WTA Ranks Update Thread - Page 24 - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Aug 15th, 2012, 03:54 AM   #346
country flag TheBoiledEgg
Moderator - Challengers & Juniors
 
TheBoiledEgg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 177,261
TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute TheBoiledEgg has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Vera Zvonareva’s ranking points total as of 8/20/12 will be 2,375 points (2,770 ./. 395 + 0; two best P5 results: two times 0 points for missing her commitments to Rome & Cincinnati) and not 2,281 (updated 8/14/12, 10:28pm), because The Boiled Egg missed to properly implement this easy to read rule for another time:

From WTA 2012 Rulebook (p 228, bolding is mine:
That means at the end of all P5 events been played not half way thru.

You include your best 2 from all 5.
__________________
Good luck in 2014 to my favsKIRILENKO*Petrova*Zvonareva*Kuznetsova*Sharapova*Dushevina*Chakvetadze*Kleybanova*Bychkova*Vesnina*Shvedova*Kudravytseva
Puchkova*Kulikova*Pavlyuchenkova*Makarova*Panova*Pervak*Diatchenko*Pivovarova*Gavrilova*Putintseva*Khromacheva*Gasparyan AZARENKA *Govortsova
MINELLA LARRIERETsurenkoAlize Lim*El Tabakh*Robson*Cirstea*Juhaszova*Zanevska*Broady*Bouchard*Savic*M irza*Pennetta*Hantuchova*Cibulkova*Ivanovic*Fitzpatrick*Remondina*Domachowska*Flipkens*Hercog*Hofmanova*Schoofs*Cet kovska *Svitolina*Pliskova's*Rus
http://www.twitter.com/TheBoiledEgg
TheBoiledEgg is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Aug 15th, 2012, 05:24 AM   #347
country flag don99
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 21
don99 has disabled reputation
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post


As WTA shows 1,985 points for Francesca Schiavone in rankings as of 8/13/12, and you predicted 1,926 points, it turned out that you failed. Or: Your conclusion that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available was wrong.
I didn't predict anything at all. I did say the plain reading of the rules leads to 1926 points for Fran not 1985. I also said if they are administering the rules in the way that gives Fran 1985 points, I have no problem with that. The problem I hope they realise is that the rules say something else and should then be amended to remove the conflict between what they are doing and what they wrote must be done. If you cannot understand that much, it is not surprising you cannot see the conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):
  • Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
  • A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
  • 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) […].

From there you should be able to answer the significant question:

Why does WTA count 0 points as Top 20 player's “best” P5 result, if a “better” 1 point result includes her record?
[...]
  • Thank you for the pretense of kindness (coupled with the childish multiple facepalms), this time at least saying "re-read" the sections rather than insolently suggesting I hadn't done so nor taken them into account, as you did in your first response. It is precisely the plain reading of those sections that leads to 1926 not 1985.
  • In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules and will address them in that order.
  • Thank you for pointing out what the WTA is doing. Some people might find that useful. I am not one of them. I am well aware of what they have done. Your subsequent points don't even come close to analyzing the actual wording. They merely say what they did. It does not in the least explain where in the rules it says to do it that way in contradiction of the plain reading of the rules they wrote. That is the issue I brought up and you totally miss the point again, merely stating what they have done. The whole point of even having written rules is to have a solid legal basis for what they do, not to write them in a way that requires mystical interpretations. If they and we are to rely on some unspecified methodology, why write anything down, let alone something conflicting with what they do???
  • I assumed people here were familiar enough with how a penalty arises, but thank you for spending the time explaining what a penalty is and that penalties must be included in a player's results. There may be people who were not aware of that. I am not one of them. It does nothing to speak to the issue at hand.

I'll reciprocate and explain to you what the plain reading of the words "best two results" means and when that plain meaning can be ignored in favour of some other meaning. (Why do I get the impression I'd have better luck explaining calculus to my cat )
  1. Your first bullet simply quotes the section that gives rise to the penalty. We all know where it came from, thank you. It merely establishes that the penalty will be a result of 0, which must ne included in her best 16. Period. That section does not in any way override the P5 requirements stated in the second bullet.
  2. The section quoted in the second bullet is the first time P5 requirements for top 20 players are set out in the rules. You made a big deal of pointing out and bolding "if played" as if it has some secret meaning. It has no bearing whatsoever on the case at hand. The words "if played" are merely a modification for players who haven't played at least two P5's and We were talking about a player who has. In the case of a player who has played two or more P5's, the requirement clearly states "Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournament". Fran is a top 20 player who has played more than two P5's, the best two of which are 125 and 1. One way out of the conclusion that 125 and 1 must be included, is if the phrase "best two results" is defined in the rules to mean something other than the plain meaning of highest two such results. It is not defined in the rules as something else, so the plain reading is the valid reading. The only other way out of that conclusion is if there is another section which overrides the requirements of bullet two. That brings us to the sentence quoted in the third bullet. It is the one I quoted as being the only possible out from the above interpretation of what they actually wrote.
  3. The sentence in the last bullet is in the explanations section. It again states "Top 10 Player’s[/b] ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year". It then merely adds clarification that a penalty 0 is first of all treated as a played tournament and that it could in fact be a best two result, "if applicable". It does not say it will automatically be treated as one of the best two. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then it is you who aren't actually reading what they wrote, only reiterating what they do. But I see you have a penchant for ignoring what's written in posts, so it may be asking too much of you to actually read the rules without the bias of forcing an interpretation that's just plain not there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
her “better” 1 pointer from P5 Doha 2012 doesn’t count, because 60 points (P600 Sydney 2012) is superior.
You are merely stating what they do. If they have already ignored what they wrote and simply deemed someone to have satisfied the P5 requirement with zeroes, of course all other results are maximal, without interference from the P5 rules. Nowhere have you justified where it says they can use zeroes to satisfy the P5 requirements when there are two or more non-zero P5's. That is the whole point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Top 20 players cannot receive 0 points for missing a P5 tournament because they are not obliged to compete at these events. IMHO it’s out of touch to argue that a Top 20 player who received automatically 0 points for missing a P5 tournament during the period she was Top 10 player has to include a “better” 1 pointer because 1 is higher than 0, while Top 10 players’ two best P5 results may be 0 points
Again responding myopically on purpose. I only addressed the plain interpretation for the example that came up. Nowhere did I say it should apply differently for those two categories of players. They are doing it contrary to the rules they wrote in both the case of a former top 10 and a current top 10. IMHO your "humble opinion" is neither humble nor is it an intelligent response to "show me where is says they can do that in either case".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Bottom line: Those who like to argue on spot have to be prepared to read more than the line which fits to his/her approach.
Those who like to post multiple facepalms should be prepared to move their hand from their eyes long enough to actually read both that the rules actually say (not just spout back what everyone can see is being done) and actually read posts commenting on it, before responding.



I'll leave with an analogy I've use before. Some people may take satisfaction when a chair ump confirms a call made by a blind linesperson, that is shown to be clearly out. I personally don't. The players and fans have a right to expect more from the officials on court. The players and fans should also be able to rely on the officials at the WTA to write the rules consistently with what they intend to do, not contrary to it and then simple ignore what they wrote.
don99 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15th, 2012, 09:24 AM   #348
country flag vevenyin
Senior Member
 
vevenyin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 1,362
vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all vevenyin is a name known to all
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg View Post
she loses 30 pts and gains 1
342=30+1
yes, and this week she loses 30 pts and gains 1 again
it should be 313, not 317
__________________
Shuai Zhang
Simone Bolelli
Stanislas Wawrinka
vevenyin is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15th, 2012, 03:30 PM   #349
country flag pepe72
Senior Member
 
pepe72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 187
pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice pepe72 is just really nice
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Why Azarenka has got over 9000 points? According to WTA she has got 8745 and AFAIK does not play this week.
__________________
Agnieszka Radwańska RULEZ!
pepe72 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15th, 2012, 03:41 PM   #350
country flag Meelis
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 68,879
Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute Meelis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepe72 View Post
Why Azarenka has got over 9000 points? According to WTA she has got 8745 and AFAIK does not play this week.
She loses mandatory zero pointer (Cincinnati 2011) and 280 points will replace it (which are not counted at the moment).

Last edited by Meelis : Aug 15th, 2012 at 03:47 PM.
Meelis is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15th, 2012, 07:26 PM   #351
country flag Kerbicz
Senior Member
 
Kerbicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 141
Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all Kerbicz is a name known to all
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meelis View Post
She loses mandatory zero pointer (Cincinnati 2011).
Calling this a "lost" is somewhat frivolous, I should say . Vika's mandatory zero for Cincy'2011 will expire on Monday and the free spot in her "best 16" tally thus created will be filled with her current 17th result (280 points for the Luxembourg title won last October ).
Kerbicz is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16th, 2012, 01:46 AM   #352
country flag Tennis Observer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,043
Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT View Post
[...]Vika must count Doha and Rome ... she is not counting Rome but rather counting 2011 Tokyo
You are spot on: At present, Victoria Azarenka's two best P5 results are 900 (Doha 2012) and 395 points (Tokyo 2011). The latter will anniversary out and can be replaced with 125 points (Rome) or a better result (obviously she has committed to Tokyo 2012).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT View Post
I am really confused who must count what now

Fran is a 2011 Top 10 player 2012 Top 20 player
she got a 0 for missing 2011 Tokyo
in 2012 she got 1 from Rome and 1 from Cincy
so as of next week her 2 best P5 are 1 and 1 but she gets to use the 0 as a result

Vera is a 2012 Top 10 player
she got 0 for Rome and Cincy
she got 1 for Doha
so she gets to use the 0 and 0 and does not have to use the 1
what about her 620 from 2011 Tokyo
At present, Francesca Schiavone’s two best P5 results are 0 (Tokyo 2011) and 1 (Cincinnati 2012). The mandatory 0 pointer will anniversary out and replaced either with 1 point (Rome 2012) or a better result in Tokyo 2012 (my answer to your question fitted, don’t expect the opposite ten days later!).

Until they will anniversary out, Vera Znovareva’s two best P5 results are both 0 (Rome & Cincinnati 2012). At present 620 points from Tokyo 2011 is her best tournament result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg View Post
That means at the end of all P5 events been played not half way thru.

You include your best 2 from all 5.
Again, that’s false! After you updated the opener on 8/15/12, 22:04 BST without any notification and showing Vera Zvonareva’s accurate upcoming total of 2,375 points, your realized your blunder (in your update on 8/15/12, 05:36 BST you still failed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
I didn't predict anything at all. I did say the plain reading of the rules leads to 1926 points for Fran not 1985.
No, that’s not what you wrote as you joined this discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
[…] At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):
  • Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
  • 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) […].
  • A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules […].
No, another time you failed (see WTA 2012 Rulebook, p 227-228)! The bullets from section ii. Ranking points treatment appear in chronological order [= lit (b), (d) and (e)].
Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
It again states "Top 10 Player’s[/b] ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year". It then merely adds clarification that a penalty 0 is first of all treated as a played tournament and that it could in fact be a best two result, "if applicable". It does not say it will automatically be treated as one of the best two. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then it is you who aren't actually reading what they wrote, only reiterating what they do. […]
It goes without saying, that a Top 10 player who didn’t miss at least one of four P5 tournaments she committed to, will not penalized with a mandatory 0 pointer. Consequently for these Top 10 players the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points) is not applicable.

Common sense has it that the expression in brackets offers additional information, or in other words: skipping this part will lead to different results. If a player missed all four of her P5 commitments, there is no divergence in the outcome. Therefore those who formed this rule had situations in mind where 0 points count as best result although other better results are available. You don’t acknowledge that but I am confident that you realize that people who wrote the program (please mind: we are talking about a computer ranking!) have implemented the rule in question that way a long time ago!

Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
[…]Nowhere have you justified where it says they can use zeroes to satisfy the P5 requirements when there are two or more non-zero P5's. That is the whole point.
Yes, I have on several occasions! Independently, at this stage we should agree to disagree that we don’t find common ground in interpreting the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points).
Tennis Observer is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16th, 2012, 10:26 AM   #353
country flag don99
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 21
don99 has disabled reputation
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by don99
In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules […].
No, another time you failed (see WTA 2012 Rulebook, p 227-228)! The bullets from section ii. Ranking points treatment appear in chronological order [= lit (b), (d) and (e)].
Yes, there are numerous failures here, unfortunately they are not mine. How many facepalms should I post before pointing out page 223 comes before page 228?
  • The P5 rules on page 223 appear before the explanatory notes on page 228. The part relevant to the situation we were discussing is at the end of section XIV.A.4.a and reads, "In addition, a Top 20 Player’s WTA Ranking must include her best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results, if any." That is the natural place to start, in addressing how the P5 rules currently impact Fran. That is the point I chose to address first.
  • To see if the rules say anything else, one looks further and then finds on page 228, XIV.A.6.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 the part I addressed next.
On Earth, most people would agree that section 4.a appears before section 6.d, just as the common sense view is that page 223 comes before page 228. That is the logical order in which to evaluate how the rules impact Fran in 2012. (To paraphrase you, in looking only at section 6, "you have failed to take into account the ranking rules in their entirety" )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Common sense has it that the expression in brackets offers additional information, or in other words: skipping this part will lead to different results [.....] Therefore those who formed this rule had situations in mind where 0 points count as best result although other better results are available. You don’t acknowledge that but I am confident that you realize that people who wrote the program (please mind: we are talking about a computer ranking!) have implemented the rule in question that way a long time ago!
It goes without saying, that is grasping at straws to try and salvage the situation, but at least you are finally responding to the issue originally raised. It only took how many pages of responding to insolent and divergent nonsense from you to get you to actually think before you post and realise this is the key phrase I zeroed in on in my very first comments!

The entire issue is "How much additional information does the bracketted phrase actually impart?".
  1. Your therefore is not a therefore, it is a leap off a cliff magically arriving somewhere else The only common sense information the part in brackets actually adds, is to imply that if there is a penalty 0 it will be treated as if it was a played tournament and as such it [u]MAY[/b] be one of her best two P5's. Ascribing any deeper meaning begs the question, if they had something else in mind, why not simply write it? Better yet, why use the word "best" at all? Simply leaving it out leads to what the programs are doing.
  2. Now your arguement is that the document must be interpreted the way the computer routines are written, not the other way around? Sorry, you have that completely backwards. If that where true, it would be completely worthless as a legal document. Furthermore, it's a complete cop out tantamount to simply having the rules say "the rankings will be done in accordance with the computer program".
  3. When a hole is found in the logic of the programs, they simply correct it. Why is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp, that the same is routinely done with the document and should be done to address this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Yes, I have on several occasions! Independently, at this stage we should agree to disagree that we don’t find common ground in interpreting the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points).
You have in fact made only one serious attempt at addressing the simple issue I raised in my first post. That attempt is quoted and responded to above. You could have started with that. I could then have spared this forum pages of responding to your attempts at ridicule, ........ by simply pointing out that "1 is not better than 0" in the same universe where "223 is not before 228"
don99 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16th, 2012, 04:45 PM   #354
country flag shirgan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,008
shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future shirgan has a brilliant future
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

#101-250 is missing
shirgan is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17th, 2012, 12:20 AM   #355
country flag Tennis Observer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,043
Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of Tennis Observer has much to be proud of
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
Yes, there are numerous failures here, unfortunately they are not mine. How many facepalms should I post before pointing out page 223 comes before page 228?
  • The P5 rules on page 223 appear before the explanatory notes on page 228. The part relevant to the situation we were discussing is at the end of section XIV.A.4.a and reads, "In addition, a Top 20 Player’s WTA Ranking must include her best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results, if any." That is the natural place to start, in addressing how the P5 rules currently impact Fran. That is the point I chose to address first.
  • To see if the rules say anything else, one looks further and then finds on page 228, XIV.A.6.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 the part I addressed next.
On Earth, most people would agree that section 4.a appears before section 6.d, just as the common sense view is that page 223 comes before page 228. That is the logical order in which to evaluate how the rules impact Fran in 2012. (To paraphrase you, in looking only at section 6, "you have failed to take into account the ranking rules in their entirety" )

You made my day!
  • I didn’t quote anything from section “4. Tournament Results Comprised in Ranking” in post # 359.
  • You don't find any of the three bullets I quoted in post # 359 in section “4. Tournament Results Comprised in Ranking”.
  • In post # 369 I enlightened you that the bullets in question were quoted from section [6] ii. Ranking Point Treatment in chronological order. You said you rearranged in the order those sections appear in the rules it and moved e in front of d:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):
  • Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
  • A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
  • 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) […].
From there you should be able to answer the significant question:

Why does WTA count 0 points as Top 20 player's “best” P5 result, if a “better” 1 point result includes her record?
[…]
Would you be so kind and explain in detail how you managed to rearrange bullets that didn’t exist in post # 359?

Quote:
Originally Posted by don99 View Post
It goes without saying, that is grasping at straws to try and salvage the situation, […]
I don’t need to save anything!

You might have realized that my interpretation of the rules in question goes in line with WTA’s computer ranking and yours not. It’s up to you if you reflect why you failed, e.g:
  • How Did I resolve ambiguity?
  • Did I interpret a provided information in a sensible way or lead my interpretation to a result that the phrase in brackets is practically meaningless?
  • Is the result of my interpretation in line with the intention of the rules?
or if you like to stay at the same level as you joined this discussion.

IMO this is poor judgment: If a Top 10 player’s four P5 results are two mandatory 0 pointer for missing her commitments and two singles for an earliest exist, then she has to count her singles as two best P5 results; this brings her to four countable P5 tournaments, whereas a Top 20 player only has to include her two best P5 results if played. IMO the only reasonable meaning of the expression “which may be zero (0) points, if applicable” is that a Top 10 player who received a mandatory 0 pointer for missing a P5 tournament will count this as one of her two best P5 results.

I know that your view is different because you are under the impression your interpretation is correct and WTA's computer ranking is wrong. Beat this dead horse again & again, if you feel better. But as there is not the slightest chance that we find common ground, don’t expect an additional input to this topic from me!
Tennis Observer is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19th, 2012, 05:09 PM   #356
country flag jrm
Senior Member
 
jrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Velenje
Posts: 33,380
jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute jrm has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Kozlova in the future? Where do you see her?
__________________
Äre 2007 Downhill and GS GOLD: Aksel LUND SVINDAL (NOR) WC overall champion for 2006/07 and 2008/09; winner of 2 crystal globes in GS and SC
Val d’Isčre 2009 SC GOLD and Super-G BRONZE
Vancouver 2010: Super-G GOLD, downhill SILVER, GS bronze
Current crushes: Johannes STRATE Tom BATEMAN Éric BRUNEAU
Simply the best: Ole Einar BJŘRNDALEN and JANNE AHONEN
jrm is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26th, 2012, 08:52 AM   #357
country flag M.P
Senior Member
 
M.P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,384
M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute M.P has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

i think Maria Joao won first round
__________________
ELENA DEMENTIEVA
Li Zheng Jankovic Ivanovic Kvitova Garcia Djokovic

Muguruza Tsonga Berdych Gulbis Dimitrov Thiem Krajinovic Rosol
Han Zhangs Zhou Wangs ZhengSS Tang Yangs Zhu Tian XuSL


Giorgi Jovanovski Bencic Konjuh Petkovic Bouchard Wawrinka Pospisil
Zvonareva Peng Mladenovic Larcher-de-Brito Babos Vekic Kulichikova
M.P is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26th, 2012, 10:15 AM   #358
country flag Fantasy Hero
Senior Member
 
Fantasy Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 61,356
Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute Fantasy Hero has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

poor Flavia if she can come back for the AO she'll be unseeded
__________________
In my native language they say:
A L' E' INUTIL INSEGNA' AL MUS, SI PIART TIMP E IN PLUI SI INFASTIDIS LA BESTIE!!
(translated) There is no gain in teaching the donkey, you waste your time and annoy the beast

http://ski-and-tennis.blogspot.it
my own blog with reviews and articles, have a look if you're intrested
Fantasy Hero is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26th, 2012, 02:12 PM   #359
country flag SAISAI-GOAT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,354
SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute SAISAI-GOAT has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

I think you did not give Vera a 0
__________________
XWTA GOATS - Henin Li Pierce
XWTA Golden Flower GOATS - Duan Peng Wang Zhang Zhang Zheng Zheng Zhou
XWTA Non-Chinese Faves - Dulgheru Garcia Muguruza A Radwanska
Tennis Tipping GOATS - HAOCHEN-GOAT SHILIN-GOAT
Tennis Tipping Golden Flower GOATS - GoofyDuck Imperfect Angel M.P longtin23 silverwhite
Tennis Tipping Non-Chinese Faves - Adrian. AYUMI-GOAT coolfish1103 Frederik Igorche kfh_9118 Michael! MikBs Mike. peanuts valac222
SAISAI-GOAT is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26th, 2012, 06:31 PM   #360
country flag deladela
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
deladela is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Ithink an error in WTA ranks update.
134 Zaniewska POL lost in Q 1R USOpen, why added 40points?
It is OK now.Thanks

Last edited by deladela : Aug 27th, 2012 at 08:30 AM.
deladela is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios