Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,918 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The following rankings were established by taking the number of points gained by the players in their best (max) 17 tournaments and dividing them by the number of tournaments played (no minimum, maximum of 17). Official rankings (where there's a difference) in brackets. Any reactions?

1. Hénin: 379.071
2. Clijsters: 294.733
3. Serena (14): 274.833
4. Mauresmo (3): 237.118
5. Davenport: 235.5

6. Myskina (4): 218.824
7. Capriati: 183.867
8. Venus (15): 182.222
9. Dementieva (6): 169.647
10. Sharapova (8): 140.353

11. Kuznetsova (9): 124.294
12. Sugiyama (10): 113.235
13. Suarez (11): 112.529
14. Petrova (12): 109.235
15. Zvonareva (13): 102.826

16. Schnyder: 95.294
17. Schiavone: 86.529
18. Smashnova: 86.353
19. Rubin (24): 81.786
20. Golovin (40): 80.7

21. Farina (19): 72.471
22. Sprem (20): 72
...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
Andy T said:
The following rankings were established by taking the number of points gained by the players in their best (max) 17 tournaments and dividing them by the number of tournaments played (no minimum, maximum of 17). Official rankings (where there's a difference) in brackets. Any reactions?...

I have always maintained that this would be a far fairer way to decide the rankings however I am surprised to see that in most cases it doesn't actually make much difference. There's really only Serena and Venus Williams and Golovin who have a substantially different ranking.

Obviously if someone has participated in only a few tournaments a couple of successes or early losses can distort the figures.

There would need to be a minimum number of tournaments played. I don't think 12 would be unreasonable of which the Slams would be compulsory. The players would only have themselves to blame if they couldn't manage to play this limited number.

But then it has been suggested that if players had good results early in the year and had reached that figure they mightn't feel it necessary to play much outside the Slams.

With the number of injuries occuring it seems to me that players are taking part in too many tournaments.

Maybe if Venus and Serena had played a few more tournaments the rankings would be more accurate but it looks as if the actual system they use is not as skewed as I thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,343 Posts
I really don't think this system would work.

If someone wins the Australian Open as their 1st tournament of the year, her average points won/tournament would be like 1,000 points. If she won Tokyo the week after, her average would drop to say 670 points :shrug:
Would that be fair? :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
Brαm said:
I really don't think this system would work.

If someone wins the Australian Open as their 1st tournament of the year, her average points won/tournament would be like 1,000 points. If she won Tokyo the week after, her average would drop to say 670 points :shrug:
Would that be fair? :shrug:

The rankings would still be based over a 12 month period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,843 Posts
chris whiteside said:
With the number of injuries occuring it seems to me that players are taking part in too many tournaments.
Yes, all the injuries to those famed workhorses Venus and Serena Williams... who just play week in, week out, with no break at all :rolleyes:

The length of the season and the number of tournaments necessary to maintain one's ranking are probably the least important factors in this so-called injury rash... more pertinent would be a) hardcourts being the predominant surface on the WTA Tour, combined with b) poor training methods/scheduling on the part of the player.

The points per tournament rankings are an interesting curio, but you couldn't ever use them as an official ranking system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,343 Posts
chris whiteside said:
The rankings would still be based over a 12 month period.
And what if a player only played one tournament/year, being a grand slam and actually win it?

That player would be no.1 for the rest of the year :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199,011 Posts
chris whiteside said:
I have always maintained that this would be a far fairer way to decide the rankings however I am surprised to see that in most cases it doesn't actually make much difference. There's really only Serena and Venus Williams and Golovin who have a substantially different ranking.

Obviously if someone has participated in only a few tournaments a couple of successes or early losses can distort the figures.

There would need to be a minimum number of tournaments played. I don't think 12 would be unreasonable of which the Slams would be compulsory. The players would only have themselves to blame if they couldn't manage to play this limited number.

But then it has been suggested that if players had good results early in the year and had reached that figure they mightn't feel it necessary to play much outside the Slams.

With the number of injuries occuring it seems to me that players are taking part in too many tournaments.

Maybe if Venus and Serena had played a few more tournaments the rankings would be more accurate but it looks as if the actual system they use is not as skewed as I thought.
Agree, esp. for Juniors who can't play as much as they want. More or less A. Kleybanova's around 300 th ranked would play the US-Open-Qual. Juniors like Sesil K, Nicole V stand a good chance to be GS-Qual seeded. If you want Quality, that's the right ranking system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
Brαm said:
And what if a player only played one tournament/year, being a grand slam and actually win it?

That player would be no.1 for the rest of the year :)

Are you actually reading these threads? I have said that there would have to be a minimum number of tournaments IMO 12.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,343 Posts
chris whiteside said:
Are you actually reading these threads? I have said that there would have to be a minimum number of tournaments IMO 12.
What would happen to players who've played less than 12 tournaments? They'd be unranked or what??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,918 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
sartrista7 said:
The points per tournament rankings are an interesting curio, but you couldn't ever use them as an official ranking system.
This was the official system used (with a set minimum number of tournaments) for the first 30 years or so of the WTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
Brαm said:
What would happen to players who've played less than 12 tournaments? They'd be unranked or what??

Their total no of points would be divided by the number of minimum tournaments required to be played. It would be up to the players to ensure they then played this minmum number.

It would be a matter of trying to find a happy medium as to what the minimum number should be. That would be another big argument!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,033 Posts
The only problem i see with this system (and all systems encouraging players to play less), is that it would be awful to the Tier IV and V tournaments. Fewer people would play them, they would lose funding, and they would slowly collapse, which would hurt the whole tour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,918 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
cdpoulin1 said:
BTW, it is not and never was hÉnin!
Maybe not in Québec but according to RTBF:

"Kim Clijsters et Justine Hénin ont été reçues par le Roi..."

and the Royal Leopold Tennis Club, Bruxelles, the Belgian equivalent of the AELTC, it is very clearly Hénin:

"Le club fut créé le 11 février 1893 par 12 notables belges.
Le nom de LEOPOLD CLUB fut proposé en l'honneur du Roi Léopold II.


Le Léopold compte quelques 2000 membres pratiquant le tennis (1200 membres, 26 terrains, dont 8 courts couverts en hiver), le hockey (600 membres, 2 terrains en gazon synthétique) et le bridge (100 membres, une salle réservée). Pendant son siècle d'existence, le Léopold a eu la fierté de compter, parmi ses membres, des champions de tennis de renommée internationale qui ont précédé ou suivi l'équipe inoubliable formée par Philippe Washer et Jacky Brichant.
Aujourd'hui Justine Hénin, Top 10 mondial. "
!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
Andy T said:
The following rankings were established by taking the number of points gained by the players in their best (max) 17 tournaments and dividing them by the number of tournaments played (no minimum, maximum of 17). Official rankings (where there's a difference) in brackets. Any reactions?
Well, it's better, but I think it needs minimum. Tha minimum need not be high, mabe 8 or 9 tournaments. But there should be one. The rankings don't tell us who the best player is. They more or less tell us the fairest way to do seedings. More or less. They also are used to make sure various tournaments get marquee players.

I see no reason to reward a player who only plays the slams with a gaudy WTA ranking. After all, they aren't supporting the tour. It does mean that when players are out extended periods of time, like Lindsay two years ago, Venus and Serena last year, or Kim and Justine this year, there rankings would drop. But that ocurs under the current system. I thin kthe ranking system should continue to serve as motivation for the players to support the tournaments.

Maybe 8 is too few to make a difference.

If we adopted your system, I'd either end the practice of special seedings, or call it what it is.
"The tournament expects to sell a lot of tickets to your matches, so we want to keep you around" seedings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,965 Posts
Volcana said:
Well, it's better, but I think it needs minimum. Tha minimum need not be high, mabe 8 or 9 tournaments. But there should be one. The rankings don't tell us who the best player is. They more or less tell us the fairest way to do seedings. More or less. They also are used to make sure various tournaments get marquee players.

I see no reason to reward a player who only plays the slams with a gaudy WTA ranking. After all, they aren't supporting the tour. It does mean that when players are out extended periods of time, like Lindsay two years ago, Venus and Serena last year, or Kim and Justine this year, there rankings would drop. But that ocurs under the current system. I thin kthe ranking system should continue to serve as motivation for the players to support the tournaments.

Maybe 8 is too few to make a difference.

If we adopted your system, I'd either end the practice of special seedings, or call it what it is.
"The tournament expects to sell a lot of tickets to your matches, so we want to keep you around" seedings.
I think the system the WTA used in 1996 was optimal -- a minimum of 14 events which seems reasonable if you take into account the fact that the Slams and the WTA Championships alone account for five of the 14 required events. All a player needs is to play at least nine more events, which is a little more than two tournaments per surface.

The one thing I don't agree with is the upper limit. I don't think players should be allowed to use their Best 17 (or any Best N) results. Instead, all results should count, and a player should not be allowed to erase bad results by playing lots of other tournaments to compensate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,965 Posts
alwayshingis said:
The only problem i see with this system (and all systems encouraging players to play less), is that it would be awful to the Tier IV and V tournaments. Fewer people would play them, they would lose funding, and they would slowly collapse, which would hurt the whole tour.
Actually, the WTA tour had a system in place to promote the smaller events during the days of the divisor ranking system. The top players were allowed to choose one (or two) "exempt" events that were lower tier, but in order to ensure that their rankings were not affected because of playing a Tier III or Tier IV event, the top players were guaranteed their ranking average points if they won the event.

So for example, if Kim Clijsters had a ranking average of, say, 286.35 points, and if she wanted to support a Tier IV event in Belgium, she could choose that event as her exempt event. That way, if Clijsters wins the event, she adds her average (286.35) to her total instead of the actual winner's points (which will usually be very low for a Tier IV event). This ensures that the top players don't suffer by playing piddly events, and at the same time, encourages participation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
The rankings do seem alot more accurate and follow a better general consensus on who would be the best players...therefore this sysyem must have some merit indeed.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top