[coolfish1103]

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

WTA Rulebook decides unambiguously: Seeding will be based on the WTA Rankings the week prior to the start of the Tournament in question. (Sect. III/C/6) So the the seeds for the women's Indian Wells tournament will follow the current ranking.

Which will not be the case, btw, of the men's tournament. The corresponding ATP rule says that The selection and arrangement of seeds shall be based upon the most recent Emirates ATP Rankings list. Thus the WTA and ATP contests in IW and Miami will use seedinds founded on non-simultaneous rankings.

Well, according to the qualifying draw the newest ranking was used.

Effectively meaning the main draw has to use the newest ranking.

So Cornet took Peng's seeding spot.

[TheBoiledEgg]

^ no they havent used updated ranks
or else Puchkova vs Karolina Pliskova would both be seeded. They meet in Q1

[Kerbicz]

Originally Posted by coolfish1103

Well, according to the qualifying draw the newest ranking was used.

Obviously not. Please check the players whose ranking positions have changed since last week, eg Olga Puchkova, the Plišková sisters, Eleni Danilidou. Their positions on the seeding list and the ranking numbers displayed to the right of their names clearly refer to the previous ranking and not to the current one. According to the new ranking Karolina Plišková should be seeded 4th, ahead of Torro-Flor and Svitolina; actually she's not seeded at all.

[Kerbicz]

Originally Posted by don99

Not to be argumentative, but are there not tournaments for which all of the possible interpretations of "start of the Tournament" (the start of play in the MD, the start of play in the QD, the day on which the MD is conducted, and the day on which the QD is conducted) all fall at the end of the same week as the rankings used for seeding.

True but irrelevant to the matter under discussion. The point is whether the IW seeds will be based on the ranking list of Monday March the 4th. That was what Coolfish and some other posters asked about. And this question is unambigously settled by the WTA Rulebook - the answer is no. Seeding will be based on the WTA Rankings the week prior to the start of the Tournament, let me recall the corresponding regulation. You may attribute various meanings to the term "start of the Tournament", but no one of them can refer to the week of March 11th, while the first round of the Main Draw is scheduled for March 6th/7th.

The WTA Rulebook can sometimes be ambiguous or obscure, but there's no need to make it more obscure than it actually is.

[don99]

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

True but irrelevant to the matter under discussion. .......... You may attribute various meanings to the term "start of the Tournament", but no one of them can refer to the week of March 11th, while the first round of the Main Draw is scheduled for March 6th/7th.

Speaking of irrelevance and making things more confusing, explain to me where I said March 11 was a possible candidate for anything?

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

The WTA Rulebook can sometimes be ambiguous or obscure, but there's no need to make it more obscure than it actually is.

I don't need to add ambiguity, there is plenty there already!
[I didn't even mention the question of what is meant by "the week". In ordinary usage, a calendar week typically means Sunday-Saturday, but for some people it means Monday-Sunday. I don't recall anywhere in the rulebook that addresses this question explicitly, so to make sure we aren't thinking of two different things when we say "the week", in the context of this WTA rule, I take it to implicitly mean Monday through Sunday (each week's rankings are effective Monday through Sunday).]

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

The point is whether the IW seeds will be based on the ranking list of Monday March the 4th. That was what Coolfish and some other posters asked about.

That is the question I answered - whether the wording unambiguously lets one decide between Feb 25 or Mar 4 rankings for the seeding of the main draw. I am in agreement that it could not be March 4 for IW this year and never suggested it should be (or March 11 for that matter). What I cautioned is that it is not because of the reason you gave .... and give again.

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

And this question is unambigously settled by the WTA Rulebook - the answer is no. Seeding will be based on the WTA Rankings the week prior to the start of the Tournament, let me recall the corresponding regulation.

If this is the reason you are again citing for why the seedings for the IW main draw are not those of March 4 (because March 4 is in the same week as the start of play in the main draw?), I again advise you to look at tournaments which start on a Saturday or Sunday, where seedings are based on rankings from the same week as the start of the Tournament, not the week prior to it.

As far as I've been able to discern, the WTA always uses the rankings in effect at the time the qualifying draw is conducted. That's what I said in my first response and stuck to all along. Without knowing that, the sentence you keep saying is unambiguous is actually totally uninterpretable.

[Kerbicz]

Originally Posted by don99

[...] I am in agreement that it could not be March 4 for IW this year [...]

At last! we've arrived at some agreement, at least as for the tournament to come this week.

[don99]

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

At last! we've arrived at some agreement, at least as for the tournament to come this week.

We aren't in agreement on anything else I said? Only that?

You started out saying the issue of which rankings to use is decided unambiguously in the rules, citing that clause, then evaded answering the questions, 1.What does "start of the Tournament" even mean in this context? 2. Which week is "the week prior to the start of the Tournament"?

I think it was in my first post (in this discussion) that I pointed out, be careful, the WTA sometimes takes "the week prior to the start of the Tournament" to mean the same week as the start of the tournament. You flatly rejected that as not being a possible interpretation.

You then avoid answering the followup question, if that is not possible, which rankings then does this clause unambiguously require for a tournament which starts on a Saturday or Sunday?

I think we may also agree that last question is not answerable, unless you also know when the qualifying draw is conducted (something which is not specified in that clause), and indeed it CAN be the rankings from the same week as the "start of the Tournament".

Do we at last agree on that too? If we cannot, you are saying the WTA in fact used the wrong rankings for several events last year.

[Kerbicz]

Originally Posted by don99

We aren't in agreement on anything else I said? Only that?

No, I don't agree that a week can be prior to itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, sorry. You should probably try this solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[don99]

Originally Posted by Kerbicz

No, I don't agree that a week can be prior to itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, sorry. You should probably try this solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Um, yeah right. You continue to refuse to acknowledge it is not as trivial as your assertion that the words the WTA uses decide unambiguously, but can't concretely answer even the simplest of questions about what those words actually do mean, nor do you respond to a simple counter-example AND now tell me I'M simply being argumentative?

Sorry, you can't logically hold to all of those unless you in fact have already been practicing the solution you are proposing to me now. You're right, we're done. It's completely fruitless to continue when those are your responses.

[Kerbicz]

Originally Posted by don99

You continue to refuse to acknowledge it is not as trivial as your assertion that the words the WTA uses decide unambiguously [...]

I did it already in my response to your first post. Not an argumentative chap, really...

You definitely should visit the Argument Clinic. Not as a client, but in order to apply for a position as a Senior Specialist. You'll make a mint with them. You only have to be alert during the initial interview. Those guys are sometimes being nasty to applicants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7C2EtErYQ

Good luck!

[Zin]

Found an interesting article on a rankings system that evaluates players on actual performance.
http://www.sbnation.com/tennis/2013/...kings-march-11

They have a top 1000 ranking and it seems pretty accurate to me. You can note that Barty and Bouchard are top 100 with this system. At least now there is an unbiased source for the most overranked/underranked players And according to them, the most overranked top 100 players are Putchkova (), Minella, Tatishvili, Rus, Paszek, Oudin, Jovanovski, Johansson, Soler-Espinosa and Cornet!

[Håkon]

Yup, passes the eyeball test that one.

It's probably slightly too opaque to ever be used as official rankings, though.

[stromatolite]

Oh goody, another system that combines quality points and average points, the two worst rankings ideas ever. They dress it up in a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo about algorithms and best-fitting curves, but when push comes to shove it's the same old same old BS.

Quality points awards players a random bonus for wins over slumping top players.

Average points rewards players for cherry-picking the tournaments they expect to do best in.

There may be some room for tweaking the current system here and there, but even in its current for it gives a pretty good indication of players' ability to win matches over a normal number of events in the past year. If you're good enough, you'll go deep in important tournaments on a regular basis. That's all you need to know.

[jrm]

Has CSN officially been in top20?

[Meelis]

Originally Posted by jrm

Has CSN officially been in top20?

No