PDA

View Full Version : Nadal calls for ATP rankings reform, what about WTA ?


bbjpa
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:24 PM
Rafael Nadal has positioned itself for an overhaul of the ATP rankings. He wants an accounting of points in two seasons instead of one.
He said :
"I'm not alone in desiring a ranking over two years. There are many other players who are for. The classification of two years has a clear goal: to protect all players, not just the best. It is a protection for injured players, protection that will follow until the end of their careers "

Maybe Nadal is right about injuried players but this will also let fluke journeywomen in one big tournament to stay on top. Oudin could have stayed 2 years top 40 or top 50 :help:

Would you be in favor of a WTA rankings accounting in 2 years too ?

mac47
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:26 PM
Absolutely not. It's a horrible idea on the ATP, and would be a horrible idea in the WTA too.

The only real reform that needs to happen is to introduce a divisor to prevent players from inflating their ranking by playing a crapload of tournaments.

ce
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:27 PM
no.

Novichok
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:29 PM
No.

Excelscior
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:32 PM
No one agrees with Nadal, even Federer, who could benefit from a two year ranking like Nadal, as another top player.

Federer recently said "Even though I'm a top player who can benefit from a 2yr ranking, I cannot as the ATP player representative agree with this, as it would prevent lower ranked players from earning their way up the ladder, if they had a great season or great tournaments". Federer added "It wouldn't be fair to them".

That was a paraphrase; but basically what he said. I agree.

And the ATP already has provisions to protect injured players and their rankings.

This is just Nadal (who I like) being a selfish, spoiled cry baby, after losing his #1 raking this year.

Just go get it back next year Rafa! This is tennis, not golf (Golf has two year rankings, weighted to the current year; though Tiger stayed number one despite a poor 2nd ranking year, cause of his excellent 1st yr))!

madmax
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:32 PM
bring back divisor system and WTA ranking will regain some lost credibility at least

Steven.
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:34 PM
this was widely discussed on MTF. Nadal is stupid. It's a horrible idea.

KBdoubleu
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:38 PM
Nadal's idea is terrible. Kvitova, for example, improved drastically from 2010 to 2011 (finishing the year ranked 34th and 2nd, respectively). What would her ranking be if the system combined the two seasons? I can't see it being in the top 10.

SHILIN-GOAT
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:40 PM
well Wozniacki would be the undisputed #1 as season end #1 the last 2 years :worship:

sammy01
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
no, because the rankings would not reflect the current state of tennis then. the problem with the rankings as they are is that a run of bad tournaments (take caro's 2nd half of this year) can be covered by playing extra tournaments at other times. a 2 year ranking would only make this worse.

Lisickinator
Dec 23rd, 2011, 04:53 PM
It would be stupid if they only extend the current system to two years. But if they use a system similar to the golf ranking it would work.

- average points with all tournaments counting (minimum divisor of 35)
- weighted points (points gained 2 month ago should count than points gained 20 month ago)
- points depend on the strength of the field and not on prize money

Jane Lane
Dec 23rd, 2011, 05:02 PM
Nadal needs to shut the fuck up, honestly. He just wants more points for when he whores the clay season. It's a terrible idea.

Patrick345
Dec 23rd, 2011, 05:04 PM
That´s a great idea. It can be like in golf, where Luke Donald is #1 and has never won a major. Before him it was Lee Westwood, who has never won a major either. That´s the perfect system for the WTA. :lol:

Roookie
Dec 23rd, 2011, 05:06 PM
Caro number 1 for two more years :scared:

Vincey!
Dec 23rd, 2011, 05:09 PM
Yes Nadal is totally wrong in this. It would protect only the long term injuried players but the SR system is made for that. It allows the same things getting into tournments that you once belonged to so you can climb back your ranking quickly. The only difference is that with the SR system you have a maximum number of tournments you can use that ranking but anyway if after that same among of tournment even with the 2yrs ranking sys you haven't found your form and got a decent ranking you would still be pretty low in that ranking. I suspect Nadal wanting to keep his good ranking higher when he has tons of points to defend in big tourneys. That way you could win everything one year and then the next year you have less pressure and you still will keep the same ranking.

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 23rd, 2011, 05:19 PM
Nadull is a whinging idiot who cries whenever things go against him

hankqq
Dec 23rd, 2011, 05:39 PM
Nadal :spit: :o Awful idea. I think I read that under this system, he would have been the 2011 year-ending #1. :help: I don't like this rankings proposal for a few reasons. Yes, it would help injured top players who are out for a year or less but what about a player who is out for more than a year? It would take him/her even longer to get the ranking back up. Also, this system makes it harder for new players to break through. Slumping top players would have an extra cushion of a year to get their game back together, instead of falling down the rankings. Basically, this idea is great for a top player who has no injuries or only short-term injuries, and who might suffer from a loss of form for a few months or a year. Nadal comes off as very selfish here IMO :shrug:

pov
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:06 PM
Absolutely not. It's a horrible idea on the ATP, and would be a horrible idea in the WTA too.

:yeah:

Nadal was just peeved because after his stellar 2010 Djokovic swabbed the decks with him in 2011.

In The Zone
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:07 PM
Horrible idea. It rewards rare runs. Kerber would be sitting on her USO semifinal for too long, as would have Schiavone with her RG win.

Nadal is just pissed Djokovic won everything in sight and his 2010 no longer counts for anything.

bobito
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:08 PM
The only way it might work would be if older results counted for less. But it's unnecessary. Players who have been injured for an extended period can use a protected ranking to enter tournaments in any case.

Sorry Rafa, Nole's number one not you and that's as it should be right now.

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:09 PM
no doubt in 12 months time, he'll be saying pts from 2 yrs ago should count double

simonsaystennis
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:12 PM
No way.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:18 PM
Nadal can have whatever he wants.

fifty-fifty
Dec 23rd, 2011, 06:21 PM
hell no

guichard
Dec 23rd, 2011, 07:16 PM
Hell no even the golf system doesn't really work

Stonerpova
Dec 23rd, 2011, 07:19 PM
I like Nadal so much better with his mouth shut.

Potato
Dec 23rd, 2011, 07:26 PM
Nope. Ranking should determine what the current form is. 2 year system prevents that. It's a terrible idea for both tours.

lol.
Dec 23rd, 2011, 07:35 PM
Nadal is up for such changes because he used to have sucked during a year (11 months without a title in 2009, sucky 2011 etc). Having not read this entire thread yet I'll try to predict that Serena fans will totally pro this idea of 2 year rankings.

However, the changes Nadal propagandize are terrible for the ATP, and would be the same if they were for the WTA. Selfish things must not happen in tennis if they're good for 10 top players and bad for 1000 lower ranked.

SVK
Dec 23rd, 2011, 07:46 PM
I agree with the majority here, this is the worst idea ever.

thrust
Dec 23rd, 2011, 08:13 PM
Absolutely not. It's a horrible idea on the ATP, and would be a horrible idea in the WTA too.

The only real reform that needs to happen is to introduce a divisor to prevent players from inflating their ranking by playing a crapload of tournaments.

I AGREE, that idea is ridiculous and unfair. It sounds like a gimmick for Rafa to up his ranking, now that Nole is so far ahead of him.

thrust
Dec 23rd, 2011, 08:29 PM
I like Nadal so much better with his mouth shut.

Same here, he is becoming a chronic complainer.

Miracle Worker
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:03 PM
I don't understand why 2 years?

I think it would be better for tennis if we count 3 last years into rankings.

sammy01
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:08 PM
can we count back to the year chakvetadze was relevant sob

Imperfect Angel
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:12 PM
why not make it 3 years or 5 years even, Nadull? How silly.:facepalm: that's why I never like him.:rolleyes:

goat
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:16 PM
Nadal needs to shut the fuck up, honestly. He just wants more points for when he whores the clay season. It's a terrible idea.

Bit distressed there? I'm sure with proper counseling and support group you will be able to read peoples opinions without shitting bricks.

Pirata.
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:24 PM
Nadal is stupid. Under this system, Djokovic would've had three majors, five Masters titles, a 40+ match streak...and Nadal would still be year-end #1

Mr.Sharapova
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:29 PM
Same here, he is becoming a chronic complainer.

Excuse you, he always was :shrug:. He is always complaining and acting childish when things go against him. He is a male version of Azarenka :oh:.

Valanga
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:29 PM
Nadal is such a mess recently :tape:

dybbuk
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:30 PM
How do people even like Nadal any more. He has spent the last year crying his eyes out and whining non-stop over Djokovic kicking his ass everywhere. Then after championing tradition when it comes to court colors, event locations, etc; he has the gall to come out and support something as nontraditional and just plain idiotic as this.

Tennisfan06
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:33 PM
Nadull :rolleyes: I can't stand him :mad:

ZODIAC
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:36 PM
he is a crybaby....everytime he opens his mouth Nadull is whining and whining from the season being too long now this.Its high time other players refuse to shake his hand that is full of faecal residue and other nasty bodily fluids.

Stonerpova
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:36 PM
How do people even like Nadal any more. He has spent the last year crying his eyes out and whining non-stop over Djokovic kicking his ass everywhere. Then after championing tradition when it comes to court colors, event locations, etc; he has the gall to come out and support something as nontraditional and just plain idiotic as this.

Couldn't have said it better.

Miracle Worker
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:38 PM
How do people even like Nadal any more. He has spent the last year crying his eyes out and whining non-stop over Djokovic kicking his ass everywhere. Then after championing tradition when it comes to court colors, event locations, etc; he has the gall to come out and support something as nontraditional and just plain idiotic as this.

My sister says he's sexy :oh:

Setsuna.
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:47 PM
How do people even like Nadal any more. He has spent the last year crying his eyes out and whining non-stop over Djokovic kicking his ass everywhere. Then after championing tradition when it comes to court colors, event locations, etc; he has the gall to come out and support something as nontraditional and just plain idiotic as this.

THIS.

Six Feet Under
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:51 PM
I want them to go back to last system.

IMO Points should be accumulated plain and simply. If you play more tournaments, you should be rewarded with all the points you have earned. None of the best 16, mandatory tournament stuff.

Mattographer
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:53 PM
I want quality points back, so that way Wozniacki would not have been #1 :oh:

Sam L
Dec 23rd, 2011, 10:56 PM
Absolutely not. It's a horrible idea on the ATP, and would be a horrible idea in the WTA too.

The only real reform that needs to happen is to introduce a divisor to prevent players from inflating their ranking by playing a crapload of tournaments.
Divisor or death

ExtremespeedX
Dec 23rd, 2011, 11:13 PM
Nobody should ever take Nadull seriously. He's just trying to protect his ranking because he knows with his moonballing style he can never stay at the top in his late 20's. Federer in his peak played 85-90+ matches per year and he dominated the whole tour without crying about "injuries" or bitching about length of the season. (I also find it ironic Nadull complains about the length of the season and yet plays non mandatories like Barcelona, Monte Carlo and countless exhos.. I guess his sponsors don't pay him enough :awww:)

SHILIN-GOAT
Dec 23rd, 2011, 11:18 PM
I want them to go back to last system.

IMO Points should be accumulated plain and simply. If you play more tournaments, you should be rewarded with all the points you have earned. None of the best 16, mandatory tournament stuff.

a fan of Marion :p :lol: :tape:

Holdsworth
Dec 23rd, 2011, 11:20 PM
Nadull is so dull..:o as always

Six Feet Under
Dec 23rd, 2011, 11:21 PM
a fan of Marion :p :lol: :tape:

:oh:
Karolina would likely be No.1 still :shrug:

aloeball
Dec 24th, 2011, 01:01 AM
Does this guy have a brain? No wonder he's being figured out on the court and losing to Djoke.

ToopsTame
Dec 24th, 2011, 02:57 AM
As much as I agree with you all about Nadal being an idiot here, the wta has bigger problems that any change to the ranking system won't solve. No ranking system would be able to account for fluke runs like Kerber's or Oudin's; tailspins like Jankovic's or Rezai's; players getting hot one week then losing to someone out of the top 100 the next; and top players who can't go 3 months without getting injured. We need a better talent pool of players to begin with and severe reforms to the calendar.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2011, 04:24 AM
bring back divisor system and WTA ranking will regain some lost credibility at least

:worship:

Yoncé
Dec 24th, 2011, 06:13 AM
Divisor system is the only way to go :cheer:

Inger67
Dec 24th, 2011, 08:05 AM
One of the worst ideas I've heard of in awhile. Not really surprised Nadal came up with it either.

Ryan
Dec 24th, 2011, 01:52 PM
So much hate. :lol: I agree the idea is dumb, but disagree on some Nadal comments. He's been incredibly classy in his losses to Novak this year, even though its obviously a lot to take - losing 3 GS Finals, your clay tourneys etc. I don't think he's been complaining much - outside of this idea, which is terrible.

However, his rationale for it is to protect players who get injured - someone like Del Potro wouldn't lose all his ranking points, and would still have a decent rank by the time he came back. Its to prevent players from rushing back from injuries. Which, of course, the WTA and ATP already take into account with "injury rankings"....making his idea moot.

kája!
Dec 24th, 2011, 02:15 PM
Rankings should be based on 6 previous months results.
If it was, we would have already had the real and the official #1 in one person.

In The Zone
Dec 24th, 2011, 04:43 PM
As much as I agree with you all about Nadal being an idiot here, the wta has bigger problems that any change to the ranking system won't solve. No ranking system would be able to account for fluke runs like Kerber's or Oudin's; tailspins like Jankovic's or Rezai's; players getting hot one week then losing to someone out of the top 100 the next; and top players who can't go 3 months without getting injured. We need a better talent pool of players to begin with and severe reforms to the calendar.

Exactly! There's nothing wrong with the ranking system. The tour events have to have value. No one can help it that Wozniacki is a freaking work horse and doesn't get injured and wins everything in sight. Then when slams come around, she can't win anything. :lol:

With Serena out, an unmotivated Kim, Venus out, Sharapova unable to put the finishing touches on her game, Azarenka unable to break through, the rankings will continue to be a mess.

However, the WTA might have a savior in the wings who will likely be #1 after the Australian. I'm not a pure fan of her but it will be so nice to have a respected and TRUE #1 soon! :worship:

Serena winning more slams won't hurt either. ;)

dybbuk
Dec 24th, 2011, 04:48 PM
So much hate. :lol: I agree the idea is dumb, but disagree on some Nadal comments. He's been incredibly classy in his losses to Novak this year, even though its obviously a lot to take - losing 3 GS Finals, your clay tourneys etc. I don't think he's been complaining much - outside of this idea, which is terrible.

However, his rationale for it is to protect players who get injured - someone like Del Potro wouldn't lose all his ranking points, and would still have a decent rank by the time he came back. Its to prevent players from rushing back from injuries. Which, of course, the WTA and ATP already take into account with "injury rankings"....making his idea moot.

It's just a coincidence he would likely be No.1 with this system, right? :p It's really about the injured players.

nfl46
Dec 25th, 2011, 05:10 AM
Sorry, Nadal, I don't agree with you. Nadal is not a gracious loser, I see. He complains a lot when he loses. I am still upset that Fed beat Novak at the French. Novak would have owned Nadal in the finals. smh.

ExtremespeedX
Dec 25th, 2011, 11:21 AM
Sorry, Nadal, I don't agree with you. Nadal is not a gracious loser, I see. He complains a lot when he loses. I am still upset that Fed beat Novak at the French. Novak would have owned Nadal in the finals. smh.

As a Fed fan I was actually happy, despite that terrible final... It would be disgusting to see Faker winning CYGS when Fed, a much more talented and classier player not able to. 2006 will always remain best year in Open Era. I am glad Fed put the Serbian clown in his place at 30 years old, showing that talent>mindless grinding.

Ryan
Dec 25th, 2011, 01:01 PM
As a Fed fan I was actually happy, despite that terrible final... It would be disgusting to see Faker winning CYGS when Fed, a much more talented and classier player not able to. 2006 will always remain best year in Open Era. I am glad Fed put the Serbian clown in his place at 30 years old, showing that talent>mindless grinding.


Hmm. Good to know you have horrible taste in tennis players overall, and not just the WTA. ;)

DragonFlame
Dec 25th, 2011, 01:33 PM
Definetly NOT a good idea for both the WTA and ATP.

Lucemferre
Dec 25th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Hmm. Good to know you have horrible taste in tennis players overall, and not just the WTA. ;)

Federer signifies horrible taste in tennis? :tape::help:

Excelscior
Dec 25th, 2011, 10:21 PM
Nadal is not an ungracious loser.

He's actually has a lot of class when he loses (and in general) on the court/after the match.

Now, the stuff he's saying here, may not be classless, but obviously it's self centered, cause Rafa only wants a 2 yr ranking to help himself and other top players.

Holdsworth
Dec 25th, 2011, 10:28 PM
Hmm. Good to know you have horrible taste in tennis players overall, and not just the WTA. ;)
Are you a fan of Nadull ?? :help: Good to know you like anti-tennis "overall, and not just the WTA"

Cajka
Dec 25th, 2011, 10:52 PM
As a Fed fan I was actually happy, despite that terrible final... It would be disgusting to see Faker winning CYGS when Fed, a much more talented and classier player not able to. 2006 will always remain best year in Open Era. I am glad Fed put the Serbian clown in his place at 30 years old, showing that talent>mindless grinding.

Novak's game is mindless? :help: Please... Roger is more talented, but Novak is one of the most intelligent guys on the tour.

RobinT83
Dec 25th, 2011, 11:12 PM
Novak's game is mindless? :help: Please... Roger is more talented, but Novak is one of the most intelligent guys on the tour.

In any case, this poster (ExtremespeedX/Claycourter) is a joke, he also said that "Nadull" and "Dullniacki" are moonballers, "Pushjsters" is a one-dimensional pusher, Bartoli is a ballbasher and "Wingis" is like ATP's Hewitt and other stuff like that... it's simply wrong...

Holdsworth
Dec 25th, 2011, 11:14 PM
he also said that "Nadull" and "Dullniacki" are moonballers
It is true :worship:

Andy.
Dec 25th, 2011, 11:15 PM
What is this 'divisor' system that people keep mentioning.

IMO I dont think there is anything wrong with thr rankings. The only thing that is wrong is that the very best players aren't consistent or they dont play enough. When that changes there wont be anything wrong.

Cajka
Dec 26th, 2011, 12:17 AM
In any case, this poster (ExtremespeedX/Claycourter) is a joke, he also said that "Nadull" and "Dullniacki" are moonballers, "Pushjsters" is a one-dimensional pusher, Bartoli is a ballbasher and "Wingis" is like ATP's Hewitt and other stuff like that...

It's weird that you are bitching about someone giving the players ugly names. Does Shitra Clitova sound familiar to you? :lol: He is the biggest hater of couterpunchers on this board and you are the biggest hater of big hitters. But otherwise you two are not so different.

JCTennisFan
Dec 26th, 2011, 01:36 AM
Bring back quality points dammit! Also maybe prior results should always be considered when making the top 16 seeds at the slams. Having clay-specialists ranked in the top 8 at W, for instance, is stupid and just opens up a potential hole in the draw for some low ranked player to exploit. Putting more pressure on the Slams to take into account previous players results when making up the top 16 would help the draws from continually falling apart when someone dosent perform up to their seed.

Slutiana
Dec 26th, 2011, 03:10 AM
I think the only thing wrong with the WTA ranking system is the points distributed to finalists, semifinalists etc.. It's too much.

The difference between WTA and ATP points given for RU-2nd round losses at Slams and 1000s/P+s is ridiculous. It all adds up.

MB.
Dec 26th, 2011, 06:14 AM
If anything, I'd prefer the opposite, that rankings be of the last 6 months. Making them over the last two years would make it even less representative of true "form" and who the top players are.

Steven.
Dec 26th, 2011, 06:26 AM
If anything, I'd prefer the opposite, that rankings be of the last 6 months. Making them over the last two years would make it even less representative of true "form" and who the top players are.

Then YEC wouldn't exist, and those topping the year end ranking based on this hypothetical point system wouldn't actually be reflective of the year (in addition to them getting free weeks at no. 1 or top 5 or top 10 etc. making it even more unfair).

Also Clijsters would be outside of the top 500 probably, and Serena would've been unranked for the first half of this year.

This idea is probably even worse than the 2 year ranking system.

C. Drone
Dec 26th, 2011, 12:14 PM
Rankings should be based on 6 previous months results.
If it was, we would have already had the real and the official #1 in one person.

changing a well working system just to favour one personal case is just plain jealousy. :kiss:

ExtremespeedX
Dec 27th, 2011, 12:13 AM
Novak's game is mindless? :help: Please... Roger is more talented, but Novak is one of the most intelligent guys on the tour.

:rolleyes:

If Faker was an intelligent player, he'd actually be able to dominate a full year, and not be "injured" towards the end of the season, getting bageled by guys like Nishikori and getting thrashed in YEC RR. One more year like in 2011 with his "intelligent" playstyle and he'll probably be in a wheelchair :o

JCTennisFan
Dec 27th, 2011, 12:27 AM
:rolleyes:

If Faker was an intelligent player, he'd actually be able to dominate a full year, and not be "injured" towards the end of the season, getting bageled by guys like Nishikori and getting thrashed in YEC RR. One more year like in 2011 with his "intelligent" playstyle and he'll probably be in a wheelchair :o

I do believe that Djokovic is a relatively intelligent player, but otherwise I agree with what you are saying.

Novak largely did so well this year because he lost weight while not losing power. Thus he was still able to hold in rallys like before but his defense got a further boost... making him incredibly difficult to hit through now. But that gamestyle is very hard on his body and unlike Nadal he doesnt have the muscle/endurance to keep it up long before his body breaks under the pressure, or he retools his gameplan. Either way I cant see his dominance lasting too long...

terjw
Dec 28th, 2011, 05:27 PM
If anything, I'd prefer the opposite, that rankings be of the last 6 months. Making them over the last two years would make it even less representative of true "form" and who the top players are.

I've done threads on this a long time ago - but I think the best way is for ranking points to depreciate gradually week by week over the whole year. Using these D-rankings - I would suggest something like retain their value for 12 weeks and then be reduced by 1/40 each week thereafter and so they would lose their value completely after 52 weeks but gradually. This has many benefits:

It still incorporates the results for the whole year.
But it also giving a weighting to who is currently playing the best.
Points don't suddenly drop off your ranking in one weekOne thing I don't like is the way one week a load off points come off your ranking and it can jump wildly without even playing. You don't arbitrarily become such a worse player like that in one week. Using D-rankings - they would drop off gradually and the predominant reason for jumps would be how well you've just done in the current tournament.

These D-rankings could not be used for identifying the whole year end #1 in which the AO counted very little compared to the USO or a MM tournament at the end of the year. But we have a perfectly good existing table for that. - the race. Just incorporate the end of year YEC points as well in the race points and that can be used for identifying the year end list and #1 over the whole year.

One other objection to D-rankings is that seedings would suffer at slams like RG and Wimbledon when points earned on that surface from the previous year would have depreciated so much. My reply to that is for the grand slams not to slavishly follow the rankings for the seedings but to take other things such as surface into account.

I definitely disagree with Nadal that points earned more then a year ago should count towards your ranking.

bobito
Dec 28th, 2011, 06:13 PM
I've done threads on this a long time ago - but I think the best way is for ranking points to depreciate gradually week by week over the whole year. Using these D-rankings - I would suggest something like retain their value for 12 weeks and then be reduced by 1/40 each week thereafter and so they would lose their value completely after 52 weeks but gradually. This has many benefits:

It still incorporates the results for the whole year.
But it also giving a weighting to who is currently playing the best.
Points don't suddenly drop off your ranking in one weekOne thing I don't like is the way one week a load off points come off your ranking and it can jump wildly without even playing. You don't arbitrarily become such a worse player like that in one week. Using D-rankings - they would drop off gradually and the predominant reason for jumps would be how well you've just done in the current tournament.

These D-rankings could not be used for identifying the whole year end #1 in which the AO counted very little compared to the USO or a MM tournament at the end of the year. But we have a perfectly good existing table for that. - the race. Just incorporate the end of year YEC points as well in the race points and that can be used for identifying the year end list and #1 over the whole year.

One other objection to D-rankings is that seedings would suffer at slams like RG and Wimbledon when points earned on that surface from the previous year would have depreciated so much. My reply to that is for the grand slams not to slavishly follow the rankings for the seedings but to take other things such as surface into account.

I definitely disagree with Nadal that points earned more then a year ago should count towards your ranking.

There are a couple of problems with this system. One is that entry and seeding at grass court tournaments would be based largely on clay court results, which is far from ideal. It's not just a question of seedings at Wimbledon, which don't always follow the rankings anyway, but also of entry into events. Do we really want direct entry into all the grass court events being dictated by players' form on clay?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this system punishes players too harshly for an injury. Let's say a player wins the US Open, Beijing and the WTA Championships but is then injured for the first three months of the following season. By the time Roland Garros comes along, they would be struggling to be seeded in the top 8. Of course, injuries have a big impact on a player's ranking already but this system would exaggerate that greatly. Take Clijsters as an example. Currently ranked 13, under your D system she'd probably be well outside the top 50 by the time she defends her Australian Open title.

BlueTrees
Dec 28th, 2011, 06:16 PM
As long as the new ranking system removes Wozniacki from the #1 position, then I'm all for it. :)

Matt01
Dec 28th, 2011, 06:35 PM
As long as the new ranking system removes Wozniacki from the #1 position, then I'm all for it. :)


Hater. :wavey: :p

terjw
Dec 28th, 2011, 07:00 PM
There are a couple of problems with this system. One is that entry and seeding at grass court tournaments would be based largely on clay court results, which is far from ideal. It's not just a question of seedings at Wimbledon, which don't always follow the rankings anyway, but also of entry into events. Do we really want direct entry into all the grass court events being dictated by players' form on clay?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this system punishes players too harshly for an injury. Let's say a player wins the US Open, Beijing and the WTA Championships but is then injured for the first three months of the following season. By the time Roland Garros comes along, they would be struggling to be seeded in the top 8. Of course, injuries have a big impact on a player's ranking already but this system would exaggerate that greatly. Take Clijsters as an example. Currently ranked 13, under your D system she'd probably be well outside the top 50 by the time she defends her Australian Open title.

I'll try to answer these two points but in the opposite order:

Second point: It's true that a player's ranking would go down quicker if they were out with injury under D-rankings But first not as much as you might think and second - when the player came back - they could climb the rankings faster. Also as I said for slams - I really do not think slams should base their seedings just on ranking.

First point: I really don't think this would create any problem at all for seedings at other grass tournaments because of the points on that surface from last year being eroded. I just don't see any pattern or evidence of players being specialist on a surface outweighing how they are currently playing. With the exising system of seeding - the seeds are always crashing out early anyway. I remember Eastbourne in 2009 where just about all the seeds crashed out barring the player who won. If we had any evidence that the seedings worked perfectly at Eastbourne and that players who were great on grass but were just not playing well in recent months (on clay) were winning Eastbourne - I'd have some sympathy.

Again though - the important thing is to get the seeding right for the slams. And not just because of the surface but taking into account players who hadn't played enough to get a high ranking but were regarded as more likely to win.

I also think you overestimate the effect of depreciation - this is a common misconception. A lot of points are still retained even though depreciated and when I've actually done a ranking based on this system in the past - these fears of how people slip down rapidly and their results over a month ago don't count is just not the case.

There's not too much wrong with the existing ranking system mind. But sometimes I feel that the rankings lag a bit behind who I think is the best player at the moment (leaving aside players who simply haven't played enough but are regarded as better). An example was Kim in 2005 after she won the USO. She got the #1 ranking eventually in 2006 by which time I thought Momo was playing the best.

bobito
Dec 28th, 2011, 08:08 PM
I'll try to answer these two points but in the opposite order:

Second point: It's true that a player's ranking would go down quicker if they were out with injury uner D-rankings But first not as much as you might think and second - when the player came back - they could climb the rankings faster. Also as I said for slams - I really do not think slams should base their seedings just on ranking.

First point: I really don't think this would create any problem at all for seedings at other tournaments because of the points on that surface from last year being eroded. I just don't see any pattern or evidence of players being specialist on a surface outweighing how they are currently playing. With the exising system of seeding - the seeds are always crashing out early anyway. I remember Eastbourne in 2009 where just about all the seeds barring the player who won. If we had any evidence that the seedings worked perfectly as they are at Eastbourne and that players who were great on grass but were just not playing well in recent months (on clay) were winning Eastbourne - I'd have some sympathy.consistently.Again though - the important thing is to get the seeding right for the slams. And not just because of the surface but taking into account players who hadn't played enough to get a high ranking but were regarded as more likely to win.

I also think you overestimate the effect of depreciation - this is a common misconception. A lot of points are still retained even though depreciated and when I've actually done a ranking based on this system in the past - these fears of how people slip down rapidly and their results over a month ago don't count is just not the case.

There's not too much wrong with the existing ranking system mind. BHut sometimes I feel that the rankings lag a bit behind who I think is the best player at the moment. An example was Kim in 2005 after she won the USO. She got the #1 ranking in 2006 by which time I thought Momo had been playing the best.

Impossible to say how badly an injury would affect a player's ranking without working them all out for the whole top 150, which I'm not going to do. But even if Clijsters were to win Brisbane, she would only have around 600 points under your system. Your point about them being able to climb back up the rankings faster is a fair one. However, I'm not sure that a ranking system where players get injured, drop down the rankings and then shoot back up them once they return would have much credibility. Critics would say that it reflects a players recent health more than it does their ability as a player.

Sciavone has gone an average of 3.2 rounds further at Roland Garros than she has at Wimbledon over the past 5 years, Stosur 2.4 rounds better at RG than at Wimbledon, Jankovic 2 rounds better. There are plenty of players who do well on clay and suck on grass. In the men's game it is even more marked.

Lastly, you seem to be advocating that grand slams ignore these rankings for seeding purposes. What is the purpose of rankings if not to determine entry to and seeding at tournaments?

terjw
Dec 28th, 2011, 09:06 PM
However, I'm not sure that a ranking system where players get injured, drop down the rankings and then shoot back up them once they return would have much credibility. Critics would say that it reflects a players recent health more than it does their ability as a player.

Players slip down the rankings as a result of injury snd rise up anyway all the time nowadays. Look at Venus, Serena and Kim. It really makes no difference if they slip a bit further and rise up a bit quicker. As I say - I did these once and it really didn't affect it as much as you think.Once a player is long term injured - they lose points anyway. It's a fact of life nowadays. And the scheme I proposed - points don't depreciate for three months if they are out for a shorter time.

Sciavone has gone an average of 3.2 rounds further at Roland Garros than she has at Wimbledon over the past 5 years, Stosur 2.4 rounds better at RG than at Wimbledon, Jankovic 2 rounds better. There are plenty of players who do well on clay and suck on grass. In the men's game it is even more marked.

Well Stosur the last two years at Eastbourne made SF and SF losing to the eventual winner and did better than her seeding. So her recent form and D-rankings would have been a much better guide to giving her the correct seeding there than your "she sucks on grass". And seedings at slams should not be blindly based on rankings so performances at Wimbledon vs RG are irrelevant to having D-rankings.

Lastly, you seem to be advocating that grand slams ignore these rankings for seeding purposes. What is the purpose of rankings if not to determine entry to and seeding at tournaments?

Yes - rankings should definitely NOT be used for seeding players at slams. That is not the sole purpose of rankings.

Rankings are in-built into all players as the measure of how good they are from when they play tennis professionally. Goals are expressed in terms of top 500, top 100 etc. A player is really defined by their ranking. Rankings were introduced nearly 50 years ago to bring in some order and an official way of measuring a player's performance over the year and are intended to indicate who is the best player, next best player and so on. Their purpose is not so as to seed players. That is a by product.

Nowadays though - it's not as simple as saying the #1 ranked player is the best player mainly for two reasons.

The very top players have not been capable of playing a full schedule. One thing rankings measure is the ability to play well all the time and to play a full schedule. Yet the top players unable to play a full schedule have been better (more likely to win) in a one to one situation especially at the slams. So we have two senses of being the best - over the short fall and over the long fall much as a sprinter and long distance runner.
.
The rankings often lag because they don't reflect fast enough the best player the last few months. But they usually catch up later.D-rankings help with problem #2. Nothing helps with problem #1 except to realise that there are two senses of being the best. And to grasp that rankings definitely should NOT be used as the sole basis for seeding players at slams.

bobito
Dec 29th, 2011, 07:03 AM
Yes - rankings should definitely NOT be used for seeding players at slams. That is not the sole purpose of rankings.

Rankings are in-built into all players as the measure of how good they are from when they play tennis professionally. Goals are expressed in terms of top 500, top 100 etc. A player is really defined by their ranking. Rankings were introduced nearly 50 years ago to bring in some order and an official way of measuring a player's performance over the year and are intended to indicate who is the best player, next best player and so on. Their purpose is not so as to seed players. That is a by product.

Surely the primary purpose of the rankings is an entry system. They decide who gets to play in tournaments by direct entry and who plays the qualies. It therefore makes perfect sense to use them for seeding as well. Players are not defined so much by their ranking but by what they have won. Tennis is a tournament based sport, not a league.

Personally I'm happy with the rankings as they are. The only tweak I'd make would be to make the runner-up's points 60% of the winner's, as do the ATP, not the current 70%. Of all the suggested revamps of the rankings that I've read on here though, yours is by far the most sensible and well intentioned. You are at least trying to suggest a genuine improvement and with a valid reason. Most of the others have just been attempts to concoct a system that prevents Caroline Wozniacki from being ranked #1.

terjw
Dec 29th, 2011, 09:49 AM
Surely the primary purpose of the rankings is an entry system. They decide who gets to play in tournaments by direct entry and who plays the qualies. It therefore makes perfect sense to use them for seeding as well. Players are not defined so much by their ranking but by what they have won. Tennis is a tournament based sport, not a league.

Personally I'm happy with the rankings as they are. The only tweak I'd make would be to make the runner-up's points 60% of the winner's, as do the ATP, not the current 70%. Of all the suggested revamps of the rankings that I've read on here though, yours is by far the most sensible and well intentioned. You are at least trying to suggest a genuine improvement and with a valid reason. Most of the others have just been attempts to concoct a system that prevents Caroline Wozniacki from being ranked #1.

Yep - I agree with the second para. I'm also pretty happy with the rankings as they are. But just think D-Rankings are better. But I'm not too fussed. And I know the WTA aren't going to bring them in. Your suggestion does make sense though to align the WTA points with the ATP. And that's the sort of change the WTA might actually do. All minor tweaks though. Might affect who is #1 now. But would have no affect the rest of the year when Caro had a huge lead.

If I was Petra or her fans - I would be thrilled at the year she's had and definitely not bitter or wailing about not getting the #1 ranking or bitter about Caro keeping it. I'm sure the last thing Petra would want is a sudden changing the ranking system so that it gave her the year end #1 ranking. And I'm sure that she surely wants to get the #1 ranking without needing any tweaking of the rules to make it easier for her. And I'm sure she will have that #1 very soon. She rightly won the WTA POY.

But Caro should rightly be proud of her two Y/E #1s even if she was flagging at the end and backed into it unlike when she got the #1 both times by winning a tournament and whatever anyone else gripes about. Whatever anyone says about anyone can do it blaa blaa blaa - two Y/E #1s has only been done by a handful of players and no-one can take that away.

We'll have to disagree on the prime purpose of rankings being seedings though. I see it as a byproduct of the ranking system and the whole purpose of the rankings measuring performance per se. And surely the whole getting up the ladder is that you are defined by your ranking. Players say their goal is top 200, top 100, top 50 and needing to get their ranking up to a level. Not so much of they need to win tournament X or Y.

I think it was quite ridiculous that as a result of this head in the sand rankings = seedings policy at three of the four slams that we get Kim not seeded at USO 09 and Justine not seeded at AO 10 leaving it to pure chance that we don't get a ridiculous pairing together like Serena vs Kim or Serena vs Justine in the 1st round. And I'm not saying it for their benefit that they deserve to be seeded. But for the sake of the tournaments - you want the best players playing against each other in the later rounds. As I said before - there have often been two #1s in different senses the last few years with Serena #1 in the normal sense as the favourite to win a slam. The favourite should always be the #1 seed at slams IMO.

anthonyqld
Dec 29th, 2011, 11:12 AM
Definitely no divisor system, which stops players from playing tournaments in case they lose 1st round and affects their ranking.

anthonyqld
Dec 29th, 2011, 11:30 AM
I'll do points at Grand Slams as the following

Winner - 2500 pts
Runner-up - 1200 pts
SFs - 800 pts
QFs - 400 pts
4rd - 200 pts
3rd - 100 pts
2nd - 50 pts
1st - 15 pts

Start da Game
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:38 PM
actually this is a good idea for women's tennis......WTF players are so inconsistent these days and this idea bodes well for reinstating some order in the women's game......

take kvitova for example, she hasn't done all that well after the wimbledon and might not do that well in the next few tournaments too but the two year ranking system would keep her ranking up and give her significant chance to groom herself into a meaningful top player......at this point, women's tennis needs such kind of boost and lift......

nadal and murray(don't forget that he too likes this idea) are no idiots, they know what they are talking but men's game doesn't need this system just yet in my opinion......women's game sure needs it though......

bobito
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:55 PM
We'll have to disagree on the prime purpose of rankings being seedings though. I see it as a byproduct of the ranking system and the whole purpose of the rankings measuring performance per se. And surely the whole getting up the ladder is that you are defined by your ranking. Players say their goal is top 200, top 100, top 50 and needing to get their ranking up to a level. Not so much of they need to win tournament X or Y.

I think you've misunderstood me here. I am not saying that the primary purpose of rankings is seedings. I am saying their primary purpose is an entry system, to decide who qualifies to play at which tournaments. Until a couple of years ago the ATP rankings were even called the "ATP Tour Entry System". The first sentence of the Rankings chapter of the WTA rulebook states the rankings "determine player acceptances and seeding for all Tournaments". Yes of course players aim to climb up the rankings because, in doing so, they gain entry to better tournaments.

timafi
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:00 PM
sick and tired of that doping dirt pig complaining about the damn schedule every bloody day.He is the Caro of the ATP.

Nadal's massive ego has suffered from the Serb who I also detest from the 6 ass whooping and he is yapping even more.He lost 1 match because of heat stroke;lost another because of cramping although he had cramped 2 days before :help: and lost because of a shoulder "injury" and he has come up with every excuse in the book :rolleyes:

why not focus on the 4 slams and MS and skip the rest of the bunch? until he does and he never will he can stfu!

Start da Game
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:13 PM
sick and tired of that doping dirt pig complaining about the damn schedule every bloody day.He is the Caro of the ATP.

Nadal's massive ego has suffered from the Serb who I also detest from the 6 ass whooping and he is yapping even more.He lost 1 match because of heat stroke;lost another because of cramping although he had cramped 2 days before :help: and lost because of a shoulder "injury" and he has come up with every excuse in the book :rolleyes:

why not focus on the 4 slams and MS and skip the rest of the bunch? until he does and he never will he can stfu!

the purse carrying, crying swiss mongoose is quiet only because he's being overpowered by the top 2 and he now knows that he can't win much on the tour......that's the reason why he's shutting his arse......he too had his moments whining about the schedule when he used to win by beating clowns like blake, davydenko and losing an odd match to real opponents......

what do you expect from top players when the game has become so physical and they are forced to play every event? do you even know that until 2009 there was no mandatory rule that top players need to play 9 out of 10 masters?

Matt01
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:28 PM
sick and tired of that doping dirt pig complaining about the damn schedule every bloody day.He is the Caro of the ATP.

Nadal's massive ego has suffered from the Serb who I also detest from the 6 ass whooping and he is yapping even more.He lost 1 match because of heat stroke;lost another because of cramping although he had cramped 2 days before :help: and lost because of a shoulder "injury" and he has come up with every excuse in the book :rolleyes:

why not focus on the 4 slams and MS and skip the rest of the bunch? until he does and he never will he can stfu!


Do you want to be reported you clown?

Start da Game
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Do you want to be reported you clown?

hello matty......excited about the AO? i think nadal once in a while gives his haters something to work at.....he needs to look at his own schedule a little before voicing his opinion about the no. of events on the tour......the fact that he plays exos like abu dhabi when there's no need to and then complains about the schedule doesn't make much sense to many people and gives a chance to his haters to really have a go at him......

however, rafa hating fedtards(the blind breed as we call them at MTF) behave as if fed is some sage and never whines about anything......

Matt01
Dec 29th, 2011, 04:01 PM
hello matty......excited about the AO? i think nadal once in a while gives his haters something to work at.....he needs to look at his own schedule a little before voicing his opinion about the no. of events on the tour......the fact that he plays exos like abu dhabi when there's no need to and then complains about the schedule doesn't make much sense to many people and gives a chance to his haters to really have a go at him......


Yeah, he complains about the schedule and the ranking system but in fact it's he who should adjust and play a reasonable tournament schedule. All those useless exhos which he just plays for $$$ certainly don't help...

J4m3ka
Dec 29th, 2011, 04:28 PM
Of course Nadal is calling for such a ranking reform. His knees are on their way out at the tender age of 25 and they won't be getting better with all his retrieving.

As many people have said, the only changes WTA need to make are:

a) Offer slightly more points at the Slams.
b) Reduce the maximum number of tournaments that add to ranking from 16 to 12.

Juju Nostalgique
Dec 29th, 2011, 04:32 PM
The drugs that Nadull takes have gotten to his brain... :weirdo:

Critique
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:14 PM
Nadal should concentrate on how to beat Djoker instead of spewing rubbish about how to protect his ranking :zzz:

bobito
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:48 PM
As many people have said, the only changes WTA need to make are:

a) Offer slightly more points at the Slams.
b) Reduce the maximum number of tournaments that add to ranking from 16 to 12.

Daft idea. The slams already make up more than 42% of the total points available. That's plenty.

When people suggest a change to the ranking system it's usually one that will benefit their favourite player. I didn't need to see your avatar to know that this came from a Williams fan.

In The Zone
Dec 29th, 2011, 08:19 PM
There is nothing wrong with the ranking system. :o :o :o It's called our women are inconsistent outside the slams. So obviously, someone like a Wozniacki will rise to the top and get creamed in the slams.