[Lucemferre]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

the main problem of your system is that it copies ATP system , but 2 Tier 1 (Master 1000) will never be close to winning a Slam (Murray will confirm , as well as Wozniacki (but she only to her father)

ATP/WTA ranking are constructed so that they are not evaluating season's achievements of players, but they are encouraging the players to take part and be motivated on insignificant for their careers tournaments (Like Beijing or Doha etc) Otherwise all players will be playing like Serena taking all other tournaments as match practice before big tournament with huge points (Slam)

OK but there is a problem with that logic. 3, 4, 5 or even 10 according to some won't be close to winning a slam. What do you suggest? How many points instead of 1000?

[lenas warriors]

Originally Posted by Lucemferre

		         GS	YEC    T1/PM/5  OG     No.1     Top3    Top5    Top10	W/L   vs.Top10  Total
													
1. Williams, S.		36960	5900	15600	750    12300	5640	5050	4760	8369	6738   102067
2. Williams, V.		26000	2700	11000	750	1100   12120	6400	4260	7995	5930	78255
3. Sharapova, M.	17360	4300	15400	450	2100	8400	5650	1140	8041	5929	68770
4. Kuznetsova, S.	 7120	 400	 6200	  0	   0	3360	6000	2160	6859	3519	35618
5. Azarenka, V.		 4640	1600	 6800	340	4500	1320	1700	1580	7176	5057	34713
6. Jankovic, J.		 4800	 800	 9000	  0	1800	4260	2150	1880	6528	3458	34676
7. Wozniacki, C.	 3360	1400	 6200	  0	6700	1080	2150	1100	7303	4308	33601
8. Zvonareva, V.	 3840	1800	 4600	340	   0	2940	 700	2400	6795	2870	26285
9. Ivanovic, A.		 5120	 400	 4200	  0	1200	1140	2250	 540	6955	4198	26003
10. Kvitova, P.		 4160	1500	 2000	  0        0	1680	1100	 780	6513	5313	23046
11. Radwanska, A.	 1200	1000	 4200	  0	   0	1140	1050	2180	6972	3797	21539
12. Stosur, S.		 4640	 800	 1800	  0	   0	   0	2000	2060	5956	3108	20364
13. Li, N.		 3920	 400	 2200	  0	   0	   0	1000	1760	6606    4198    20084
14. Petrova, N.		 1440	 400	 4200	  0	   0	 240	 900	2680	6468	2613	18941
15. Date-Krumm, K.	 2160	 500	 1600	  0	   0	   0	   ?	2980	6584	3333	17157
16. Schiavone, F.	 3200	 200	  600	  0	   0	   0	 900	1040	5900	2636	14476
17. Dokic, J.		  720	 200	 3200	  0	   0	   0	 500	1440	6116	2154	14330
18. Hantuchova, D.	  720	 200	 2600	  0	   0	   0	 360	1700	6053	2650	14283
19. Bartoli, M.		 1920	 400	  600	  0	   0	   0	   0	2060	6215	3077	14272
20. Chakvetadze, A.	  720	 400	 1000	  0	   0	   0	 150	1360	6352	3182	13164


Retired
Henin, J.		23600	3300	12400	750    11700	3540	3100	2120	8199	6056    74765
Clijsters, K.		18560	5200	 8800	  0	2000	9900	5300	1100	8046	5714	64620
Dementieva, E.		 7440	1300	 7200  1200	   0	 300	5300	4620	6784    3826	37970 :O

	W	F	SF/3rd						
GS	2000	1200	720						

YEC    *1500								

T1/PM/5	1000	600	 -						

OG	750	450	340
	
No.1 - Weeks at no.1 x 100

Top 3 - Weeks at no.2,3 x 60

Top 5 - Weeks at no.4,5 x 50

Top 10 - Weeks at no 6,7,8,9,10 x 20

W/L - Career win-loss % x 100

vs.Top10 - Career win-loss % vs top 10 x 100					
									
* 1500 for undefeated Champion (200 for each round robin match win, plus 400 for a semi-final win, 
plus 500 for the final win), [100 for 1st rd win before 2003/RR format].

I used ATP's point system as it is easier to follow and a bit more accurate than WTA's. At first, I had counted Tier II/Premier and MM wins too but that bumped Wozniacki a bit too high so I removed them But seriously any decent player can win them, not a very good sign of greatness.

No problem at the top but gets a bit questionable towards the bottom so am open to suggestions about everything. There's also the Grand Slam Cup that both Williams won once and lasted only two years so I didn't include that one. They don't need the points anyway. Lastly, Date-Krumm had 149 weeks in the top 10 but I don't know how many in the top 5. Her total will increase but don't think it'll be enough to pass Petrova.

Nice one. I like the way you try and account for a multitude. Think continued sucess is better than flash in the pan sucesses

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by Lucemferre

OK but there is a problem with that logic. 3, 4, 5 or even 10 according to some won't be close to winning a slam. What do you suggest? How many points instead of 1000?

in my system 10 Tier I = Slam , 10 Tier I = almost impossible, but if the likes of Wozniacki will manage to do it , hands down , they are ahead of One Slam winners


At the same time even Runner-Ups at Slams = greater achievement than Tier 1 , because Radwanska's main achievement is not Miami , but Wimbledon Final.... it's what made her more famous and more respected both by tennis specialist and general public

I think balance should be heavily moved towards Slams and results at Slams, all the rest tournaments should give significantly smaller points....

Nevertheless Wozniacki with any system will be close or ahead of 1Slam Wonders .... she is just ridiculous in any list with a really huge achievements except Slam titles

[Achernar]

Originally Posted by Lucemferre

Yes but that would upset a lot of slamless pusher haters Tier II/Premier and MM titles give Wozniacki a big boost and I don't mind either way but how much do they matter when discussing greatness?

IMHO they do matter. Winning a lot of titles kind of legitimate the biggest wins. When a player holding only a handful of titles wins a slam, I can hear a voice screaming "fluke" in my ears. OTOH, when a player is holding 10, 20, 30+ titles, it kind of legitimate her slams victory(ies). Only a handful of active players possess more than 5 titles. The players who have managed to win more than 10 titles (or even better, 20+) are certainly among the most accomplished players on tour. They deserve recognition.

Originally Posted by Lucemferre

Btw look at Olympic GOAT Dementieva

I called it Dementieva is among the most accomplished players of the last decade. She managed to thrive* among all those incredible players from the early 2000. IMO, she'll be more renowned than all the actual one-slam wonders.

* I'm not sure about the use of this word. I hope it's appropriate

Thrive: [to]reach a high point in historical significance or importance

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thrive

[Achernar]

Originally Posted by lenas warriors

Nice one. I like the way you try and account for a multitude. Think continued sucess is better than flash in the pan sucesses

Precisely my opinion

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by Achernar

I called it Dementieva is among the most accomplished players of the last decade. She managed to thrive* among all those incredible players from the early 2000. IMO, she'll be more renowned than all the actual one-slam wonders.

* I'm not sure about the use of this word. I hope it's appropriate

Thrive: [to]reach a high point in historical significance or importance

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thrive

In my scoring system she will be ahead of Wozniacki, Stosur, Schiavone , Li , Jankovic , but slightly behind Kvitova and Ivanovic

[Lucemferre]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

in my system 10 Tier I = Slam , 10 Tier I = almost impossible, but if the likes of Wozniacki will manage to do it , hands down , they are ahead of One Slam winners


At the same time even Runner-Ups at Slams = greater achievement than Tier 1 , because Radwanska's main achievement is not Miami , but Wimbledon Final.... it's what made her more famous and more respected both by tennis specialist and general public

I think balance should be heavily moved towards Slams and results at Slams, all the rest tournaments should give significantly smaller points....

Nevertheless Wozniacki with any system will be close or ahead of 1Slam Wonders .... she is just ridiculous in any list with a really huge achievements except Slam titles

Here are the rankings with your 10 Tier 1 = 1 slam rule (also applied it to Olympics and YEC):

		        GS	YEC    T1/PM/5	OG	No.1	Top 3	Top 5	Top 10	W/L   vs.Top10  Total
Active													
Williams, S.		36960	1180	3120	150	12300	5640	5050	4760	8369	6738	84267
Williams, V.		26000	540	2200	150	1100	12120	6400	4260	7995	5930	66695
Sharapova, M.		17360	860	3080	90	2100	8400	5650	1140	8041	5929	52650
Kuznetsova, S.		7120	80	1240	0	0	3360	6000	2160	6859	3519	30338
Azarenka, V.		4640	320	1360	68	4500	1320	1700	1580	7176	5057	27721
Wozniacki, C.		3360	280	1240	0	6700	1080	2150	1100	7303	4308	27521
Jankovic, J.		4800	160	1800	0	1800	4260	2150	1880	6528	3458	26836
Ivanovic, A.		5120	80	840	0	1200	1140	2250	540	6955	4198	22323
Zvonareva, V.		3840	360	920	68	0	2940	700	2400	6795	2870	20893
Kvitova, P.		4160	300	400	0	0	1680	1100	780	6513	5313	20246
Stosur, S.		4640	160	360	0	0	0	2000	2060	5956	3108	18284
Li, N.		        3920	80	440	0	0	0	1000	1760	6606	4198	18004
Radwanska, A.		1200	200	840	0	0	1140	1050	2180	6972	3797	17379
Date-Krumm, K.		2160	100	320	0	0	0	?	2980	6584	3333	15477
Petrova, N.		1440	80	840	0	0	240	900	2680	6468	2613	15261
Schiavone, F.		3200	40	120	0	0	0	900	1040	5900	2636	13836
Bartoli, M.		1920	80	120	0	0	0	0	2060	6215	3077	13472
Chakvetdze, A.		720	80	200	0	0	0	150	1360	6352	3182	12044
Hantuchova, D.		720	40	520	0	0	0	360	1700	6053	2650	12043
Dokic, J.		720	40	640	0	0	0	500	1440	6116	2154	11610

													
													
Retired													
Henin, J.		23600	660	2480	150	11700	3540	3100	2120	8199	6056	61605
Clijsters, K.		18560	1040	1760	0	2000	9900	5300	1100	8046	5714	53420
Dementieva, E.		7440	260	1440	240	0	300	5300	4620	6784	3826	30210
Safina, D.		5040	0	1360	90	2600	3540	150	560	6754	3140	23234

	        W	 F       SF/3rd						
GS	       2000	1200	  720						
YEC	       *300								
T1/PM/P5	200      120	    -						
Olympics	150	  90	   68						

No.1 - Weeks at no.1 x 100
Top 3 - Weeks at no.2,3 x 60
Top 5 - Weeks at no.4,5 x 50
Top 10 - Weeks at no 6,7,8,9,10 x 20
W/L - Career win-loss % x 100
vs.Top10 - Career win-loss % vs top 10 x 100									

* 300 for undefeated Champion (40 for each round robin match win, plus 80 for a semi-final win, 
plus 100 for the final win), [20 for 1st rd win before 2003].

This is better.

[Lucemferre]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

In my scoring system she will be ahead of Wozniacki, Stosur, Schiavone , Li , Jankovic , but slightly behind Kvitova and Ivanovic

Kvitova is a baby compared to Dementieva's long career. No way is she greater with just 2 years at the top level and nothing else. She will be but not yet.

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by Lucemferre

Kvitova is a baby compared to Dementieva's long career. No way is she greater with just 2 years at the top level and nothing else. She will be but not yet.

still this baby won Wimbledon (and it wasn't a fluke run) and YEC and 2 Tier 1 and was the best player in 2011 and even not playing her best was going deep at Slams in 2012

Of course she has still much to prove , but she is not the one, who will drop out of top ten in the near future (if stays healthy)

Dementieva is definitely underachiever , but no extra bonuses are given for underachieving.

[Leon Daniel]

Originally Posted by Lucemferre

		         GS	YEC    T1/PM/5  OG     No.1     Top3    Top5    Top10	W/L   vs.Top10  Total
													
1. Williams, S.		36960	5900	15600	750    12300	5640	5050	4760	8369	6738   102067
2. Williams, V.		26000	2700	11000	750	1100   12120	6400	4260	7995	5930	78255
3. Sharapova, M.	17360	4300	15400	450	2100	8400	5650	1140	8041	5929	68770
4. Kuznetsova, S.	 7120	 400	 6200	  0	   0	3360	6000	2160	6859	3519	35618
5. Azarenka, V.		 4640	1600	 6800	340	4500	1320	1700	1580	7176	5057	34713
6. Jankovic, J.		 4800	 800	 9000	  0	1800	4260	2150	1880	6528	3458	34676
7. Wozniacki, C.	 3360	1400	 6200	  0	6700	1080	2150	1100	7303	4308	33601
8. Zvonareva, V.	 3840	1800	 4600	340	   0	2940	 700	2400	6795	2870	26285
9. Ivanovic, A.		 5120	 400	 4200	  0	1200	1140	2250	 540	6955	4198	26003
10. Kvitova, P.		 4160	1500	 2000	  0        0	1680	1100	 780	6513	5313	23046
11. Radwanska, A.	 1200	1000	 4200	  0	   0	1140	1050	2180	6972	3797	21539
12. Stosur, S.		 4640	 800	 1800	  0	   0	   0	2000	2060	5956	3108	20364
13. Li, N.		 3920	 400	 2200	  0	   0	   0	1000	1760	6606    4198    20084
14. Petrova, N.		 1440	 400	 4200	  0	   0	 240	 900	2680	6468	2613	18941
15. Date-Krumm, K.	 2160	 500	 1600	  0	   0	   0	   ?	2980	6584	3333	17157
16. Schiavone, F.	 3200	 200	  600	  0	   0	   0	 900	1040	5900	2636	14476
17. Dokic, J.		  720	 200	 3200	  0	   0	   0	 500	1440	6116	2154	14330
18. Hantuchova, D.	  720	 200	 2600	  0	   0	   0	 360	1700	6053	2650	14283
19. Bartoli, M.		 1920	 400	  600	  0	   0	   0	   0	2060	6215	3077	14272
20. Chakvetadze, A.	  720	 400	 1000	  0	   0	   0	 150	1360	6352	3182	13164


Retired
Henin, J.		23600	3300	12400	750    11700	3540	3100	2120	8199	6056    74765
Clijsters, K.		18560	5200	 8800	  0	2000	9900	5300	1100	8046	5714	64620
Dementieva, E.		 7440	1300	 7200  1200	   0	 300	5300	4620	6784    3826	37970 :O

	W	F	SF/3rd						
GS	2000	1200	720						

YEC    *1500								

T1/PM/5	1000	600	 -						

OG	750	450	340
	
No.1 - Weeks at no.1 x 100

Top 3 - Weeks at no.2,3 x 60

Top 5 - Weeks at no.4,5 x 50

Top 10 - Weeks at no 6,7,8,9,10 x 20

W/L - Career win-loss % x 100

vs.Top10 - Career win-loss % vs top 10 x 100					
									
* 1500 for undefeated Champion (200 for each round robin match win, plus 400 for a semi-final win, 
plus 500 for the final win), [100 for 1st rd win before 2003/RR format].

I used ATP's point system as it is easier to follow and a bit more accurate than WTA's. At first, I had counted Tier II/Premier and MM wins too but that bumped Wozniacki a bit too high so I removed them But seriously any decent player can win them, not a very good sign of greatness.

No problem at the top but gets a bit questionable towards the bottom so am open to suggestions about everything. There's also the Grand Slam Cup that both Williams won once and lasted only two years so I didn't include that one. They don't need the points anyway. Lastly, Date-Krumm had 149 weeks in the top 10 but I don't know how many in the top 5. Her total will increase but don't think it'll be enough to pass Petrova.

Please don't get me wrong, but Wozniacki, Jankovic and even Zvonareva ahead of Ivanovic, Kvitova and Li?

[lenas warriors]

Originally Posted by lenas warriors

li has got six titles (one of which is the slam) so not less than 5 non-slam titles. Hence in your logic the tiebreak rule shouldnt be used and Li should be above Stosur...

Still ignoring this Tennis Fool?

[Lucemferre]

Originally Posted by Leon Daniel

Please don't get me wrong, but Wozniacki, Jankovic and even Zvonareva ahead of Ivanovic, Kvitova and Li?

Why would I get you wrong? As I said I'm open to suggestions. What would you like to change?
Longevity and consistency are a part of greatness too. Some players, like Ivanovic have a short prime and even though this is pointless to argue, she owes her 'greatness' to Henin's retirement. What has she done since then? Not much. Wozniacki despite her young age has been more consistent and even with the reduced points for non-slam tournaments Ivanovic couldn't pass Caro.

The only thing Jankovic has over the others below her is a long career as a top player and that should count for something. Many of them will probably catch up in few years so not a big problem in the long run. Zvonareva is no longer ahead of Ivanovic btw.

Kvitova is different. Give her time and she'll pass the slamless ones but it's too early to put her ahead IMO. She is too new and still needs more results. You can't say this player is greater than Wozniacki as soon as they win a slam and YEC.

Li hasn't been a top 10/5 player long enough. Only Schiavone among slam winners has less points for weeks at top10&5.

[Tennis Fool]

Originally Posted by lenas warriors

Still ignoring this Tennis Fool?

5 other titles, is what I meant, not counting the Slam.

[lenas warriors]

Originally Posted by Tennis Fool

5 other titles, is what I meant, not counting the Slam.

Your rule was less than 5. 5 non slam titles is not less than 5.

[Tennis Fool]

^ Ok, five and fewer. Pendant.