PDA

View Full Version : Is the WTA's Champions Race Fair?


JennyS
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:16 PM
The WTA's champions race is counting points earned in all tournaments, instead of counting the best 17. Do you think this race is fair?

TennisHack
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:17 PM
Um, why would it not be? Considering it's only to determine who will make the year-end championship.

JennyS
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:21 PM
Oops. I accidentally posted this twice. I think I'll delete the other topic.

Knizzle
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:22 PM
The WTA's champions race is counting points earned in all tournaments, instead of counting the best 17. Do you think this race is fair?

Yeah I think it's good so that you can have different players qualify other than the top 8 in the 52 week ranking.

JennyS
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:25 PM
I think that the race awards quantity over quality. That's why I personally don't like it.

I think if it's nip and tuck for the last spot and a player with 5 more tournaments gets the spot then it's unfair.

I like the ATP's race better as it puts a limit on tournaments that count (although they only count 5 non Slam/Masters Series events)

I think a better idea would be to count points from the 4 Slams and a maximum of 13 other tournaments.

bandabou
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:26 PM
Yeah I think it's good so that you can have different players qualify other than the top 8 in the 52 week ranking.

Yeah...´cause even like this, you still pretty much know at least 6 names who are gonna make it barring injuries.

Sanneriet
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:30 PM
Everyone plays under the same rules, knows what they are in advance, and can make their schedule accordingly. I think it is fair.

JennyS
Oct 6th, 2003, 10:38 PM
I think that if someone is in the top 5-6 by the end of the US Open, then they deserve to play the year-end championship regardless of how well they do in the fall.

IMO the tournaments held up through the US Open (8 months) are a lot more important than the ones between the US Open and the Championships (2 months). I think the way you play during the Grand Slam season is by far the most important.

Justine, Kim and Serena are the only players who have officially qualified. But IMO, Lindsay and Jennifer should be in by now. I actually think the 7th and 8th spots should be the only spots left for grabs.

Vicky88
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:46 PM
I'm puzzled as to why anyone who is in the top 5-6 by the end of the USO is any more deserving than the person who is 7-8 at that stage? Everyone knows the rules and everyone has equal opportunity to qualify. Let's face it, slams earn more points so it is not as if someone who is way outside at the end of USO is going to waltz into top 8 without putting in some amazing performances and in that case these should not be discounted just because they come after USO. After all a race implies a race to the finish of the season rather to 3/4's of the way.


I think that if someone is in the top 5-6 by the end of the US Open, then they deserve to play the year-end championship regardless of how well they do in the fall.

IMO the tournaments held up through the US Open (8 months) are a lot more important than the ones between the US Open and the Championships (2 months). I think the way you play during the Grand Slam season is by far the most important.

Justine, Kim and Serena are the only players who have officially qualified. But IMO, Lindsay and Jennifer should be in by now. I actually think the 7th and 8th spots should be the only spots left for grabs.

Crazy Canuck
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:51 PM
The Race counts ALL tournaments played? What crap. I had no idea. I never plug with the womens rankings, only the mens. Even if it does make little to no difference at the end if they count every tournament, I still find it absurd that they have a race that doesn't correspond to the "real ranking" :confused: Am I missing something here?

croat123
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:53 PM
IMO, it should be based on the GSs and the TIs only. That would get players to focus on playing less so they could be healthy for the big events.

Keith
Oct 7th, 2003, 03:10 AM
The format is new this year, they might implement something new next year after they see if this was successful or not.

Trish101
Oct 7th, 2003, 03:16 AM
how will the seeds work? i think Venus will be knoked out, if she even wants to be there.

1) Justine
2) Kim
3) Serena
4) Jennifer
5) Lindsay
6) Amelie
7) Myskina
8) Dementieva/Sugiyama/Venus

Trish101
Oct 7th, 2003, 03:18 AM
and it really is pretty stupid, for Serena to be #3 when shes only played 6 tournies, its scandalous really. Shes a really bad spokeperson who always pulls out. What ever happened to the words "fufilling your commitment to your proffession"??

disposablehero
Oct 7th, 2003, 04:12 AM
I was not aware of this change. It's asinine, which of course means that it matches the round robin format perfectly.

USST_TOUR
Oct 7th, 2003, 04:18 AM
No, its not fair, because Chanda deserves to be in the Race more than Dementieva who has played like 35 tournaments and Chanda 21! Same with Mauresmo she deserves it more than Chanda, Myskina, AND Elena and Mauresmo may not make it!

Ted of Teds Tennis
Oct 7th, 2003, 04:29 AM
It's not a change. They've been doing it this way for years, and it cost Novotná a spot in 1999 -- Likhovtseva had played 28 events and beat Novotná by a few points.

vogus
Oct 7th, 2003, 04:49 AM
I had wondered about this in the past, but i thought, "the WTA couldn't possibly be that stupid." I mean, this is like, third grade stupid, to use a standard other than the WTA's OWN ranking system to determine who qualifies for the year-end champs. So hopefully somebody like Dokic will qualify this year since she has played 38 events, ahead of Venus, who has only played 7 tourns but reached two grand slam finals, to teach those retards a lesson.

JLDementieva
Oct 7th, 2003, 05:45 AM
Well, I think they're doing it this way, because most people have no problem with it. Even if they change it, there are still going to be people who won't like it. You can't satisfy everybody.

great smash
Oct 7th, 2003, 01:00 PM
Check how many players actually have more than 1 or two points, from 18th, 19th,... tournament. Those who do will qualify for the Championships regardless of their additional tournaments. To all the others the difference is barely a few points (as for those players the points will just correspond to a few 1rnd losses)!


This is hardly going to have any influence on who qualifies and who doesn't!

DA FOREHAND
Oct 7th, 2003, 01:25 PM
I think the top eight is a good format, there have been too many boring matches the last few years, and the round robin format is more exciting when the best eight players are playing, not five of the best and three players who've played an excessive amount just to get in and become fodder.

JennyS
Oct 7th, 2003, 04:45 PM
It's one thing if Venus misses the tournament with only 6 tournaments played (and I get the feeling she isn't that concerned). But if Lindsay, Jennifer or Amelie miss the tournament, then, yes, there is something wrong with the system.

I'd rather see the WTA use something similar to the ATP's race. They wouldn't have to make the Tier 1's mandatory :) but I think they could do this:

All four Grand Slams are mandatory for the race (the current system allows a player to have a terrible Grand Slam year and still qualify)
a maximum of 13 other tournaments, 6 of which must be tier 1's (for qualified players) would count

The top 8 players would then qualify for the championships

justine&coria
Oct 7th, 2003, 05:54 PM
No, because I think Dementieva played 28 tournaments. Though she had good results, she doesn't deserve to be in front of Venus !

brunof
Oct 7th, 2003, 07:01 PM
All I know is the top 8 seeds won't make it anymore exciting...16 please...

Volcana
Oct 7th, 2003, 07:18 PM
The WTA's champions race is counting points earned in all tournaments, instead of counting the best 17. Do you think this race is fair?

It's not really a 'race'. More like a year long qualifying tournament.