Womens Tennis in General - Page 227 - TennisForum.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!

Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:53 PM   #3391
TennisFan66
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,720
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Achernar Thanks for the answers With 16 seeds and the rules regarding the nationalities, the draw is as rigged as possible. I always thought that there should be as little human interference as possible in a draw. Whereas here, the winner is almost chosen arbitrarily. This is disappointing. In GM, they were discussing the possibility that Sharapova could have no other choice but to meet Lisicki in their round of 16. Can we still talk about a random draw?
As soon as a draw is not simply picking totally random numbers out of a hat, you can label it 'rigged'. A normal draw is also rigged, as No 1 and 2 seeds cannot meet until a final.

Now there's a little placing of nationalities as well as seeds. It makes sense to me, as the Olympics are still mainly a nations competition.

From glancing at comments in GM, I saw it mentioned than for a given player, the probability of drawing another given player, had been reduced from 1/16 to 1/12, due to the nationality placements in the draw.

One poster in GM claimed, as difference between 16 and 12 was 33%, it was a significant change in the draw (Maybe someone should point out to him that 0.0002 is in fact 100% larger than 0.0001).

Conversely, the probability for not drawing that player is 11/12 (0.917) as oppose to 15/16 (0.938) ... a roughly 2% point change in probability outcome.
__________________
SUNSHINE

WTA #1 for 67 Weeks.
2010, 2011 WTA YE#1

Jul 22nd, 2012, 03:46 PM   #3392
terjw
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,129
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Achernar Thanks for the answers With 16 seeds and the rules regarding the nationalities, the draw is as rigged as possible. I always thought that there should be as little human interference as possible in a draw. Whereas here, the winner is almost chosen arbitrarily. This is disappointing. In GM, they were discussing the possibility that Sharapova could have no other choice but to meet Lisicki in their round of 16. Can we still talk about a random draw?
The draw Policy makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure it's applied at the other Olympic events. Say GB had 4 athletes in a Track and Field event for which there were 4 heats. Makes sense that it's not left to random chance that they could be put in the same heat but that they are put in separate heats.

This is an Olympic event and if tennis wants to be there - it should fit in with Olympic principles as opposed to saying the Olympic event must be run in the same way as other tennis tournaments.

No draw is random when there are seeds. But draws are random after applying the rules for the seeds first. Here at the Olympics we have an extra rule - but after that the draw is random. Only Russia have 3 seeded players. Germany have 2 seeded players so the rules make little difference as far as whether a player makes it past any round.

In Sharapova's case - should she make the last 16 - and people speak as if in tournaments the 16 seeds get to last 16 and the 8 top seeds get to last 8 etc. When did that last happen? Anyway in Sharpova's case if she gets there - there are rules as to which of the lowest 8 seeds she can face. I don't know what that is for the #3 seed. But I think it's restricted so that the #1 seed can face the #13,14,15 or 16 seed in normal 16 seed events.

I'm not even sure she could even be a seed where she has Zvonareva currently #12 or Kirilenko #14 or #15 as a possibility in a normal draw. But even if that were so - presumably two of the other seeds would be put into that part of the draw instead which she might face if she were the seed which could face those players.

So if those two Russian players were seeded such that only those two and Lisicki could face a top seed in the last 16 (never the case)
.
and if she were that top four seed scheduled to meet them (not the case)
.
and if they didn't substitute two other seeds in that part of the draw if that could happen (never the case)
.
and if no other non-seeded player could possibly make it to the last 16 in that quarter (and of course that never happens does it)

Then and only then (with two impossible conditions and one "not the case" condition and one "unlikely to happen" condition) is it guaranteed that Sharpova play Lisicki in the last 16.

The Olympic rules for the draws will have little effect as to who makes it through. The players who deserve to will make it through and those who get beaten by the better player on the day won't deserve to win.

GM will whine about it all being lucky draws for players they don't like and Olympic rules and rigged draws for the players they do like. And I couldn't care less about their whining and their woulda coulda arguments.
__________________
Caroline Wozniacki

Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Kim Clijsters

Last edited by terjw : Jul 22nd, 2012 at 04:52 PM.

Jul 22nd, 2012, 06:11 PM   #3393
Achernar
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 668
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TennisFan66 As soon as a draw is not simply picking totally random numbers out of a hat, you can label it 'rigged'. A normal draw is also rigged, as No 1 and 2 seeds cannot meet until a final. Now there's a little placing of nationalities as well as seeds. It makes sense to me, as the Olympics are still mainly a nations competition. From glancing at comments in GM, I saw it mentioned than for a given player, the probability of drawing another given player, had been reduced from 1/16 to 1/12, due to the nationality placements in the draw. One poster in GM claimed, as difference between 16 and 12 was 33%, it was a significant change in the draw (Maybe someone should point out to him that 0.0002 is in fact 100% larger than 0.0001). Conversely, the probability for not drawing that player is 11/12 (0.917) as oppose to 15/16 (0.938) ... a roughly 2% point change in probability outcome.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by terjw The draw Policy makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure it's applied at the other Olympic events. Say GB had 4 athletes in a Track and Field event for which there were 4 heats. Makes sense that it's not left to random chance that they could be put in the same heat but that they are put in separate heats. This is an Olympic event and if tennis wants to be there - it should fit in with Olympic principles as opposed to saying the Olympic event must be run in the same way as other tennis tournaments. No draw is random when there are seeds. But draws are random after applying the rules for the seeds first. Here at the Olympics we have an extra rule - but after that the draw is random. Only Russia have 3 seeded players. Germany have 2 seeded players so the rules make little difference as far as whether a player makes it past any round. In Sharapova's case - should she make the last 16 - and people speak as if in tournaments the 16 seeds get to last 16 and the 8 top seeds get to last 8 etc. When did that last happen? Anyway in Sharpova's case if she gets there - there are rules as to which of the lowest 8 seeds she can face. I don't know what that is for the #3 seed. But I think it's restricted so that the #1 seed can face the #13,14,15 or 16 seed in normal 16 seed events. I'm not even sure she could even be a seed where she has Zvonareva currently #12 or Kirilenko #14 or #15 as a possibility in a normal draw. But even if that were so - presumably two of the other seeds would be put into that part of the draw instead which she might face if she were the seed which could face those players. So if those two Russian players were seeded such that only those two and Lisicki could face a top seed in the last 16 (never the case) . and if she were that top four seed scheduled to meet them (not the case) . and if they didn't substitute two other seeds in that part of the draw if that could happen (never the case) . and if no other non-seeded player could possibly make it to the last 16 in that quarter (and of course that never happens does it) Then and only then (with two impossible conditions and one "not the case" condition and one "unlikely to happen" condition) is it guaranteed that Sharpova play Lisicki in the last 16. The Olympic rules for the draws will have little effect as to who makes it through. The players who deserve to will make it through and those who get beaten by the better player on the day won't deserve to win. GM will whine about it all being lucky draws for players they don't like and Olympic rules and rigged draws for the players they do like. And I couldn't care less about their whining and their woulda coulda arguments.
Very interesting thoughts from both of you.

Quote:
 As soon as a draw is not simply picking totally random numbers out of a hat, you can label it 'rigged'. A normal draw is also rigged, as No 1 and 2 seeds cannot meet until a final.
Absolutely. And since I'd like the draws to be as random as possible, in order to let the player's skills and tactical mind settle the tournaments outcome, I'm not especially favorable to the seedings system. If I were responsible for the rules of the WTA, tournaments would be all the same size, say similar to Premier 5 (to the exception of the Slams, in order to keep their prestigious value), the draw would be completely random and each win would have the same value in terms of ranking points. Then the system would be far less arbitrary and would reflect much better the skills of each players (although no ranking system would ever be perfect). And each player would benefit from a day off between each match to recover physically, which, I believe, would eliminate many injuries. I know @ terjw, woulda coulda shoulda...

Knowing this, you will therefore understand that I am certainly not favorable to any additional intervention in the draws. That being said, your comments have convinced me that the Olympic rules aren't messing so much more with the draws.

Quote:
 The Olympic rules for the draws will have little effect as to who makes it through. The players who deserve to will make it through and those who get beaten by the better player on the day won't deserve to win.
In theory, I agree completely with you. However, the seedings system interferes with this common sense rule, by allowing the 16 "best players" to benefit from an easier path to the quarterfinals. Obviously, we encounter the same problem in every tournament.

Last edited by Achernar : Jul 22nd, 2012 at 06:17 PM.

Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:04 PM   #3394
terjw
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,129
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Achernar Absolutely. And since I'd like the draws to be as random as possible, in order to let the player's skills and tactical mind settle the tournaments outcome, I'm not especially favorable to the seedings system. If I were responsible for the rules of the WTA, tournaments would be all the same size, say similar to Premier 5 (to the exception of the Slams, in order to keep their prestigious value), the draw would be completely random and each win would have the same value in terms of ranking points. Then the system would be far less arbitrary and would reflect much better the skills of each players (although no ranking system would ever be perfect). And each player would benefit from a day off between each match to recover physically, which, I believe, would eliminate many injuries. I know @ terjw, woulda coulda shoulda.
Interesting. The FA Cup - once they get to the round that the Premier League clubs enter is random with no seeds.

On a slightly different track - some other different but related things on what I think:
1. I think there was a time when the draw was done:
#1 seed was always drawn to face #16 seed if they made it.
#2 seed was always drawn to face #15 seed if they made it.
#3 seed was always drawn to face #14 seed if they made it.
#4 seed was always drawn to face #13 seed if they made it.
#5 seed was always drawn to face #12 seed if they made it.
#6 seed was always drawn to face #11 seed if they made it.
#7 seed was always drawn to face #10 seed if they made it.
#8 seed was always drawn to face #9 seed if they made it.
.
Anyone else remember? I certainly remember #1 seed always drawn against #4 seed.
.
2. I do believe in having seeds. I actually think all the slams should not just do the seeds according to rankings but should determine themselves through a seeding committee.
I thought it crazy when Kim came back and then Justine came back that it was left to pure chance at the USO and AO that we didn't get a Serena vs Kim or Serena vs Justine match in the 1st round in which one of them would have to get knocked out.
.
3. Seedings should have nothing to do with what a player deserves. When I mention point 2 above - people say the players should earn the right for a seeding. Always in personal terms of what a player wants/deserves. But my argument on this is nothing to do with privileges for the player. It's for the tournament. The tournament and the people watching suerely should be wanting to provide the conditions for the best players to meet in the latest stages of the competion and the best two players in the climax which is the final. (and this is in the sense of who is the most likely at this tournament - not who is #1 and the best over the year, so I'd pretty well always have Serena as #1 seed except at RG).
I often read in GM that the sole purpose of rankings is to determine seedings. This is not true. It's only one of the purposes. I think precisely the opposite in fact. The purpose of the rankings is to determine the best (not that horrible word consistent) - the best player over a whole 12 month period - not neccessarily the best in any match-up or the most likely to win a tournament that all are playing in. And I don't want them to be used as the sole means to determine seedings at slams.
__________________
Caroline Wozniacki

Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Kim Clijsters

Last edited by terjw : Jul 22nd, 2012 at 07:26 PM.

Jul 22nd, 2012, 08:47 PM   #3395
Achernar
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 668
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by terjw Interesting. [*]I do believe in having seeds. I actually think all the slams should not just do the seeds according to rankings but should determine themselves through a seeding committee. I thought it crazy when Kim came back and then Justine came back that it was left to pure chance at the USO and AO that we didn't get a Serena vs Kim or Serena vs Justine match in the 1st round in which one of them would have to get knocked out. .[*]Seedings should have nothing to do with what a player deserves. When I mention point 2 above - people say the players should earn the right for a seeding. Always in personal terms of what a player wants/deserves. But my argument on this is nothing to do with privileges for the player. It's for the tournament. The tournament and the people watching suerely should be wanting to provide the conditions for the best players to meet in the latest stages of the competion and the best two players in the climax which is the final. (and this is in the sense of who is the most likely at this tournament - not who is #1 and the best over the year, so I'd pretty well always have Serena as #1 seed except at RG).[/list]I often read in GM that the sole purpose of rankings is to determine seedings. This is not true. It's only one of the purposes. I think precisely the opposite in fact. The purpose of the rankings is to determine the best (not that horrible word consistent) - the best player over a whole 12 month period - not neccessarily the best in any match-up or the most likely to win a tournament that all are playing in. And I don't want them to be used as the sole means to determine seedings at slams.
To be honest, I don't think the WTA really care who's the best player "over a whole 12 month". Their main, and possibly their only, purpose with seedings is to implement the best possible conditions for bringing the best players (thus the best known and most popular) to meet in the final rounds of tournaments. Which should allow to sell the most tickets. You stated it in your comment when you wrote "The tournament and the people watching surely should be wanting the best players to meet in the latest stages of the competition and wanting the best two players in the climax which is the final". If the WTA could ensure that Serena, Clijsters, Sharapova and Ivanovic (and maybe Mirza and Na Li to appeal to Asian audiences) would meet in the finals of all tournaments, they would gladly make sure of it.

I understand that it might seem logical to make sure that the best players avoid each other in the early rounds, but most players do not deserve such a favor. They're proving it throughout the year by losing regularly against players ranked well below them. These include players from the Top10-15, like Stosur, Bartoli or Na Li. Why should we favor them? In complete honesty, I'd rather not see players like Clijsters and Serena meeting in the first round of a tournament. So I would allow, as you suggest, that the tournament organizers (not only in the Grand Slams) can assign 2 or 4 seeds. As for the other players, if they're good enough, they will make their way by themselves.

The only reason I am willing to give a seed to Clijsters and Serena, it's because I know they can beat every player in the tournament. So, if we leave them the opportunity, it's most likely that they'll meet in the final. Because in all logic, the best players do not need a favor to win a tournament. Players like Serena, Venus, Hingis, Graf, or Federer and Djokovic, no matter what draw they get, they'll come through. They don't need a seed. That's why they deserve the title.

I would add that assigning seeds in order to ensure that the best matches take place at the end of the tournaments may seem logical, but the system is a total failure in that sense, because WTA's finals are often the worst possible matches.

As for the word "consistent", its use has become laughable because Wozniacki"s detractors have distorted its meaning in order to denigrate her success. They emptied the word of its meaning, forgetting that we can be consistently bad. If Wozniacki has been successful, it's not because she was consistent, but because she was consistently good. Her detractors have forgotten the word "good" at the end of the sentence

 Jul 24th, 2012, 06:33 PM #3396 marineblue Senior Member     Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 4,594 Re: Womens Tennis in General I often read in GM that the sole purpose of rankings is to determine seedings. This is not true. It's only one of the purposes. I think precisely the opposite in fact. The purpose of the rankings is to determine the best (not that horrible word consistent) - the best player over a whole 12 month period - not neccessarily the best in any match-up or the most likely to win a tournament that all are playing in. And I don't want them to be used as the sole means to determine seedings at slams. Oh yes, I remember this argument pushed by one particular poster (who then also like to mention a ranking of players whom Caro defeated and imply those wins were easy ). It's a complete nonsense as rankings are not some random numbers that WTA pulls out of the hat and assings to a player before a tournaments starts. The only purpose of such claims is to try to pretend that rankings are meaningless and ignore the fact that ranking depends on the actual performance. __________________ http://tennisnotebook.blogspot.com
Jul 24th, 2012, 07:24 PM   #3397
Chrissie-fan

Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12,790
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by marineblue [b]I often read in GM that the sole purpose of rankings is to determine seedings. This is not true.
Of course it isn't. People making that argument do it on the basis of the careers of the Williams sisters. Prior to that nobody made the argument that "only the slams matter." Of course the slams matter the most out of all tournaments, but not to the degree where it makes everything else (to use a popular GM word) "irrelevant." Improving ones ranking is a top priority for every player, for those at the bottom as well as those at the top. Posters making the argument that people only remember the slam champions are talking nonsense. There's not one TF member who doesn't know that Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki have been number one ranked players. History records the number one ranked players just as much as slam titles, olympic golds or YEC's. Look how eager Federer was to break Sampras' record of weeks at number one. If it wasn't important he would have ignored it and would just have concentrated on the slams. But instead getting the number one ranking back was one of his declared goals at the start of the season. But notice how quickly posters change their tune about the importance of the number one ranking when their fave reaches it. Sharapova fans were absolutely delighted when their girl topped the rankings again after the FO, and if Serena gets it back (which is not impossible) her fans will be delighted to. Number one only doesn't matter when a player posters don't like occupies the place. Just like as when a player they don't like wins a slam she's of course had a cupcake draw or "she cheated."

 Jul 24th, 2012, 07:41 PM #3398 marineblue Senior Member     Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 4,594 Re: Womens Tennis in General I was quoting terjw in the bold part, but anyway, I agree with you,too. __________________ http://tennisnotebook.blogspot.com
 Jul 25th, 2012, 12:01 AM #3399 TennisFan66 Senior Member   Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: London Posts: 7,720 Re: Womens Tennis in General This talk about ranking made me realize, I didn't know who was #1 ranked atm .. It's Vika #1, Aga #2 and Sharapova dropped to #3. So I guess ranking has become irrelevant again and only slams matter __________________ SUNSHINE WTA #1 for 67 Weeks. 2010, 2011 WTA YE#1
Jul 25th, 2012, 12:04 AM   #3400
Jimmie48
Allez A²

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,746
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TennisFan66 This talk about ranking made me realize, I didn't know who was #1 ranked atm ..
And you call yourself TennisFan?
__________________

My Tennis Photo Website

Jul 25th, 2012, 08:20 AM   #3401
TennisFan66
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,720
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jimmie48 And you call yourself TennisFan?
But I know Serena Williams won the last slam and with Pova down to 3rd in the ranking, we're back to: 'Only slams matter'.
__________________
SUNSHINE

WTA #1 for 67 Weeks.
2010, 2011 WTA YE#1

Jul 25th, 2012, 08:49 AM   #3402
DownInAHole
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,182
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TennisFan66 But I know Serena Williams won the last slam and with Pova down to 3rd in the ranking, we're back to: 'Only slams matter'.
Thank goodness for you that Maria managed to snag that French Open trophy and complete the career grand slam thereby accomplishing something that Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters have all failed to do.
__________________
Don't get on the scale if U ain't got the weight
It's more hard to love than it is to hate

Rock 'n' Roll Is Alive! (And It Lives In Minneapolis)

Jul 25th, 2012, 02:32 PM   #3403
TennisFan66
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,720
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DownInAHole Thank goodness for you that Maria managed to snag that French Open trophy and complete the career grand slam thereby accomplishing something that Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters have all failed to do.
So the new mantra to live by is : Only career slams matter?
__________________
SUNSHINE

WTA #1 for 67 Weeks.
2010, 2011 WTA YE#1

Jul 25th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #3404
DownInAHole
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,182
Re: Womens Tennis in General

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TennisFan66 So the new mantra to live by is : Only career slams matter?
Only until Maria wins gold in London. Then only career golden slams will matter.
__________________
Don't get on the scale if U ain't got the weight
It's more hard to love than it is to hate

Rock 'n' Roll Is Alive! (And It Lives In Minneapolis)

 Jul 25th, 2012, 11:22 PM #3405 goldenlox Senior Member     Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: cyberspace Posts: 90,983 Re: Womens Tennis in General Getting close to draw time. That is huge, maybe not for Caro, but a lot of players have a medal chance with a fortunate draw __________________ The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.... Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there Enjoy This Moment!! HEALTH and HAPPINESS to EVERYONE