareva 4564 (7935) 0.575
4 (4) Li 4130 (6196) 0.666
5 (5) Azarenka 3618 (5920) 0.611
6 (6) Sharapova 3008 (5021) 0.599
7 (7) Schiavone 2380 (4646) 0.512
8 (26) SerenaWilliams 2048 (2000) 1.024
9 (9) Bartoli 2026 (3740) 0.541
10 (8) Kvitova 1987 (4018) 0.494
11 (11) Petkovic 1608 (3280) 0.490
12 (18) Ivanovic 1462 (2400) 0.609
13 (14) Pavlyuchenkova 1404 (3055) 0.459
14 (10) Stosur 1402 (3405) 0.411
15 (12) Kuznetsova 1296 (3210) 0.403
16 (15) Jankovic 1252 (3050) 0.410
17 (13) Radwanska 1227 (3056) 0.401
18 (20) Peng 1120 (2300) 0.487
19 (19) Wickmayer 1099 (2350) 0.467
20 (17) Kanepi 1064 (2466) 0.431
21 (16) Goerges 1057 (2560) 0.412
22 (24) Hantuchova 967 (2005) 0.482
23 (25) Kleybanova 859 (2005) 0.428
24 (28) Gajdosova 846 (1940) 0.436
25 (33) VenusWilliams 832 (1560) 0.533


20110620
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (jr/wta)
1 (2) Clijsters 6829 (8125) 0.840
2 (1) Wozniacki 6644 (9915) 0.670
3 (3) Zvonareva 4564 (7935) 0.575
4 (4) Li 4140 (6255) 0.661
5 (5) Azarenka 3562 (5725) 0.622
6 (6) Sharapova 3008 (5021) 0.599
7 (7) Schiavone 2390 (4705) 0.507
8 (9) Bartoli 2158 (4010) 0.538
9 (8) Kvitova 2074 (4337) 0.478
10 (25) SerenaWilliams 2059 (2060) 0.999
11 (13) Petkovic 1554 (3150) 0.493
12 (18) Ivanovic 1462 (2400) 0.609
13 (14) Pavlyuchenkova 1404 (3055) 0.459
14 (10) Stosur 1402 (3405) 0.411
15 (12) Kuznetsova 1292 (3160) 0.408
16 (15) Jankovic 1252 (3050) 0.410
17 (11) Radwanska 1248 (3175) 0.393
18 (20) Peng 1120 (2300) 0.487
19 (19) Wickmayer 1099 (2350) 0.467
20 (17) Kanepi 1064 (2466) 0.431
21 (16) Goerges 1057 (2560) 0.412
22 (23) Hantuchova 995 (2135) 0.466
23 (26) Kleybanova 859 (2005) 0.428
24 (30) VenusWilliams 854 (1680) 0.508
25 (28) Gajdosova 846 (1940) 0.436

Marlene
Jul 5th, 2011, 09:55 PM
But LOLOLOLOLOL @ Ivanovic at 11...you can not be serious:p

Don't blame me - it's Kleybanova's fault for not beating her at Bali!

Marlene
Jul 5th, 2011, 10:23 PM
More *JR* ranking lists:


20100830 - before US Open
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (new/wta)
1 (1) SerenaWilliams 4624 (5355) 0.863
2 (2) Wozniacki 2842 (4715) 0.602
3 (5) Jankovic 2825 (3873) 0.729
4 (8) Clijsters 2761 (3295) 0.837
5 (7) Schiavone 2657 (3452) 0.769
6 (4) Stosur 2531 (4067) 0.622
7 (3) VenusWilliams 2416 (4085) 0.591
8 (6) Zvonareva 2196 (3773) 0.582
9 (10) Li 1675 (3086) 0.542
10 (9) Azarenka 1241 (3096) 0.400
11 (11) Radwanska 1206 (2731) 0.441
12 (17) Sharapova 1198 (2230) 0.537
13 (13) Rezai 1193 (2515) 0.474
14 (14) Petrova 1035 (2429) 0.426
15 (16) Bartoli 1020 (2288) 0.446
16 (19) Zheng 993 (2128) 0.466
17 (20) Wickmayer 967 (2003) 0.483
18 (18) Pavlyuchenkova 959 (2178) 0.440
19 (12) Peer 923 (2685) 0.343
20 (15) Pennetta 915 (2390) 0.382
21 (24) Kanepi 884 (1716) 0.515
22 (25) MartinezSanchez 853 (1676) 0.509
23 (21) Kirilenko 765 (1980) 0.386
24 (22) Kuznetsova 728 (1867) 0.390
25 (28) Pironkova 716 (1497) 0.478


20100913 - after US Open
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (new/wta)
1 (3) Clijsters 4809 (5295) 0.908
2 (2) SerenaWilliams 4624 (5355) 0.863
3 (1) Wozniacki 3354 (5615) 0.597
4 (4) Zvonareva 3220 (5173) 0.622
5 (5) VenusWilliams 2928 (4985) 0.587
6 (8) Schiavone 2913 (3952) 0.737
7 (7) Jankovic 2889 (4033) 0.716
8 (6) Stosur 2787 (4567) 0.610
9 (10) Li 1679 (3091) 0.543
10 (15) Sharapova 1326 (2510) 0.528
11 (9) Azarenka 1273 (3196) 0.398
12 (12) Radwanska 1238 (2831) 0.437
13 (13) Rezai 1225 (2615) 0.468
14 (21) Kanepi 1140 (2216) 0.514
15 (19) Wickmayer 1095 (2283) 0.479
16 (16) Pavlyuchenkova 1087 (2458) 0.442
17 (18) Bartoli 1052 (2388) 0.440
18 (11) Peer 1051 (2965) 0.354
19 (17) Petrova 1039 (2434) 0.427
20 (20) Zheng 1025 (2228) 0.460
21 (14) Pennetta 979 (2550) 0.383
22 (27) MartinezSanchez 885 (1776) 0.498
23 (22) Kuznetsova 856 (2147) 0.398
24 (23) Kirilenko 829 (2140) 0.387
25 (29) Pironkova 748 (1597) 0.468


20101108 - after YEC and Bali
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (new/wta)
1 (3) Clijsters 6109 (6635) 0.920
2 (1) Wozniacki 4948 (8035) 0.615
3 (4) SerenaWilliams 4624 (5355) 0.863
4 (2) Zvonareva 4015 (6785) 0.591
5 (7) Schiavone 3291 (4935) 0.666
6 (5) Stosur 3148 (5170) 0.608
7 (8) Jankovic 2993 (4445) 0.673
8 (6) VenusWilliams 2928 (4985) 0.587
9 (10) Li 1848 (3555) 0.519
10 (9) Azarenka 1728 (4235) 0.408
11 (16) Sharapova 1344 (2591) 0.518
12 (15) Ivanovic 1302 (2600) 0.500
13 (12) Radwanska 1292 (3000) 0.430
14 (17) Rezai 1261 (2575) 0.489
15 (20) Wickmayer 1237 (2510) 0.492
16 (21) Kanepi 1197 (2460) 0.486
17 (11) Peer 1190 (3365) 0.353
18 (19) Pavlyuchenkova 1142 (2525) 0.452
19 (14) Bartoli 1126 (2645) 0.425
20 (23) Kleybanova 1118 (2250) 0.496
21 (13) Petrova 1112 (2702) 0.411
22 (24) Zheng 1025 (2228) 0.460
23 (22) Pennetta 945 (2430) 0.388
24 (26) MartinezSanchez 941 (2010) 0.468
25 (18) Kirilenko 934 (2550) 0.366


20110131 - after Australian Open
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (new/wta)
1 (2) Clijsters 8029 (8515) 0.942
2 (1) Wozniacki 5332 (8655) 0.616
3 (3) Zvonareva 4399 (7405) 0.594
4 (4) Schiavone 3386 (5055) 0.669
5 (5) Stosur 3084 (5050) 0.610
6 (8) Jankovic 2961 (4385) 0.675
7 (6) VenusWilliams 2736 (4645) 0.589
8 (7) Li 2528 (4450) 0.568
9 (12) SerenaWilliams 2464 (3035) 0.811
10 (9) Azarenka 1572 (3935) 0.399
11 (13) Sharapova 1490 (2936) 0.507
12 (10) Radwanska 1481 (3340) 0.443
13 (19) Ivanovic 1239 (2405) 0.515
14 (17) Kanepi 1197 (2460) 0.486
15 (14) Pavlyuchenkova 1196 (2645) 0.452
16 (21) Rezai 1193 (2350) 0.507
17 (18) Kvitova 1188 (2418) 0.491
18 (22) Kleybanova 1131 (2330) 0.485
19 (15) Bartoli 1116 (2595) 0.430
20 (11) Peer 1096 (3225) 0.339
21 (25) Wickmayer 1029 (2190) 0.469
22 (16) Pennetta 989 (2535) 0.390
23 (28) MartinezSanchez 941 (2010) 0.468
24 (20) Petrova 920 (2362) 0.389
25 (23) Kuznetsova 895 (2310) 0.387


20110523 - before the French Open
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (new/wta)
1 (1) Wozniacki 6836 (10255) 0.666
2 (2) Clijsters 6810 (8115) 0.839
3 (3) Zvonareva 4468 (7755) 0.576
4 (5) Schiavone 3404 (5246) 0.648
5 (4) Azarenka 3366 (5425) 0.620
6 (8) Sharapova 2816 (4481) 0.628
7 (7) Li 2657 (4635) 0.573
8 (6) Stosur 2362 (4645) 0.508
9 (18) SerenaWilliams 2304 (2500) 0.921
10 (9) Kvitova 1863 (3743) 0.497
11 (10) Jankovic 1636 (3670) 0.445
12 (11) Bartoli 1578 (3000) 0.526
13 (12) Petkovic 1384 (2880) 0.480
14 (21) Ivanovic 1373 (2425) 0.566
15 (15) Pavlyuchenkova 1212 (2715) 0.446
16 (13) Radwanska 1131 (2876) 0.393
17 (16) Kanepi 1124 (2545) 0.441
18 (14) Kuznetsova 1104 (2870) 0.384
19 (22) Wickmayer 1099 (2350) 0.467
20 (17) Goerges 1025 (2500) 0.410
21 (30) VenusWilliams 960 (1840) 0.521
22 (25) Peng 946 (2080) 0.454
23 (24) Kleybanova 923 (2165) 0.426
24 (20) Peer 916 (2445) 0.374
25 (26) Gajdosova 910 (2060) 0.441


20110606 - after the French Open
NEW (wta) Player *JR* PTS (wta pts) (new/wta)
1 (2) Clijsters 6842 (8215) 0.832
2 (1) Wozniacki 6644 (9915) 0.670
3 (4) Li 4641 (6475) 0.716
4 (3) Zvonareva 4564 (7935) 0.575
5 (5) Azarenka 3618 (5920) 0.611
6 (6) Sharapova 3264 (5221) 0.625
7 (7) Schiavone 2380 (4646) 0.512
8 (25) SerenaWilliams 2048 (2000) 1.024
9 (9) Bartoli 2026 (3740) 0.541
10 (8) Kvitova 1987 (4018) 0.494
11 (11) Petkovic 1608 (3280) 0.490
12 (14) Pavlyuchenkova 1404 (3055) 0.459
13 (10) Stosur 1402 (3405) 0.411
14 (19) Ivanovic 1345 (2330) 0.577
15 (12) Kuznetsova 1296 (3210) 0.403
16 (15) Jankovic 1252 (3050) 0.410
17 (13) Radwanska 1227 (3056) 0.401
18 (17) Kanepi 1132 (2545) 0.445
19 (18) Wickmayer 1099 (2350) 0.467
20 (16) Goerges 1057 (2560) 0.412
21 (20) Peng 1010 (2240) 0.451
22 (24) Kleybanova 859 (2005) 0.428
23 (27) Gajdosova 846 (1940) 0.436
24 (32) VenusWilliams 832 (1560) 0.533
25 (22) Peer 792 (2170) 0.364

*JR*
Jul 5th, 2011, 10:47 PM
Honestly Marlene, with all the factors I've floated (especially a divisor counting most events one plays, with only a few possible "mulligans" in a 52 week period, to allow one to play back into form after a long time out from illness or injury) I don't know that the above is the "ultimate answer"; BTW, I'd give R128 16 points (half of R 64) with the 3 qualy rounds worth 2, 4, and 8 points respectively.

As stated, I'm also for restoring QP's and perhaps most "radical" of all, both forcing players to face eachother every so often, and limiting the number of times that they can per lets say ranking period. Team sports don't use random draws; in golf, F1, and NASCAR one is simultaneously competing with a whole host of ppl @ the same time. Tennis is rather unique in this respect, too much so, IMO.

The above lends itself well to events with draws of "base 32" and "base 64" not counting Byes, as a win a Premier with a Base 64 can equal being a Slam finalist and winning a Base 32 Premier can be equated to reaching a Slam SF. The odd draw sizes of IW and Miami (Base 128 minus a stupendous 32 Byes each) creates a quandary.

Whereas MM's should be easy to deal with, as they can simply earn one a "discounted" % of the points the same result would in a Premier, with the different level Challenger events being further reduced. Restoring QP's rewards one for taking out a marquee player whose in one out of loyalty to her country or agency.

I agree that there's no "perfect system", and thus wish they'd publish the Money List for the prior 52 weeks, not just the current year. (No point ignoring it, as if these young ladies are mainly "playing for fun"). And by all means keep your own inspired concept of time-sensitive rankings; perhaps you can combine your concept with some of mine. Thanks for the interesting illustration. :)

Edit: I'm still @ a loss for how to award points for things like the YEC, the Fed Cup, and the Olympics. BTW, I don't like Round Robin formats, and would replace these (as @ the YEC) with the Double Elimination system. Perhaps if the survivor of the "B draw" wins the final by regular scoring, you settle it with a single set for that title.

================================================== ================================================

Marlene
Jul 5th, 2011, 11:22 PM
@JR - I like the idea of quality points, however my "system" is currently not capable of including such factors. Perhaps another number-crunching savvy fellow could give it a go?!

Another thing... we're trying to make a one-dimensional "who's the best" list as a distillation of a two-dimensional problem; who wins matches and who wins tournaments; maybe that's simply not possible? In a sport where PlayerA beats PlayerB (on clay) and PlayerB beats PlayerC (in majors) and PlayerC beats PlayerA (on grass) and PlayerD beats all of the above (when she's actually playing and not off having babies/barbrawling/whatever)... it's complicated!

Marlene
Jul 5th, 2011, 11:40 PM
Here's what I came up with for the YEC:

A Q-win gives 160 pts, a Q-loss gives 20 pts (1/8th of a Q-win). A SF-win gives 320 pts (twice of a Q-win) and a F-win gives 640 pts.

Max score (W-W-W W W) is 1440 pts, finalist (W-W-W W L) gets 800 pts. Venus W in 2009 whose results were (L-W-L W L) would get 520 pts.

I don't really like the robin-thing either, but I had to award points somehow... so I combined the WTA system with a double-up system and chose the pts base so that the total points would match the WTA points.


For Bali (cup-system) I used a base of 56 pts. The only unusual thing about Bali is the 3rd/4th place match - I gave an additional 56 pts to the 3rd place; i.e. the pts scale is Q:56 - 4th:112 - 3rd:168 - F:224 - W:448. Again, the base was chosen so that the points would sorta match the WTA points.