PDA

View Full Version : How about an end-of-year tournament to determine #1?


MechWarrior2k
Aug 18th, 2011, 07:52 PM
All this talk about slamless #1s is getting out of hand, imo. It's so bad I've actually defended the current points system and even Wozniacki for that matter. I feel filthy defending Wozniacki in any form, but it's not her fault the rest of the tour is inconsistent, injured, lazy, and downright bad.

An idea to bridge the slams are important as well as solve the #1 riddle would be to have a 16 player, single-elimination YEC to settle #1 for the year. Winner gets a nice check, shiny trophy, and #1 to their name until the end of the Australian Open. The NBA, college basketball, NFL, NASCAR, golf do something similar where jumping out to a huge points or standings lead gets nullified and there's a huge prize waiting at the end of year. In effect there would be five titles to really play for while the slams still maintain their special status. You can either pile on the tourneys just to make it or you can be a part-time player and still manage to make the cut.

What's your take?

EDIT: For those confused, the winner would be ranked year-end #1 and would get no additional points than what is already awarded. She keeps the #1 rank until the end of the Australian. After that, her * is removed and her rank will be where her point total indicates.

ViceUltramontain
Aug 18th, 2011, 07:56 PM
No.

Patrick345
Aug 18th, 2011, 07:57 PM
Then Shuai Peng wins the tournament and we are all happy. :bounce:

GrandMartha
Aug 18th, 2011, 07:57 PM
it would be pointless. Players like Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Kim...won't give a fuck about number 1 ranking. It's for tournament whore like Pushniacki. She can only keep the number 1 ranking by playing shitload of tournaments :oh:

Hantuchova bliss
Aug 18th, 2011, 07:58 PM
A big no no....

Sammo
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:02 PM
No, number 1 ranking is about consitency.

Jimmie48
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:05 PM
No, consistency needs to be rewarded by the ranking, otherwise none of the top players will end up playing any of the non-slam tournaments.

Everybody's already complaining about the amount of retirements etc. Putting less emphasis on consistency would make these problems even worse.

SoBizarre
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Poll? Where is it? Could we have some poll, please?!:yippee:

Jane Lane
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:10 PM
God that is so stupid.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:26 PM
So NASCAR is stupid to have the Chase Cup determine the #1 racer? NBA, NFL having playoffs to determine the true champ is bad?

Yet, it's perfectly okay to have a situation where the points threshold to be #1 keeps declining while the "best" players spend half the year off nursing injuries and working on clothing lines? :confused: The rest of the top 15 is a wreck and the quality of play is just downright ugh. A perfect storm for Wozniacki being #1. Unless your beloved Serena and Clijsters find the magic pill for getting healthy and giving a damn about something other than themselves, Kvitova polishes up a few rough edges quickly, Li and Schiavone find the fountain of youth, Azarenka finds courage heart and a brain, some of the big babes cut down the carbs, and a cure has been discovered for headcase syndrome, enjoy the current tour setup.

tennisbum79
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:27 PM
No No No

DefyingGravity
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:28 PM
...wouldn't that be the WTA Championships...since it's the 8 best players in the world, and the one who wins is supposed to be the best out of the top 8?

Serenita
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:28 PM
http://f.cl.ly/items/2L401z1D1F0T223l0g2x/tumblr_ljvp9ojcPy1qha8lao1_500.gif

tennisbum79
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:29 PM
So NASCAR is stupid to have the Chase Cup determine the #1 racer? NBA, NFL having playoffs to determine the true champ is bad?

Yet, it's perfectly okay to have a situation where the points threshold to be #1 keeps declining while the "best" players spend half the year off nursing injuries and working on clothing lines? :confused: The rest of the top 15 is a wreck and the quality of play is just downright ugh. A perfect storm for Wozniacki being #1. Unless your beloved Serena and Clijsters find the magic pill for getting healthy abnd giving a damn about something other than themselves, Kvitova polishes up a few rough edges quickly, Li and Schiavone find the fountain of youth, Azarenka finds courage heart and a brain, some of the big babes cut down the carbs, and a cure has been discovered for headcase syndrome, enjoy the current tour setup.
WTA is not NASCAR, nor is it NBA, NFL?

Jimmie48
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:32 PM
So NASCAR is stupid to have the Chase Cup determine the #1 racer? NBA, NFL having playoffs to determine the true champ is bad?



Actually, there are lots of people who criticize NASCAR's Chase system (especially those who can't handle my man Jimmie :lol:) because it does not reward consistency enough... which is why the current WTA ranking system is fine the way it is because it does just that.

dsanders06
Aug 18th, 2011, 08:33 PM
No, consistency needs to be rewarded by the ranking, otherwise none of the top players will end up playing any of the non-slam tournaments.

Everybody's already complaining about the amount of retirements etc. Putting less emphasis on consistency would make these problems even worse.

Then Wozniacki would never have got to #1, as established yesterday. :oh:

Imo, the way to do the rankings should be something like all 4 Slams have to count towards the rankings (and you have to have a 0 in your score if you miss one), then your two best Tier 1 results have to count (0's if you've played less than two Tier 1s), and then an average of the rest of your points from all tournaments. Such a system would probably have made Kim #1 last year, which most people would agree would be a fairer reflection of the season, and either Petra or maybe Na would be #1 now. We just can't carry on with a system where the best players are punished for choosing not to play nothing tournaments like Brussels and Charleston, while tournament hogs like Wozniacki get to pretend their worst results don't exist to give a mirage of "consistency" because they've gone over the 16-tournament limit.

theFutureisNow
Aug 18th, 2011, 09:10 PM
There is a tournament like this- the YEC.

If the YEC were held today, 5 players could potentially finish #1.

This is the last year you should be proposing an idea like this.

atominside
Aug 18th, 2011, 09:11 PM
i lol'd

Patrick345
Aug 18th, 2011, 09:18 PM
So NASCAR is stupid to have the Chase Cup determine the #1 racer? NBA, NFL having playoffs to determine the true champ is bad?

NASCAR is like the challenger tour. Formula 1 is the Main Tour. If the 16 best challenger players want to have a YEC to determine, who is their #1 they can do that. :p

BluSthil
Aug 18th, 2011, 09:23 PM
The only way that would make sense, in a fair way, would be to have players compete who were fairly even with one another in points and victories... Who would that include right now except for Serena, maybe Kvitova, Bartoli or Li Na. The pickens are slim...

edificio
Aug 18th, 2011, 09:42 PM
No. There is already the ranking and also the YEC.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 18th, 2011, 10:13 PM
...wouldn't that be the WTA Championships...since it's the 8 best players in the world, and the one who wins is supposed to be the best out of the top 8?

Why not make it official then?

KarlyM*
Aug 18th, 2011, 10:21 PM
HELL NO!!!

Rollo
Aug 18th, 2011, 10:36 PM
Consistency is important, but so is winning the big ones. Had Wozniacki won the YEC championships I would have been ok with her as #1 last year. It's not a major, but at least it's a "mini"-major, and it would have complemented her other titles.

But when you can't win ANY major or the YEC you're a sham #1. 0 for 5 in majors is no #1.


The tour should weight the slams, reward winning titles (as opposed to losing) and not penalize those who want to play every week a la Jankovic and Wozniacki.

Have only the best 12 events count towards the ranking, but with one catch: if players want to play a Grand Slam event they have to have at least 2 regular tour events on thier rankings per slam. In other words no regular tour events=no slams.

Some would argue the slams woould never agree, but I argue they would if the rankings gave slams more points and the tour threatened to sue.


This is all fixable.

Bingain
Aug 18th, 2011, 10:38 PM
^^^ Brilliant. Shame you are not on the WTA's board.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 18th, 2011, 10:39 PM
Since 2000:
Hingis (1)
Davenport (3)
Jankovic (1)
Wozniacki (1)

Finished the year #1 without winning any slams or even the YEC for that matter, except for Hingis winning the YEC in 2000. And this is not a problem?? Shouldn't you expect the number one player to pull it together on top at the end? Davenport didn't even get out of her RR group at YEC 2005 and was still number 1.

I blame the players for the mess we have on the WTA, but this part of the WTA ranking system where you can just game your way to #1 is turning into an embarrassment.

Wozniacki finished #1 despite earning 1960 points out of a possible 8000 at the majors last year. This year she's not doing that great either with 1340 so far. Safina got mocked to death yet she earned almost 4000 points from the slams in 2009.

A grand final would put a face for fans to keep up with. Heck, might even motivate players to improve their level of play in the process.

The Daviator
Aug 18th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Since 2000:
Hingis (1)
Davenport (3)
Jankovic (1)
Wozniacki (1)

Finished the year #1 without winning any slams or even the YEC for that matter, except for Hingis winning the YEC in 2000. And this is not a problem?? Shouldn't you expect the number one player to pull it together on top at the end? Davenport didn't even get out of her RR group at YEC 2005 and was still number 1.

I blame the players for the mess we have on the WTA, but this part of the WTA ranking system where you can just game your way to #1 is turning into an embarrassment.

Wozniacki finished #1 despite earning 1960 points out of a possible 8000 at the majors last year. This year she's not doing that great either with 1340 so far. Safina got mocked to death yet she earned almost 4000 points from the slams in 2009.

A grand final would put a face for fans to keep up with. Heck, might even motivate players to improve their level of play in the process.

So let's say Aravane Rezai is ranked #16, and has a hot week like she did in Madrid last year. She's then the World #1 :o :tape:

#1 ranking should be determined by more than just one tournament. Whatever you say about Woz, she has 8 titles to her name, she's had to win a lot of matches to get to where she is, it's tougher to get to #1 the way she did than via the system you propose.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 12:09 AM
^^^ If #16 won the event, she would have done so beating 4 top 10 players including the "world #1". An impressive feat, or a slap in the face of the supposed best players. Probably both.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 02:02 AM
Poll added.

jbeacinu
Aug 19th, 2011, 02:19 AM
Definitely not. Not only does it reduce the importance of the tournaments throughout the year but it makes being number one reliable on just a single tournament. That makes no sense whatsoever. They wouldn't even have to put a ranking system in effect. And that would mean seeding would cause problems

Volcana
Aug 19th, 2011, 02:19 AM
It's not a terrible idea. But it doesn't work. The whole purpose of having rankings is seedings tournaments in a fair way. If you have the 16th best record over 10 months, no way have you earned the #1 ranking.

However, here's an alternate idea. How about the winner of the YEC is guaranteed to be seeded no worse than #4 in the next year's slam?

(NOTE: Statistically, it's actually HARDER to get the #1 ranking than it is to win one slam. Being #1 is NOT a joke. But it's not a measure of effectiveness in a tournament sport either. )

That said, nobody should get the #1 ranking based on how they played in ONE tournament.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:00 AM
Definitely not. Not only does it reduce the importance of the tournaments throughout the year but it makes being number one reliable on just a single tournament. That makes no sense whatsoever. They wouldn't even have to put a ranking system in effect. And that would mean seeding would cause problems

How is it any worse than folks ragging on slamless #1's? Or players that ended the year #1 without even sniffing a slam or YEC in the process?

I'm sure the New England Patriots would love for everyone to remember their 18-0 start rather than the Super Bowl outcome a few years back. 18-1 should be > 14-6, but it wasn't the case when it counted.

Japan had the smallest group of ladies to play the Women's World Cup, but won it all. Were they the most talented? No. But they had the biggest heart and wanted to win just a bit more than the rest of the field.

Why would it be any different for a year-end event just to claim #1 for end of year? The majors still would be valued greater and this would be a final push of the best. This would not count towards slam totals, but it would put a climactic end to the season and serve as a confidence builder. 16 players would be fair because the past several seasons the YEC needed alternates to cover those that pulled out. And it would actually only take 4 matches to play, compared to the 5 matches under the current system. If a lower seeded player won it, then the ragging (if any) would have to be spread around rather than at the person that actually won.

It's really a dud when top players have nothing really to play for other than a few points and $$$. Even that hasn't stopped players like Serena from skipping or pulling out from the event multiple times. Why not up the stakes a little? Winner gets the cash, points, and the #1 position going into the Australian Open? There's only a few events leading up to the AO and that's after the 2 month off-season, so the #1 spot could just be short-lived unless that winner takes their game up another level.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:07 AM
That said, nobody should get the #1 ranking based on how they played in ONE tournament.

How come that's not a problem with the NBA, college basketball, NFL then? Or even soccer or cricket? Somebody's got to win and somebody's got to lose. This feel-good YEC-setup as is sometimes blows. The #1 spot has likely already been secured. It's more of a shopping, photo shoot, night party mini-vacation with low quality matches littering the event. Some of the players make no secret they don't want to be there, injuries and retirements are a given, and there's no real atmosphere or enthusiasm.

Henpova
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:13 AM
No No No No and No....this is a dumb idea sorry....the rankings are fine the way they are. Woz is number one because she has won the most titles in the last year and because she plays the best day end and day out but if she keeps this up she won't be number one for long. Letting the winner of a title be number one just because they won the title is stupid because the 16 ranked player in the world could come in and have a great week and be number one in the world. Plus it would down grad the honor of being a YE number one.

Henpova
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:16 AM
How come that's not a problem with the NBA, college basketball, NFL then? Or even soccer or cricket? Somebody's got to win and somebody's got to lose. This feel-good YEC-setup as is sometimes blows. The #1 spot has likely already been secured. It's more of a shopping, photo shoot, night party mini-vacation with low quality matches littering the event. Some of the players make no secret they don't want to be there, injuries and retirements are a given, and there's no real atmosphere or enthusiasm.

Because those sports don't have ranking systems. People say that Green Bay is the best but it not really true. They just where the best at the end of the year. I am sorry but you don't have a good case for this idea...come up with a new one and get back to us.

Bonfire
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:21 AM
NO, it just would not work at all imo.
Imagine a player wins every slam in season but loses this final tourny to a top player on a hot streak at the end of the year.

Tennisstar86
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:40 AM
No, that'd be dumb..... anyways if they want a REAL ranking system they should just decrease the amount of points you get for lower tournaments. I mean we talk about consistancy. but if you're like the Woz playing and losing every week, but then jump in a tournament and snatch up 650 points when theres only one other top ten player in the draw....thats very questionable....

People say that we shouldnt put too much on the grand slams, but the grand slams have the majority of the top 100 in the draw. The smaller tournaments dont deliver half that number but shell out half the points. the fields dont justify it. and as long as that happens you'll have undeserving #1 players.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:44 AM
Plus it would down grad the honor of being a YE number one.

What honor has Jankovic and Wozniacki bestowed upon being YE#1, even when they failed to win a major or even the YEC? THREE times Davenport was YE#1 in years she didn't win a major or YEC, including 2005 which was 5 years after her last slam title. I really like Lindsay, but even I have problems defending all of those year-end #1s. Clijsters almost was YE#1 in 2003, missing out by 100 or so points in a year where Serena and Henin split the slams.

Safina almost finished #1 in 2009 despite playing like garbage after losing the Cincy final to Jankovic. Serena didn't do much after the USO, so it was a race of who could suck less at the end. Serena won the YEC to clinch #1, so there was no harm found there.

We can agree to disagree, but I see the WTA in a serious mess. It's trying to follow the ATP's lead, still begs for Serena and Clijsters to make the tour relevant, "generation suck" has sadly lived up to its name, and when you have #1 and #2 that are both slamless as well as a #4 that has one slam semifinal and a mother-lode of retirements, just to name a few. Big babe tennis isn't sustainable. At the same time, nobody has got the guts to be a leader and take the tour into her hands (sorry, but I don't really believe Serena will do that just from her past actions and non-actions).

The YEC in its current form is more of a fail than college football's BCS. The ATP WTF isn't as bad since there's more hunger to make a statement to close out the year. Shouldn't the WTA try to promote reasons to watch rather than yawn at the end of the year?

claypova
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:31 AM
this idea :spit::facepalm:

even the VIP is a better idea :wavey:

Lord Choc Ice
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:35 AM
No...blame the players under the ranking system not the ranking system itself.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:25 AM
NO, it just would not work at all imo.
Imagine a player wins every slam in season but loses this final tourny to a top player on a hot streak at the end of the year.

She'll feel like the 2011 Miami Heat for a few months, but then get back on her feet to try and reclaim #1 after the Australian. The point totals wouldn't change from what they are currently. The YEC gets the #1 ranking going into the AO. After that, her asterisk disappears and she'll return to her proper rank.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:35 AM
I added a note to the OP, but here it is anyway.

The winner would be ranked year-end #1 and would get no additional points than what is already awarded. She keeps the #1 rank until the end of the Australian. After that, her * is removed and her rank will be where her point total indicates.

gc-spurs
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:37 AM
How come that's not a problem with the NBA, college basketball, NFL then? Or even soccer or cricket? Somebody's got to win and somebody's got to lose. This feel-good YEC-setup as is sometimes blows. The #1 spot has likely already been secured. It's more of a shopping, photo shoot, night party mini-vacation with low quality matches littering the event. Some of the players make no secret they don't want to be there, injuries and retirements are a given, and there's no real atmosphere or enthusiasm.

You realise those TEAM SPORTS are not comparable with professional tennis right? Those sports have 1 tournament and 1 championship. Tennis has lots of them. In those other sports the single championship is what everyone's gunning for. Those other sports also have regular and post-seasons. Tennis is truly win-or-go-home.

In tennis there's dozens of tournaments a year, of which ranking points are a by-product; simply a way to make sure top players don't face each other early and to reward the better/more consistent player. This is similar to the playoff seedings, but that's about where it ends.

A comparable sport is golf where there are also many tournaments and a points based ranking system.

In summary, what a stupid idea.

gc-spurs
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:39 AM
She'll feel like the 2011 Miami Heat for a few months, but then get back on her feet to try and reclaim #1 after the Australian. The point totals wouldn't change from what they are currently. The YEC gets the #1 ranking going into the AO. After that, her asterisk disappears and she'll return to her proper rank.

Why would she feel like the Miami heat, they didn't even have the best regular season record. :p

Bonfire
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:41 AM
She'll feel like the 2011 Miami Heat for a few months, but then get back on her feet to try and reclaim #1 after the Australian. The point totals wouldn't change from what they are currently. The YEC gets the #1 ranking going into the AO. After that, her asterisk disappears and she'll return to her proper rank.

I do get what your saying..don't get me wrong. But overall, I still feel like it would be unfair for the player that busts her ass all year to win tournaments but then loses year end #1 ranking right at the end to someone who possibly has a lucky streak in final tournament. What if the player who has dominated all year suddenly gets an injury before this final tournament? It would certainly be a different approach to the game...but I don't think for the better. I like tennis the way it is.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:50 AM
I do get what your saying..don't get me wrong. But overall, I still feel like it would be unfair for the player that busts her ass all year to win tournaments but then loses year end #1 ranking right at the end to someone who possibly has a lucky streak in final tournament. What if the player who has dominated all year suddenly gets an injury before this final tournament? It would certainly be a different approach to the game...but I don't think for the better. I like tennis the way it is.

That is a possibility that could happen. But that possibility could happen at any time during the season as well. One of my goals behind this would be that it would encourage players to schedule smarter, pace themselves better, and still be in a position to win a big title with a nice reward at the end. If you're a solid player and are having a very good year, you can either go for a high rank during the season or save it for the end. If players are just out to play 24+ events, go ahead. If you're only able to play 14 events but did well in most of them, you're still in the hunt. My hope would be it would result in fewer injuries, fewer withdrawals, and at the same time improve the quality of play. Who knows if that would all hold up, but that would be my intent with such a system. Use the existing rules for accumulating and awarding points, but add in this twist so players have added reason to finish strong.

Bonfire
Aug 19th, 2011, 06:56 AM
That is a possibility that could happen. But that possibility could happen at any time during the season as well. One of my goals behind this would be that it would encourage players to schedule smarter, pace themselves better, and still be in a position to win a big title with a nice reward at the end. If you're a solid player and are having a very good year, you can either go for a high rank during the season or save it for the end. If players are just out to play 24+ events, go ahead. If you're only able to play 14 events but did well in most of them, you're still in the hunt. My hope would be it would result in fewer injuries, fewer withdrawals, and at the same time improve the quality of play. Who knows if that would all hold up, but that would be my intent with such a system. Use the existing rules for accumulating and awarding points, but add in this twist so players have added reason to finish strong.

okay...I'm feeling what your saying

Fantasy Hero
Aug 19th, 2011, 07:29 AM
no way :haha: knowing WTA that would see every year a different Fluke winner to get to n°1 from the most spare ranking :haha:

Miracle Worker
Aug 19th, 2011, 07:35 AM
Peer will have chance to be in TOP10 :oh:

theFutureisNow
Aug 19th, 2011, 03:12 PM
It does seem that the YEC is anti-climactic, but your solution goes too far.

They should increase the points to 2000, and treat it more as a championship level tournament.

As I already posted, 5 players could currently be #1 with a good YEC performance.
So right now it essentially is going to decide the year end #1 like you want it to.

Mary Cherry.
Aug 19th, 2011, 03:26 PM
I'm all for this. I love bad ideas.

Juju Nostalgique
Aug 19th, 2011, 03:40 PM
The good guns are always tired by year end and Pushniacki would take profit of that situation AGAIN. So no, the system isn't the best, but a YE tournament for #1 ranking would be silly. :spit:

Aramitz_II
Aug 19th, 2011, 03:54 PM
I am sitting and thinking about Snooker. They have a system with a special exception for the world champion, He is always seeded as minimum #2 regard her ranking. What about making the same in tennis, but for majors. So in any clay turnament the RO is min #2. And in Estbourne and Birmingham Will have last year as min #2 And so on. Those with hard hard-courts refers to USO those with soft hard-courts refers to AO


The advantage would be, that you could take some of the ranking point Away from the mayor's to satisfy the need from WTA to promote the minor events. It only be a viably option to go for the mayors only for very few player if any, since there is only one who is going to win and get the exception.

marineblue
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:15 PM
No. It would not change the inconsistent results of other players rather add one more tournament where they would go to rake points to fluff their phony ranking. I think the solution would be to do it the ATP way. If you donīt pull your weigh you wonīt be invited again. I think some highly ranked players need a little wake-up call.

marineblue
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:20 PM
So NASCAR is stupid to have the Chase Cup determine the #1 racer? NBA, NFL having playoffs to determine the true champ is bad?

Yet, it's perfectly okay to have a situation where the points threshold to be #1 keeps declining while the "best" players spend half the year off nursing injuries and working on clothing lines? :confused: The rest of the top 15 is a wreck and the quality of play is just downright ugh. A perfect storm for Wozniacki being #1. Unless your beloved Serena and Clijsters find the magic pill for getting healthy and giving a damn about something other than themselves, Kvitova polishes up a few rough edges quickly, Li and Schiavone find the fountain of youth, Azarenka finds courage heart and a brain, some of the big babes cut down the carbs, and a cure has been discovered for headcase syndrome, enjoy the current tour setup.

I am enjoying it, actually. It is funny to see how all the overhyped stars (now I am talking about most recent slam winners not WS or Kim) proving where itīs at with their real qualities. Winning a slam and then poor results. Congratulations...
The thing is consistency does not exclude winning a GS. At the mens tour the biggest stars win GS and are consistent which is why there are no slamless no1s.
At womens tour... oh dear. But donīt blame Woz, she is working hard unlike some.

Hurley
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:23 PM
The answer is NO and none of the NO choices apply.

NO: Points are accrued and they determine rankings. The End.

MechWarrior2k
Aug 19th, 2011, 10:34 PM
WTA: where winning big events is optional to becoming #1. 2 out of the past 3 years and 5 out of the last 10 years running.