[Pavstry.]

Many poster complaining that WTA should bring back Quality Points.
Here is how Year End Top10 would look using Quality Points:

	                Ranking Pts  	Quality Pts	Overall Pts	Q Pts % of Overall
 1./(1.) Azarenka	10595		6022		16617		36,24%		
 2./(3.) S.Williams	 9400		6234		15634		39,87%		
 3./(2.) Sharapova	10045		5378		15423		34,87%		  
 4./(4.) Radwanska	 7425		3461		10886		31,79%		
 5./(5.) Kerber	         5550		2853		 8403		33,95%		
 6./(7.) Li Na	         5095		2876		 7971		36,08%	
 7./(6.) Errani	         5100		2533		 7633		33,18%	
 8./(8.) Kvitova	 5085		2044		 7129		28,67%		
 9./(9.) Stosur	         4135		1913		 6048		31,63%		
10./(10.) Wozniacki	 3765		2193		 5958		36,81%	
11./(11.) Bartoli	 3740		1820		 5560		32,73%	



*   Ranking system & Zero pointers are based on 2012 Ranking Rules. 
**  Official WTA ranking in brackets.

Average Quality Points earned per tournament:

		        Quality Pts	# of Tours	Q pts/Tournament
 1./(3.) S.Williams	6234		13		479,54
 2./(2.) Sharapova	5408		14		386,29  
 3./(1.) Azarenka	6046		17		355,65
 4./(7.) Li Na	        2876		17		169,18
 5./(5.) Kerber 	3408		21		162,29
 6./(4.) Radwanska	3564		22		162,00
 7./(8.) Kvitova	2262		18		125,67
 8./(6.) Errani	        2676		23		116,35
 9./(10.) Wozniacki	2440		23		106,09
10./(9.) Stosur	        2071		23		 94,14
11./(11.) Bartoli	1862		25		 74,48

* All tournament they actually played, not including Mandatory Zero Pointers.

Since many fans would complain that Azarenka played Rome and Montreal just to avoid Zero Pointers
under current system, here are some different scenarios for the Top3:

Azarenka w/o Rome
 -./(1.) Azarenka	6046		16		377,87
Azarenka w/o Rome & Montreal
 -./(1.) Azarenka	6022		15		401,46
S.Williams w/o Cincinnati
 -./(3.) S.Williams	6203		12		516,91
Sharapova w/o Paris
 -./(2.) Sharapova	5378		13		413,69

Quality Points Calculating Method:
Since WTA doesnt have an official up to date quality point system, we have to go back to old ones.
The method is based on the 2005 WTA Ranking System:
http://www.tennisweb.it/Download/WTA...ing_System.pdf
Since points awarded for a slam title went up from 650pts -> 2000pts, which is almost 3 times more,
simply I used the same multiplying for quality points. This is how it looks:

Quality Points		
Loser's Rank    Non-Slam   Slam
1	        300	   600
2	        225	   450
3	        198	   396
4	        165	   330
5	        150	   300
6-10	        129	   258
11-16	        105	   210
17-25	         69	   138
26-35	         45	    90
36-50	         30	    60
51-75	         24	    48
76-120	         12	    24
121-250	          6	    12
251-500	          3	     6
501 >	          0	     0

[Pavstry.]

Quality Points earned by winners of the biggest tournaments

 Slam
		Tournament	Ranking Pts	Quality Pts	Total	Q Pts % of Ranking Pts
 1. S.Williams	Wimbledon	2000		1386		3386	 69,3%
 2. S.Williams	USO		2000		1224		3224	 61,2%
 3. Azarenka	AO		2000		 954		2954	 47,7%
 4. Sharapova	RG		2000		 804		2804	 40,2%

Premier-M/5
         	Tournament	Ranking Pts	Quality Pts	Total	Q Pts % of Ranking Pts
 1. S.Williams	Madrid		1000		 759		1759	 75,9%
 2. Azarenka	Indian Wells	1000		 624		1624	 62,4%
 2. Petrova	Tokyo		 900		 540		1440	 60,0%
 4. Azarenka	Beijing		1000		 475		1475	 47,5%
 5. Kvitova	Montreal	 900		 417		1317	 46,3%
 6. Sharapova	Rome		 900		 393		1293	 43,7%
 6. Li Na	Cincinnati	 900		 393		1293	 43,7%
 8. Azarenka	Doha		 900		 378		1278	 42,0%
 9. Radwanska	Miami		1000		 393		1393	 39,3%

Premier-700
        	Tournament	Ranking Pts	Quality Pts	Total	Q Pts % of Ranking Pts
 1. Sharapova	Stuttgart	 470		 660		1130	140,4%
 2. Azarenka	Sydney		 470		 529		 989	110,4%
 3. Kerber	Paris		 470		 462		 932	 98,3%
 4. Kanepi	Brisbane	 470		 415		 885	 88,3%
 5. Paszek	Eastbourne	 470		 363		 833	 77,2%
 6. S.Williams	Charleston	 470		 354		 824	 75,3%
 7. Radwanska	Dubai		 470		 321		 791	 68,3%
 8. Wozniacki	Moscow		 470		 309		 779	 65,7%
 9. Kvitova	New Haven	 470		 306		 776	 65,1%
10. Cibulkova	Carlsbad	 470		 258		 728	 54,9%
11. Radwanska	Brussels	 470		 114		 584	 24,3%
12. S.Williams	Stanford	 470		  85		 545	 16,0%

Other
                Tournament	Ranking Pts	Quality Pts	Total	Q Pts % of Ranking Pts
     S.Williams	Olympics	 685		 831		1516	121,3%
     S.Williams	YEC		1500		 969		2469     64,6%

[Pavstry.]

IMO I dont agree with the complains and it looks a pointless system, because over 52 weeks period it doesnt make such big difference as many people think, while unnecessarily complicates the calculating & understanding of the rankings.

There are only 3 changes in top11 and the only notable is Serena overtaking Maria, and even that way smaller leap than many people would think.

[Christinawww]

I thought Serena would be number 1 with quality points as she beat Vika, who was number 1, so many times (I've stopped counting)

[Imperfect Angel]

It doesn't make much difference this particular year because the real top players really stepped up in the big events.
If the quality points system was applied in the past few years, you'd see more significant difference.

[bandabou]

Not surprising that Serena would overleap Masha..she had no trouble beating her and Vika.

[Mitten Kitten]

quite surprised to see Caroline with more quality points than Petra

[Pavstry.]

Added "Quality Points earned by winners of the biggest tournaments" to 2nd post.

[Geisha]

Wait. Am I missing something? How do we know if Serena would be ahead of Maria by the time the YEC came around. She'd be getting #3 points not #2 points. Right?

[Meelis]

Originally Posted by Geisha

Wait. Am I missing something? How do we know if Serena would be ahead of Maria by the time the YEC came around. She'd be getting #3 points not #2 points. Right?

This is why such recalculations don´t mean much. Had quality points been there this year, then rankings and draws would have been completely different. It´s impossible to tell, how the year end rankings would have been looked like, as it´s impossible to retroactively redo the draws and replay matches that were never played. If WTA ever should bring quality points back, then for sure they would not recalculate the past results.

[Nicolás89]

Originally Posted by Meelis

This is why such recalculations don´t mean much. Had quality points been there this year, then rankings and draws would have been completely different. It´s impossible to tell, how the year end rankings would have been looked like, as it´s impossible to retroactively redo the draws and replay matches that were never played. If WTA ever should bring quality points back, then for sure they would not recalculate the past results.

Thread Closed.

[Morning Morgan]

This is some sort of the "best case" scenario calculation. For example, in the case for Serena, this is the maximum number of quality points she would have gotten this season. If the quality points system was implemented this year, she would have been most likely ranked higher at some point in time, and would have earned less quality points.

[Patrick345]

Different system. Same shit. Every system has flaws. Obviously the top ranked player cannot play against herself. She´ll also get easier draws as a result of her ranking. Then you have the issue of the surface and injury factor. Is is really worth more to beat Wozniacki than Clijsters at the Australian Open? What about beating Radwanska instead of Errani at the French Open? What about beating Stosur at Wimbledon instead of Lisicki?

[guichard]

Originally Posted by Meelis

This is why such recalculations don´t mean much. Had quality points been there this year, then rankings and draws would have been completely different. It´s impossible to tell, how the year end rankings would have been looked like, as it´s impossible to retroactively redo the draws and replay matches that were never played. If WTA ever should bring quality points back, then for sure they would not recalculate the past results.

Yeah but you know medias and fans love to whine about quality point. X player would have been ranked higher, junior are not progressing... While the fact is there is no way to truly know. Serious "publication" have done this kind of recaculation to prove their point about the "flawed current system". I know it doesn't make it right but...

[guichard]

Originally Posted by Patrick345

Different system. Same shit. Every system has flaws. Obviously the top ranked player cannot play against herself. She´ll also get easier draws as a result of her ranking. Then you have the issue of the surface and injury factor. Is is really worth more to beat Wozniacki than Clijsters at the Australian Open? What about beating Radwanska instead of Errani at the French Open? What about beating Stosur at Wimbledon instead of Lisicki?

Or to take a ATP example, beating Murray on clay