PDA

View Full Version : What do you like the least about the rankings system?


JennyS
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:36 AM
What do you like the least about the WTA's rankings system?

JennyS
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:37 AM
I think the biggest flaw is allowing players to erase their worst results. I think not making Slams mandatory is also a major flaw.

ally baker
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:40 AM
1) The amount of points for qualifying... it's way too much.

2) The system of bonus points... where beating someone 6-10 is worth 43 points, 11-16 is worth 35, and 17-26 is worth 23... The points differential should be more even.

3) Tier III's and IV's that are played the same week as Tier II's are worth too much. It's smarter for the 4th, 5th best player in a Tier II... to play the Tier III.

ally baker
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:42 AM
I do agree that Grand Slams should be mandatory on your ranking... I'd prefer having a sort of Masters Series, also... where those points are necessary... but I don't see that happening soon.

I don't have a problem with dropping your lowest ranking. Players should be encouraged to play. Under that line of thinking... the top players shouldn't play any warm-up tournaments before slams.

Kart
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:44 AM
I think it's fine as it is, as long as you remember that the no.1 ranked player is not synonymous with the best player in the world.

Once you're over that (really quite minor) stumbling block - which a lot of people seem to have difficulty with - it's not awful. I am no expert on how the rankings work though I should add.

I don't see any need for the slams to be mandatory or for there to be a reduction in the number of tournaments - players should have the right to control their own schedules.

Brian Stewart
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:57 AM
I think the points for the slams are overinflated. The previous system (double a Tier I) was plenty. They could tweak QP a bit (from 100 to 75 for #1 and #2 seems a bit of a steep dropoff).

ally baker
Oct 16th, 2003, 12:59 AM
Slams are still double IW and Miami...

AjdeNate!
Oct 16th, 2003, 01:10 AM
Just a random thought, but I think if you successfully defend a title from one year to the next you should get some sort of bonus.

ally baker
Oct 16th, 2003, 01:13 AM
I disagree...

Then that would reward someone like Sharapova winning a crap draw in Tokyo every year.

Martian Willow
Oct 16th, 2003, 01:47 AM
...they should just change it's name to Entry System...then people wouldn't be so fussy about it... :)

disposablehero
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:07 AM
Like most people here, I think the ranking system is pretty faulty. Especially any time one of my favourites isn't #1.

SerenaSlam
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:24 AM
the question is, what do you have to do to be deserving of number 1?

before kim clijsters, inorder to become number 1, everyones opinions were,

1. They had to beat the former number 1 consistently to become number 1.
2. They needed to win tournies at least 4-5.
3. They need to win grandslams- yes plural not just one.

Now, u don't have to beat number 1, u don't have to win slams, you don't even have to win that many tournies, you can loose more tournies than you win like kim does, and u will be number 1.

the system is jacked :rolleyes:

PointBlank
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:28 AM
What i dilike most..........
How Jenny,VeVe,and Serena's rankings look!

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:01 AM
the question is, what do you have to do to be deserving of number 1?

before kim clijsters, inorder to become number 1, everyones opinions were,

1. They had to beat the former number 1 consistently to become number 1.
2. They needed to win tournies at least 4-5.
3. They need to win grandslams- yes plural not just one.

Now, u don't have to beat number 1, u don't have to win slams, you don't even have to win that many tournies, you can loose more tournies than you win like kim does, and u will be number 1.

the system is jacked :rolleyes:

Word! Doesnīt make any sense...Kimīs a good player but nowhere close to no.1 caliber!

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:15 AM
Like most people here, I think the ranking system is pretty faulty. Especially any time one of my favourites isn't #1.
Impeccable timing as always. :lol: You're a classic, disposablehero. ;)

rated_next
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:19 AM
the only thing i don't like about it are the bonus points ... way too much - especially in grand slams :eek:

ally baker
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:21 AM
the question is, what do you have to do to be deserving of number 1?

before kim clijsters, inorder to become number 1, everyones opinions were,

1. They had to beat the former number 1 consistently to become number 1.
2. They needed to win tournies at least 4-5.
3. They need to win grandslams- yes plural not just one.

Now, u don't have to beat number 1, u don't have to win slams, you don't even have to win that many tournies, you can loose more tournies than you win like kim does, and u will be number 1.

the system is jacked :rolleyes:
LOSE...

People, it's spelled LOSE...

Can anyone ever get this right? :p

GoDominique
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:25 AM
the question is, what do you have to do to be deserving of number 1?

before kim clijsters, inorder to become number 1, everyones opinions were,

1. They had to beat the former number 1 consistently to become number 1.
2. They needed to win tournies at least 4-5.
3. They need to win grandslams- yes plural not just one.

Now, u don't have to beat number 1, u don't have to win slams, you don't even have to win that many tournies, you can loose more tournies than you win like kim does, and u will be number 1.

the system is jacked :rolleyes:
What an in-depth analysis.

Venus Forever
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:32 AM
I don't understand why it's a "best of 17" system. Losing early should be counted as well, I mean, that is how you played during the year, why should it be discounted??

I mean, we could have a player play 35 events, lose first round in 20 of them, and still be ranked high enough for a top 10 ranking. It wouldn't accurately describe how their year went. It would make it look fabulous.

This whole "best of 17" idea also makes players play too much. If a player has one bad result, they feel like they need to compensate by adding another tournament. And if they have another bad tournament or three or four or five, they just add another event, and another, and another.

JennyS
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:29 PM
I think the best system would be taking the average, with Grand Slams being mandatory (otherwise you could be highly ranked without playing a single Grand Slam).

I don't think the WTA is in any rush to change their rankings system though. Why would they want a ranking system that is more lenient? The last thing they want is the top players playing less often.

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:32 PM
I don't understand why it's a "best of 17" system. Losing early should be counted as well, I mean, that is how you played during the year, why should it be discounted??

I mean, we could have a player play 35 events, lose first round in 20 of them, and still be ranked high enough for a top 10 ranking. It wouldn't accurately describe how their year went. It would make it look fabulous.

This whole "best of 17" idea also makes players play too much. If a player has one bad result, they feel like they need to compensate by adding another tournament. And if they have another bad tournament or three or four or five, they just add another event, and another, and another.

Ranking-system should be about QUALITY and not quantity.

wongqks
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:32 PM
Slam should be mandatory, others are fine.
If you reduce tournament to 10, then many tournaments will be busted and how the hell would it make sense to punish player who play more? 17 tournaments is fine as it is, if player choose to play more and she knows it is not harming herself, then it is good for the sport.
You cannot basically reward players for sitting out of tournament, or give them sympathy ranking points coz they are injured.

DA FOREHAND
Oct 16th, 2003, 02:46 PM
I don't understand why it's a "best of 17" system. Losing early should be counted as well, I mean, that is how you played during the year, why should it be discounted??

I mean, we could have a player play 35 events, lose first round in 20 of them, and still be ranked high enough for a top 10 ranking. It wouldn't accurately describe how their year went. It would make it look fabulous.

This whole "best of 17" idea also makes players play too much. If a player has one bad result, they feel like they need to compensate by adding another tournament. And if they have another bad tournament or three or four or five, they just add another event, and another, and another.


Hello the system is set up to encourage the players to play more and support the tour to hell w/thier health, get out there and make us some money. The tour is full of stories of burn-out and injury, Hingis, Kounikova are just a couple of examples(singing:"keep on using me...till you use me up..."). Capriati is approaching her second burn-out.

I think the top players should have to play the slams and at least six tier one tournaments, an early loss should count towards your ranking.

justine&coria
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:08 PM
WHat I like the least about the rankings system?
Justine, being ranked 2nd, despite her wonderful year !
Venus, being ranked 8th, though she's been in 2 GS Slams finals (and beating the new WOrld Number 1 3 times this year)!
I think that's all !

faboozadoo15
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:56 PM
i dont like how u can defend a title and go down in the rankings... or gain nothing but the money.

i already think the ranking system is about quality-- it's just about what kind of quality-- consistent and many quality wins will have you ranked highly, and dominating whenever you play (but with far less frequency) will give you a good ranking.

right now, kim and juju are ranked higher than serena bc she doesn't deserve to b #1. she doesn't play enough ( i know she's injured now). kim having won 9 titles (or however many) and getting to the finals of 2 grandslams (with several other good results) will have her ranked higher than someone who has won two grand slams but plays far less than the required 17...

faboozadoo15
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:58 PM
does anyone else remember all the threads titled something like "serena and venus are 1 and 2 despite playing only (some numbers) tournaments" ?

well the system hasnt changed, but there are ppl playing better with a higher frequency.

SerenaSlam
Oct 16th, 2003, 04:52 PM
does anyone else remember all the threads titled something like "serena and venus are 1 and 2 despite playing only (some numbers) tournaments" ?

well the system hasnt changed, but there are ppl playing better with a higher frequency.
see this is where you are confused. they are not playing "better" they are playing more. when you say better, you are talking them vs. the williams. and they aren't playing better than the willies, they are playing more than the willies. look at the gap in the rankings for the belgians and the willies right now. do you honestly think b/c they played "better" as in their games that is the reason why they are up on venus and serena? last year venus after wimbledon won 3 hard court tournies, and was in the final of the usopen. this year, she didn't even try to defend any of that. serena won the usopen and didn't even try to defend that. and they just straight up dropped b/c of injuries.

there is a huge difference. u can't say the 1 and 2 now are playing better. they are just playing more. i forget when it was that kim could pass venus or somthing, but it was b/c venus didn't play 1 tournie. had she played that "1" EXTRA tournie she would've been fine.

the tour has made a ranking system based on the players making money for them(as in the tour) more so than the players making ranking points for themselves. you have players defend slams, and winning titles over again, and they get less points than what they got from the year before? basically their ranking drops no matter what. that is what i call a fucked up system.

Darran
Oct 16th, 2003, 05:13 PM
Many would disagree :)

KV
Oct 16th, 2003, 05:19 PM
It allows players to erase their worst results. Sometimes a player loses more points by being beaten in the second round than after a first round exit. Average points a tourney is the fairest

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2003, 05:33 PM
see this is where you are confused. they are not playing "better" they are playing more. when you say better, you are talking them vs. the williams. and they aren't playing better than the willies, they are playing more than the willies. look at the gap in the rankings for the belgians and the willies right now. do you honestly think b/c they played "better" as in their games that is the reason why they are up on venus and serena? last year venus after wimbledon won 3 hard court tournies, and was in the final of the usopen. this year, she didn't even try to defend any of that. serena won the usopen and didn't even try to defend that. and they just straight up dropped b/c of injuries.

there is a huge difference. u can't say the 1 and 2 now are playing better. they are just playing more. i forget when it was that kim could pass venus or somthing, but it was b/c venus didn't play 1 tournie. had she played that "1" EXTRA tournie she would've been fine.

the tour has made a ranking system based on the players making money for them(as in the tour) more so than the players making ranking points for themselves. you have players defend slams, and winning titles over again, and they get less points than what they got from the year before? basically their ranking drops no matter what. that is what i call a fucked up system.


Good post.....the system rewarded quantity over quality....last year the sistersīs quality was so great that no quantity could match it. but because they had so much quality last year,it allowed the quantity of others catch up this year...īcause they didnīt provided the quantity of last year.

Can you imagine this: Even before Serena got injured, there was the chance that Serena could defend!! her Open title and still lose her no.1 ranking! Three slams in a year and you can still lose your no.1 rank?!

SerenaSlam
Oct 16th, 2003, 05:46 PM
Good post.....the system rewarded quantity over quality....last year the sistersīs quality was so great that no quantity could match it. but because they had so much quality last year,it allowed the quantity of others catch up this year...īcause they didnīt provided the quantity of last year.

Can you imagine this: Even before Serena got injured, there was the chance that Serena could defend!! her Open title and still lose her no.1 ranking! Three slams in a year and you can still lose your no.1 rank?!
yeah that is how it works when it comes to the fucked up system that we have to look at and see today. i knew it could happen. kim has only made 2 slam finals this year, out of 4 played. serena has made 2 slam finals this year, out of 3 played. serena like kim has been in the semis of every slam this year that she has played. and the semis of every tournie if im not mistaken. so what kim has done that serena hasn't done is just play more tournies. what serena has done that kim hasn't done is, win slams, and beat her.

hollywood7172
Oct 16th, 2003, 06:29 PM
what i like least about the ranking system is that jennifer capriati didn't finish 2001 as number 1.

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2003, 06:57 PM
yeah that is how it works when it comes to the fucked up system that we have to look at and see today. i knew it could happen. kim has only made 2 slam finals this year, out of 4 played. serena has made 2 slam finals this year, out of 3 played. serena like kim has been in the semis of every slam this year that she has played. and the semis of every tournie if im not mistaken. so what kim has done that serena hasn't done is just play more tournies. what serena has done that kim hasn't done is, win slams, and beat her.

Exactly....thatīs the only thing. tournaments, tournaments...thatīs the only thing that Kim has done better than Serena. She hasnīt beaten Serena, won better than Serena, nada...