Tennis Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
bandabou said:
kim can´t be fourth because she doesn´t construct any points herself...just keeps running down balls till her opponent makes an error.

it must be really hard for you living with the fact that Kim is the actual #1... I keep on wondering where you keep on getting those loads of horse sh*t... :eek:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
bandabou said:
It isn´t hard for me at all. I only have this to say:

Number One the Hard Way
Kim Clijsters has a great record this year -- except when it's really big. Think the Australian Open against Serena Williams. Think Roland Garros against Justine Henin-Hardenne.

My Way....
Since we're talking about the #1 ranking (and people are screaming about it all over the place), we thought we'd help the debate along. Just where do Serena and Clijsters stand under alternate rankings?

Here are some partial answers. If we still used the old WTA divisor rankings, Serena remains an overwhelming #1:

Rank..Player......Score
1..SWilliams.......428
2..Clijsters.......299
3..Henin-Hardenne..255
4..VWilliams.......253
5..Mauresmo........209
6..Davenport.......189
7..Capriati........136
8..Rubin...........109
9..Hantuchova.......94
10..Seles............82
11..Myskina..........80
12..Maleeva..........75
13..Martinez.........73
14..Kuznetsova.......72
15..Coetzer..........72
16..Petrova..........70
17..Zvonareva........70
18..Sugiyama.........66
19..Bovina...........61
20..Schnyder.........60

If we just calculate raw points per tournament, Serena's lead actually increases, and Venus Williams moves back to a surprising #2:

Rank..Player......Score
1..SWilliams.......545
2..VWilliams.......354
3..Clijsters.......299
4..Henin-Hardenne..255
5..Mauresmo........209
6..Davenport.......189
7..Capriati........136
8..Rubin...........109
9..Hantuchova.......94
10..Seles............82

If we count quality points per tournament, it's much the same story: Serena #1, Venus #2, Clijsters #3, Henin-Hardenne #4, Mauresmo #5, Davenport #6. If we shift to a system which doubles quality points (a good idea in the author's book), we get that very same list: #1 Serena, #2 Venus, #3 Clijsters, #4 Henin-Hardenne, #5 Mauresmo, #6 Davenport.

At least one commentator is calling for the women to shift to slotted rankings, i.e. required and optional. (This is known as, "Very dumb monkey see, very dumb monkey do.") It's worth remembering that the women do have slots: The Gold Exempt rules. The only difference is, they have a rational tier system, with More Required and Less Required events. The WTA rules state as follows:

Gold Exempt Players must commit to 13 specific Tour Tournaments, exclusive of the Grand Slams and the Tour Championships, in order to fulfill Minimum Commitment requirement rules as outlined below....

GE Standing...Commitment
1-6...........13 Tier I or II Tournaments
..............(5 of which must be Tier I)

It happens that Serena has never in her career met those requirements, even though she's Gold Exempt #1 this year. If she had met them, she would almost certainly still be #1. But if we accept that sort of slotting -- well, Clijsters remains #1. If you did literal ATP slotting (Slams, Tier I, and Masters are required events, five optional), then Serena takes the #1 spot. But the WTA is going to have ten Tier I events next year, when San Diego goes on. Are you then going to require all ten Tier I events and have only four optional events? Under that scenario, Clijsters would become #1 again; she played San Diego this year and Serena didn't.

Finally, let's crank what the author considers the best simple ranking system (i.e. one which can be calculated on any pocket calculator, but which takes into account players' current schedules and counts losses). This is the modified divisor: Slam points are reduced by one-fourth (to bring us back to their approximate original weight before the WTA went to additive rankings), but the divisor denominator is not the number of events you've played; rather, it's a minimum of 17, with each event over 16 counted as 2/3 of an event. That gives us this:

Rank..Player........Score
1....SWilliams.......317
2....Clijsters.......308
3....Henin-Hardenne..245
4....Davenport.......186
5....VWilliams.......184
6....Mauresmo........171
7....Capriati........135
8....Rubin...........107
9....Hantuchova.......98
10....Myskina..........84
11....Maleeva..........80
12....Martinez.........75
13....Coetzer..........75
14....Sugiyama.........70
15....Zvonareva........69
16....Seles............67
17....Kuznetsova.......66
18....Petrova..........65
19....Schnyder.........63
20....Dementieva.......62

This in fact bears a fairly close similarity to the WTA rankings (rather to the author's surprise), except for the key fact: Serena is still #1. Other than that, the top seven are unchanged, and we have the same ten players in the Top Ten.

The number of people who think Clijsters should be #1 is seemingly vanishingly small. The good news is, we could easily make Serena #1 without making the ranking system even worse for the lower-ranked players. By using, for example, the modified divisor shown above.
If we'd use the reverse alphabetical order of WTA-players Zvonareva would be #1 :rolleyes:

you can come up with so many systems and rankings you want, it seems to be a pity for you the one used by WTA designs Kim Clijsters as #1... :p
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top