[Tennis Observer]

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

and Vera will get a 0 for missing Montreal

Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg

No

Then Vera committed to these four P5 tournaments: Doha (1 point), Rome (0 points), Cincinnati & Tokyo.

[vevenyin]

Zhang Shuai's point is 346 ?? not 342 ??

[SAISAI-GOAT]

sorry Boiled Egg how do you arrive Fran's point total

which two Premier 5 are you counting in her ranking? I count the 125 from 2011 Cincy and the 0 from 2011 Tokyo

I am not sure if the 0 from Tokyo fulfills the counting best 2 P5 requirement, or if she must count her 1 point from 2012 Rome

anyway if her 0 from Tokyo count as her P5 requirement, she should have 1985

[SAISAI-GOAT]

you changed Fran's points from 1985 to 1926 to 1925 ... can you please explain what you count and do not count

[Dexter]

I'm afaid you gave pts to Martinez Sanchez instead of Suarez Navarro.

[Tennis Observer]

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

you changed Fran's points from 1985 to 1926 to 1925 ... can you please explain what you count and do not count

Francesca Schiavone's ranking points total as of 8/13/2012 will be 1,985 points [2,050 points ./. 125 points P5 Toronto 2011 + 60 points P Sydney 2012]. Her two P5 results are 125 points (Cincinnati 2011 & 0 points (Tokyo 2011).

Francesca Schiavone's ranking breakdown as of 8/13/2012

[SAISAI-GOAT]

thank Tennis Observer but Boiled Egg has 1925

[Tennis Observer]

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

[...] Boiled Egg has 1925

[don99]

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

Francesca Schiavone's ranking points total as of 8/13/2012 will be 1,985 points [2,050 points ./. 125 points P5 Toronto 2011 + 60 points P Sydney 2012]. Her two P5 results are 125 points (Cincinnati 2011 & 0 points (Tokyo 2011).

Francesca Schiavone's ranking breakdown as of 8/13/2012

I would be quite surprised if the WTA were to conclude the same thing. I had thought about this earlier this year, when I decided it was high time I programmed in the P5 rules into my spreadsheet rather than applying them manually. To get an answer to peculiar situations like this one, I went to the actual wording of the rules and concluded that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available.

The only mention (I found) of how a P5 penalty 0 may be used is in section XIV.A.6aii(d) "A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above." That is to say, a penalty 0 can be used as one of the best two P5 results, but it does not in any way supersede the requirement that if she has two better P5 results available then they must be included and the penalty 0 must be included as well.

On Aug 13, Fran will still have three non-zero P5 results available and the best two of those, 125 & 1, must be used as her "best 2". In addition, the penalty 0 will continue to be included until it expires. I believe 1926 was her correct total all along: 990 from 8 mandatories/slams + 126 from best 2 P5's + penalty 0 + remaining 5 of 16 slots left open for best 5 other results of 280+200+200+70+60. Have I missed something?

[TheBoiledEgg]

Originally Posted by don99

I would be quite surprised if the WTA were to conclude the same thing. I had thought about this earlier this year, when I decided it was high time I programmed in the P5 rules into my spreadsheet rather than applying them manually. To get an answer to peculiar situations like this one, I went to the actual wording of the rules and concluded that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available.

The only mention (I found) of how a P5 penalty 0 may be used is in section XIV.A.6aii(d) "A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above." That is to say, a penalty 0 can be used as one of the best two P5 results, but it does not in any way supersede the requirement that if she has two better P5 results available then they must be included and the penalty 0 must be included as well.

On Aug 13, Fran will still have three non-zero P5 results available and the best two of those, 125 & 1, must be used as her "best 2". In addition, the penalty 0 will continue to be included until it expires. I believe 1926 was her correct total all along: 990 from 8 mandatories/slams + 126 from best 2 P5's + penalty 0 + remaining 5 of 16 slots left open for best 5 other results of 280+200+200+70+60. Have I missed something?

Thats what i got 1st
whole thing is rather confusing

[don99]

^Yup, the rules flatly state twice in other sections that top 20 players (Fran is not a top 10 this year, throughout 2012 she is a top 20 for purposes of the rules) must include their best two P5's - for Fran that is 125 & 1.

If it were the intent that a player with a penalty 0 is only required to include one other P5, then that could and should easily have been stated. It isn't. The additional wording that a top 10 player (it's a stretch that this even applies to Fran, but it's reasonable to interpret this as intending to apply to a top 10 or former top 10, since they are the only ones who can even have a missed P5 penalty) "must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0)" appears to only clarify as an afterthought that a penalty 0 might indeed be among her best 2, "if applicable" (i.e. if no better result is available), but it doesn't say a 0 can take the place of one of her best 2 when she also has two better P5's available.

[SAISAI-GOAT]

so confusing ... I guess we'll see when Fran's ranking for next week is posted

[don99]

Heh, that won't necessarily be conclusive either It is not without precedent that the posted rankings don't follow the rules, either through (a) error or (b) pretending something is specified differently than they actually wrote it or (c) the person applying the rules having a different intent than the intent of the person who drafted them or (d) the intent may change over time, even though the wording may not.

btw, as an example, one of the WTA projections in a match notes earlier this year reversed the order of two tied players. In that case, I asked why and got not reply. Thankfully the official rankings, when published, got it right. However, on Aug 6, rankings where first published this Monday with the same king of error - this time it was Nadia & Fran reversed, again ignoring the wording of the rules for ties, and that one made it into the official published rankings. I brought it to their attention and again got no reply. It was simply corrected later that same day. Errors do occur. The rules even recognise that, essentially saying that if an error is discovered after it's too late to change it, you may be stuck with it. In other words, shit happens Thankfully they appear willing to at least correct errors even after they make it into the published rankings - if they are caught early enough.

When it comes to deciding other kinds of issues, they may not be so willing to admit they are acting contrary to the rules as written. The bottom line? We may be right in interpreting the rules the way they are written and they may simply pretend they say something they don't It wouldn't be the first time

[SAISAI-GOAT]

well the SEWTA is lucky there are fans like don99 correcting their mistakes

speaking of ties, if Petra beats Marion and Na beats Sara, Na would win the tiebreaker over Marion right

[TheBoiledEgg]

Schiavone will be on 1985 next week confirmed.

yes Li does win the TB rule