PDA

View Full Version : Top 4 ranking: divisor system


Calvin
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:10 PM
okay, a few rankings using the simple divisor system were posted the last few days (well, theyve been posted regularly before the last few weeks as well), all dividing the points by the # of tournaments played. Critics :) claimed that Venus and Serena have mostly Slams counting towards their rankings while Kims undefeated runs at Rosmalen/Luxembourg pulled her average down.

Now what about dividing the amount of points earned through the last 52 weeks, not by the amount of tournaments, but by the maximum amount of points that was earned in this tournament (winners share).

I added up the top4's tournaments points (all 21 for kim, 7 for Venus), and divided them by the total amount of points of the winner of each tournament earned (I hope I didnt screw up the calculations).

1. SW : earned 4400 points out of 5663 for her 8 tournaments = 77.7%

Serena is way on top, wins most of the tournaments she plays (Slam or not). If she were to play a full schedule like this she would undoubtedly be no1. Unfortunately for her, she didn't.

2. KC 7044/10926 = 64.5%
3. JHH 6629/10386 = 63.8%

Just like in the traditional WTA rankings Justine and Kim are close, with Kim still narrowly taking the lead.

4. VW 2507/5238 = 47.9%

Venus has accomplished a great feat by staying in the top 10 with only 7 tournaments, but its solely based on her 2 decent Slam performances, giving her 1500 points. Earning less than 50% of the winners amount of points just isn't enough for someone like Venus. Next year she'll have to step it up....

Fairer divisor system? Worse? Is your fave ranked high enough?

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:14 PM
Serena really is dominating, if you just donīt look at best of 17....
77.7 %, more than 13 % better than the next best thing...impressive.

The Crow
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:47 PM
Since I think my fav isn';t ranked high enough, I'll critisize ;)

If I understand this correctly, a win in a tier III is now approxemately even with a win in a GS (or am I mistaken?). If so, I don't think it's a fair ranking.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 16th, 2003, 03:58 PM
Well on my system, this should be the ranking!!!

1. Justine Henin( sadly for me but true)
2. Kim Clisjters (if she could only wone one of thos slam finals but I would take her tons of titles)
3. Serena Wiliams ( 2 slams )
4. Lindsay Davenport ( 1 title, yeah but her results were as good as her ranking)

Calvin
Oct 16th, 2003, 04:00 PM
Since I think my fav isn';t ranked high enough, I'll critisize ;)

If I understand this correctly, a win in a tier III is now approxemately even with a win in a GS (or am I mistaken?). If so, I don't think it's a fair ranking.

you are mistaken :)

example: player A&B have only played 2 tournaments each, both have reached a slam semi, adn player A has won a tier III, while player B won a Slam

player A: win in tier III 200 points + Slam SF 400 points (winner:1000)
has a divisor ranking of 700/1200=50%

player B: win in GS 1000 points + Slam SF 400 points
has a ranking of 1400/2000= 70%

Calvin
Oct 16th, 2003, 04:05 PM
now if a player would only 1 Tier III and won it, she would be ranked #1 with 100%

hmmmmmm.... same problem with any divisor system....

rikvanlooy
Oct 16th, 2003, 04:07 PM
okay, a few rankings using the simple divisor system were posted the last few days (well, theyve been posted regularly before the last few weeks as well), all dividing the points by the # of tournaments played. Critics :) claimed that Venus and Serena have mostly Slams counting towards their rankings while Kims undefeated runs at Rosmalen/Luxembourg pulled her average down.

Now what about dividing the amount of points earned through the last 52 weeks, not by the amount of tournaments, but by the maximum amount of points that was earned in this tournament (winners share).

I added up the top4's tournaments points (all 21 for kim, 7 for Venus), and divided them by the total amount of points of the winner of each tournament earned (I hope I didnt screw up the calculations).

1. SW : earned 4400 points out of 5663 for her 8 tournaments = 77.7%

Serena is way on top, wins most of the tournaments she plays (Slam or not). If she were to play a full schedule like this she would undoubtedly be no1. Unfortunately for her, she didn't.

2. KC 7044/10926 = 64.5%
3. JHH 6629/10386 = 63.8%

Just like in the traditional WTA rankings Justine and Kim are close, with Kim still narrowly taking the lead.

4. VW 2507/5238 = 47.9%

Venus has accomplished a great feat by staying in the top 10 with only 7 tournaments, but its solely based on her 2 decent Slam performances, giving her 1500 points. Earning less than 50% of the winners amount of points just isn't enough for someone like Venus. Next year she'll have to step it up....

Fairer divisor system? Worse? Is your fave ranked high enough?

Not really a surprise. The person with the best win/loss ratio wins this. Because Kim and Justine meet each other a lot of times, they pull down each other win/loss ratio (8 of their 20 losses have been to each other).

The main reason why Evert and Navratilova have such a tremendous win/loss ratio is because they avoided each other with exception of the slams.

Every time Kim and Justine enter a tournament together (almost every tournament) one of the two will see their win/loss ratio worsen (they play 4 to 5 matches/tournament, so the loser of the final will have a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio).

If Venus and Serena play more tournaments, they will meet each more and their win/loss ratio will get worse.

But I don't mind how it turns out now. They have played 23 finals this year (with 14 wins and 6 lost finals of the 9 lost finals to each other).

At the end of the year they will have smashed the record books. The number four in the ranking will have 3.000 points and the number three 4.000 points. Both Justine and Kim will have amassed more than 6.500 points. I think you will have to look for the Evert/Navratilova era to see such a domination by two players.

~CANUCK~
Oct 16th, 2003, 04:37 PM
i think the main problem with your system is that there is no difference in winning a title at a tier 1 or a tier 5..like just for example if someone were to win an itf 25k event...this is her only touny in the year..her winning percentage is 100%...this would mean she is ranked first...u need to find some way of making it worth playing teir 1's and such.

jenglisbe
Oct 16th, 2003, 04:45 PM
Why do people keep coming up with this stuff?? Ultimately, what all of these threads/posts come down to is people trying to figure out the system that makes their player look the best.

I think 90% of people here would admit Serena, match for match, is the best player. She has only played 8 tournaments this year, though, and it would be a shame to have her as the #1 player. Who wants a sport where fans can't see the top player play??