TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: World rankings Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Mar 23rd, 2015 02:15 AM
Rollo
Re: World rankings

Added a 1954 panel ranking I came across.
Mar 6th, 2015 05:51 PM
preacherfan
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
1966

British Lawn Tennis Readers Poll
1 Bueno
2 Smith
3 King
4 Jones
5 Richey
6 van Zyl
7 Durr
8 Baylon
9 Casals
10 Wade

Bruce Walkley----Melbourne Herald Sun Australia.

1 Maria Bueno-Brazil
2 Nancy Richey-US
3 Margaret Court-Aus.
4 Billie Jean King-US
5 AnnJones-GB
6 Annette van Zyl-S. Africa
7 Fraqncoise Durr-France
8 Carole Graebner-US
9 Kerry Melville-Aus
10 Rosie Casals-US

Joseph Macauley (World Tennis)
1 King
2 Bueno
3 Jones
4 Smith
5 Richey
6 van Zyl
7 Casals
8 Baylon
9 Wade
10 Durr


Lance Tingay-Daily Telegraph

1. Billie Jean King
2. Margaret Smith
3. Maria Bueno
4. Ann Haydon Jones
5. Nancy Richey
6. Annette van Zyl
7. Norma Baylon-Aregentina
8. Francoise Durr
9. Rosie Casals
10. Kerry Melville

Pierre de Thier, Belgium

1 King
2 Smith
3 Bueno
4 Jones
5 Richey
6 van Zyl
7 Casals
8 Melville
9 Durr
10 Baylon
Looking at Walkley's rankings. Hilarious he included Graebner. She had no decent results all year and didn't win a match at any Slam event except Walkley's home Aussie where she reached the semis in a far from stellar field. No one else included Graebner and she probably wasn't even top 30 for the year.
Nov 29th, 2014 09:59 PM
Rollo
Re: World rankings

Quote:
With the exception of Lenglen not at #1, this is a FAR more sensible list for 1926 than any I've seen published. Myers totally dropped the ball with his list, not even putting Wills in the top 10.
I second that. It was Wills misfortune to get sick in Paris, robbing the world of a potential rematch.

Leaving her off the world top ten entirely was another robbery! Perhaps the feeling was not playing a major=no ranking.
Nov 11th, 2014 05:17 AM
Charles Friesen
Re: World rankings

With the exception of Lenglen not at #1, this is a FAR more sensible list for 1926 than any I've seen published. Myers totally dropped the ball with his list, not even putting Wills in the top 10.
Nov 11th, 2014 12:47 AM
Rollo
Re: World rankings

On October 21 the New york times published a World Ranking list from Suzanne Lenglen.


1926 rankings (by Suzanne Lenglen, recently turned pro)

01. Helen Wills (US)
02. Kitty McKane (GB)
03. Molla Mallory (US)
04. Elizabeth Rya (US)
05. Mary Browne (US)
06. Lili de Alvarez (Spain)
07. Kea Bouman (Neth)
08. Joan Fry (GB)
09 Didi Vlasto (France)
10. Eleanor Goss (US)


Lenglen's recent pro status could only partially explain her not putting herself in the ranking list, as she ranks fellow peo Mary Browne at #5.
Feb 17th, 2013 07:01 PM
AlternateRatings
Re: World rankings

How can a ranking system have any credibility when the winner of a tournament drops below the person they just beat in the final of that tournament?


Azarenka 10424
Williams S 8784
Sharapova 8552
Radwanska A 6831
Na 5977
Kvitova 5451
Stosur 4576
Wozniacki 4465
Kerber 4323
Errani 4082
Bartoli 3530
Petrova 2615
Ivanovic 2575
Cibulkova 2550
Kirilenko 2454
Zvonareva 2388
Clijsters 2305
Vinci 2279
Stephens 2067
Jankovic 1998
Schiavone 1966
Goerges 1867
Safarova 1863
Kuznetsova 1815
Pavlyuchenkova 1812
Makarova E 1794
Lisicki 1773
Barthel 1728
Williams V 1658
Wickmayer 1653
Kanepi 1637
Petkovic 1571
Zakopalova 1567
Peng 1566
Hantuchova 1493
Vesnina 1419
Paszek 1394
Cirstea 1357
Pennetta 1347
Suarez Navarro 1316
Niculescu 1271
Pironkova 1263
Jie 1262
Radwanska U 1198
Lepchenko 1187
McHale 1168
Su-Wei 1110
Jovanovski 1086
Arvidsson 1060
Flipkens 1058
Medina Garrigues 1050
Cornet 1042
Begu 1022
Halep 948
Scheepers 948
Robson 935
Oprandi 932
Cetkovska 922
Shvedova 920
Hradecka 916
Pe'er 897
Morita 897
Watson 873
Pervak 869
Wozniak 852
Hercog 843
Date-Krumm 802
Dominguez Lino 783
Rybarikova 776
Martinez Sanchez 774
Martic 773
Bertens 756
Mladenovic 746
Beck 744
Tatishvili 740
Larsson 713
Voskoboeva 696
Hampton 694
Erakovic 691
Govortsova 687
Parmentier 677
Gajdosova 669
Zahlavova-Strycova 637
Putintseva 628
King 623
Johansson 623
Tsurenko 607
Svitolina 593
Benesova 591
Soler Espinosa 550
Rus 550
Bouchard 533
Arn 530
Hlavackova 511
Yung-Jan 505
Daniilidou 500
Vandeweghe 499
Babos 488
Arruabarrena-Vecino 483
Davis 483
May 21st, 2012 04:04 AM
AlternateRatings
Re: World rankings

Following the Italian Open ...

Azarenka 8694
Sharapova 7658
Wozniacki 6422
Radwanska A 6073
Williams S 5862
Kvitova 5709
Stosur 5467
Na 5114
Zvonareva 4824
Clijsters 4400
Bartoli 4295
Schiavone 3314
Kerber 3029
Jankovic 3025
Petkovic 2766
Ivanovic 2716
Pennetta 2387
Williams V 2383
Cibulkova 2376
Kuznetsova 2336
Lisicki 2179
Goerges 2162
Hantuchova 2148
Safarova 2127
Errani 2087
Kanepi 2076
Kirilenko 2067
Pavlyuchenkova 2058
Wickmayer 1983
Vinci 1857
Petrova 1848
Peng 1777
Pe'er 1647
Medina Garrigues 1622
Cetkovska 1452
Dementieva 1449
Jie 1440
Makarova E 1397
Niculescu 1322
Zakopalova 1308
McHale 1264
Martinez Sanchez 1214
Cirstea 1166
Barthel 1161
Pironkova 1138
Benesova 1136
Suarez Navarro 1120
Gajdosova 1088
Hercog 1076
Vesnina 1063
Hradecka 1052
Scheepers 1017
May 15th, 2012 07:53 PM
Rollo
Re: World rankings

Added in the 1955 World Ranking from L'Equire magazine.

In general I like the look of your ranking AlternateRatings. It reminds me of the WTA's old ranking systems back in the 1990s.
Feb 21st, 2012 03:00 AM
AlternateRatings
Re: World rankings

It seems bizarre that winning a Grand Slam 50 weeks ago is worth the same as winning one last week (ie the Previous Wimbledon in the week after the French Open) and then worth absolutely nothing a couple of weeks later.

I have come up with a ranking system based on the WTA points allocation but with a more gradual decay over 3.5 years.

Here are the results ...


Azarenka 8945
Wozniacki 8210
Kvitova 7012
Sharapova 6899
Stosur 6690
Zvonareva 6609
Clijsters 6324
Williams S 5944
Na 5363
Radwanska A 5316
Bartoli 4764
Schiavone 4502
Jankovic 3989
Petkovic 3675
Kuznetsova 3257
Williams V 3035
Ivanovic 2825
Pennetta 2789
Hantuchova 2676
Pavlyuchenkova 2658
Cibulkova 2604
Wickmayer 2544
Lisicki 2508
Kanepi 2382
Kirilenko 2366
Kerber 2277
Gorges 2263
Peng 2248
Petrova 2232
Pe'er 2219
Dementieva 2129
Safarova 2112
Vinci 1959
Jie 1806
Medina Garrigues 1747
Martinez Sanchez 1731
Niculescu 1588
Errani 1572
Safina 1492
Pironkova 1502
Zakopalova 1482
Gajdosova 1459
Makarova 1409
Dulgheru 1352
Cetkovska 1353
Kleybanova 1328
Henin 1298
Benesova 1296
McHale 1297
Bondarenko 1277
Jul 17th, 2011 03:22 AM
Charles Friesen
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
I think there is a very important point there regarding the viewpoint of the contemporaries.

Looking at it some 40 years later can we really understand fully the mindset of the day especially when prior to the onset of the WTA the parameters were so different?

---

Sometimes with personal lists little biases crept in. I do believe that a little ice-skating syndrome crept in at times when a former champion was sometimes treated rather leniently because of their past performance. Ranking should only be based on the results achieved during that year.
Excellent point! This is an important counterbalance to the "opinion of the contemporaries" ranking. And that is the objectivity gained by a little distance.

Somehow we need to balance this. The contemporaries have the sense of the what were the important matches in a particular year. As SW15sport says above, in some years the YEC were very significant in determining yearend top dog in the players' minds. This might not be evident to the students of future history.

How do we balance the contemporaries important connection to the year's zeitgeist with a perhaps more objective opinion (but possibly less informed) obtained from a few year's distance?

Again, I encourage this group to do panel rankings.
Jul 16th, 2011 02:14 PM
chris whiteside
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by SW15sport View Post
In 2008, Wimbledon champ Venus had a similar claim, beating the world's top three to win the year end title, capping her strongest finish to a season since 2001. Those assembled felt this at the time. Austin was in the same position in 1981.
www.womenstennisguide.co.uk
Do you just take a player's successes and ignore the losses which is what a points system does?

I thought Austins's losses to Shriver in the quarters at both the Aussie and Wimbledon were of some significance.

I also hate round robins. I find it unsatisfactory in tennis that a player emerges the winner having lost earlier in the event. Evert winning their classic group match at the YEC and then Tracy destroying her in the final.
Jul 16th, 2011 02:10 PM
Rollo
Re: World rankings

Quote:
In recalling those years where there wasn't a dominant No. 1 player, I do recall the importance placed on the year end championships by the players, officials and media surrounding those events at the time. In 98 there was enormous pressure on Hingis to put an end to her tournament losing streak (since may) by beating Davenport to give her the casting vote for that year. It was a similar situation in 2004 when Sharapova proved her Wimbledon win was no fluke beating Slam winners Kuznetsova, Myskina and an injured Serena to win a title that davenport was desperate to win (I remember her asking me if her loss to Myskina would prevent her from ending the year at no. 1 she was concerned enough at that time). Even though Maria had an inconsistent year, she was injury free and was the best player during the second half of the season and under the weight of expectation came through in a field that included three of the year's four major winners plus Serena and davenport.
I wouldn't have any problem with Maria as #1 for 2004. And Davenport as #1 would have been ok with me had she won the YEC. Linds was always a mental mystery to me-at times her lack of confidence was downright amazing to considering the nuclear weapons she had. As Billie Jean would say, she was throwing out "negative vibes" in the middle of matches she could clearly win. Contrast that with a street fighter like Jennifer Capriati who ended up with the same number of slams Davenport did. JCap choked a few matches and never could crack Venus, but no one threw the willies into Serena the way she did until Henin came along.
Jul 16th, 2011 01:49 PM
chris whiteside
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Friesen View Post
1971 Goolagong vs King
It is far from clear to me that King would be ranked #1 in "today's computer rankings." Given the best of 15 (or whatever it is now) system, I think Goolagong's 11 tournament victories and 2000, 2000, 1400 point slam finishes would likely trump whatever points King's record would generate. BJK would undoubtedly suffer for scoring 0's at mandatory slam events.

But obviously, the tour then is not comparable to today and any attempt to wrestle it into today's ranking system is highly artificial.

What IS important, I think, is what contemporaries thought about it. The contemporaneous vote seems to have gone overwhelmingly with Goolagong. In this the Wimbledon title, I think, cannot be underestimated.

Although the World Championship label was dropped in 1924, it still lived on in people's minds as THE tournament. As long as most people and the players thought of it as the most important tournament, it was. If everyone is saying, "this is the de facto world championship" and player X wins it, then most people will think that player is #1 for that year - even the other players - since they have attached that significance to Wimbledon. It would take enormous shortcomings in the Wimbledon winner's record for that year or heroic accomplishments by some other player to displace the #1 notion in the public's (and players') mind. At some point in the late 70's early 80's this had shifted - Chris Evert may in fact be responsible - but in 1971 the importance of Wimbledon for yearend #1 was still huge and should not be underestimated.

At the end of the day, however, what is key in the 1971 #1 debate is the viewpoints of the contemporaries, and here we must side, I believe, with Goolagong.
I think there is a very important point there regarding the viewpoint of the contemporaries.

Looking at it some 40 years later can we really understand fully the mindset of the day especially when prior to the onset of the WTA the parameters were so different?

Until the latter part of the 20th century, at least, Wimbledon was always regarded as the most important and prestigious event and was weighed accordingly.

I would have regarded Wimbledon as the World Championships of the sport - but in any sport it isn't always the #1 who wins the world title.

1962 Champion Karen Susman was only ranked #4 by most based on year round performance. Margaret Court's superior all round 1969 record outranked Ann Jones.

Sometimes with personal lists little biases crept in. I do believe that a little ice-skating syndrome crept in at times when a former champion was sometimes treated rather leniently because of their past performance. Ranking should only be based on the results achieved during that year.
Jul 14th, 2011 10:36 PM
SW15sport
Re: World rankings

It is an interesting recent phenomenon in the women's game that we've had some very diverse seasons due to an increase in depth plus injury-marred seasons (to Serena in 2003 and 2010 and Henin in 2004). The depth is illustrated by the fact in the 16 years from 1982-1997, there was only one season (1990) where the four majors were won by four different women. Since 1998, this has happened five times in 13 attempts and is on course to happen again this year. This change in depth was very apparent to me during my career at the WTA Tour from 1997-2009, in addition to the game becoming more physical.

In recalling those years where there wasn't a dominant No. 1 player, I do recall the importance placed on the year end championships by the players, officials and media surrounding those events at the time. In 98 there was enormous pressure on Hingis to put an end to her tournament losing streak (since may) by beating Davenport to give her the casting vote for that year. It was a similar situation in 2004 when Sharapova proved her Wimbledon win was no fluke beating Slam winners Kuznetsova, Myskina and an injured Serena to win a title that davenport was desperate to win (I remember her asking me if her loss to Myskina would prevent her from ending the year at no. 1 she was concerned enough at that time). Even though Maria had an inconsistent year, she was injury free and was the best player during the second half of the season and under the weight of expectation came through in a field that included three of the year's four major winners plus Serena and davenport.

In 2008, Wimbledon champ Venus had a similar claim, beating the world's top three to win the year end title, capping her strongest finish to a season since 2001. Those assembled felt this at the time. Austin was in the same position in 1981. I don't believe it should come down to one tournament to determine who is no. 1 for the year but there is a reason why these players come out on top ahead of everyone else. As BJK says pressure is a privilege, and champions always perform better under pressure at that moment in time.

www.womenstennisguide.co.uk
Jul 14th, 2011 10:36 PM
SW15sport
Re: World rankings

It is an interesting recent phenomenon in the women's game that we've had some very diverse seasons due to an increase in depth plus injury-marred seasons (to Serena in 2003 and 2010 and Henin in 2004). The depth is illustrated by the fact in the 16 years from 1982-1997, there was only one season (1990) where the four majors were won by four different women. Since 1998, this has happened five times in 13 attempts and is on course to happen again this year. This change in depth was very apparent to me during my career at the WTA Tour from 1997-2009, in addition to the game becoming more physical.

In recalling those years where there wasn't a dominant No. 1 player, I do recall the importance placed on the year end championships by the players, officials and media surrounding those events at the time. In 98 there was enormous pressure on Hingis to put an end to her tournament losing streak (since may) by beating Davenport to give her the casting vote for that year. It was a similar situation in 2004 when Sharapova proved her Wimbledon win was no fluke beating Slam winners Kuznetsova, Myskina and an injured Serena to win a title that davenport was desperate to win (I remember her asking me if her loss to Myskina would prevent her from ending the year at no. 1 she was concerned enough at that time). Even though Maria had an inconsistent year, she was injury free and was the best player during the second half of the season and under the weight of expectation came through in a field that included three of the year's four major winners plus Serena and davenport.

In 2008, Wimbledon champ Venus had a similar claim, beating the world's top three to win the year end title, capping her strongest finish to a season since 2001. Those assembled felt this at the time. Austin was in the same position in 1981. I don't believe it should come down to one tournament to determine who is no. 1 for the year but there is a reason why these players come out on top ahead of everyone else. As BJK says pressure is a privilege, and champions always perform better under pressure at that moment in time.

www.womenstennisguide.co.uk
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome