Joined
·
615 Posts
Rigth now there is still much talk about the current ranking-system. And the WTA is obviously again discussing some changes (increase of Grand Slam points).
That's why I have calculated how many points the top 3 players (Lindsay, Jen and Venus) would have if different ranking were already in use.
I have only used systems which regard the results of a whole year, because in my opinion that's the only way to rank the players fairly (consistency and results on all surfaces are needed). If someone has an example for a system regarding a shorter period, I am interested.
So here it is:
I. Rankings based on the current point-table.
a) Summation of best 17 results (that's the current system)
1. Lindsay 4902 points.<br />2. Jen 4892 p.<br />3. Venus 4128 p.
b) Summation of best 14 results
1. Jen 4801 p.<br />2. Lindsay 4545 p.<br />3. Venus 4128 p.
c) Summation of best 12 results
1. Jen 4618 p.<br />2. Lindsay 4180 p.<br />3. Venus 4128 p.
d) Divisor-system with 14 tournaments (you divide the points with the number of tournaments played; minimum divisor is 14; that's the system used a few years ago)
1. Venus 294,9 p.<br />2. Lindsay 288,4 p.<br />3. Jen 287,8 p.
II. Rankings based on new point-table with increased Grand-Slam-points.
Explanation: I don't know what the WTA is planning about this. The following is just my invention. I think this could be a possible way to increase the value of Grand Slams and winning them in particular.<br />I have taken the current point-table and have multiplied the GS-points by 1.3, but the points for winning by 1.5, a special reward for winning 7 matches in a row. So instead of 520 points you receive 780 points now (quite a lot; that's 3 times the tier I-points). For being finalist you receive 473 points (instead of 364) and so on. Here it is:
a) Best 17
1. Jen 5552 p.<br />2. Lindsay 5081 p.<br />3. Venus 4718 p.
b) Best 14
1. Jen 5461 p.<br />2. Lindsay 4724 p.<br />3. Venus 4718 p.
c) Best 12
1. Jen 5278 p.<br />2. Venus 4718 p.<br />3. Lindsay 4359 p.
d) Divisor 14
1. Venus 337 p.<br />2. Jen 326,6 p.<br />3. Lindsay 298,9 p.
III. Rankings based on new point-table with increased points for GS's, Indian Wells and Miami.
Explanation: I think TheBoiledEgg mentioned that the WTA is thinking about this. Although it doesn't change that much (it does help Venus a bit), I have calculated this as well. Again, I have multiplied the old point-table by 1.3, BTW also for winning, so you get 338 points instead of 260 now.
a) Best 17
1. Jen 5607 p.<br />2. Lindsay 5121 p.<br />3. Venus 4831 p.
b) Best 14
1. Jen 5516 p.<br />2. Venus 4831 p.<br />3. Lindsay 4724 p.
c) Best 12
1. Jen 5333 p.<br />2. Venus 4831 p.<br />3. Lindsay 4359 p.
d) Divisor 14
1. Venus 345,1 p.<br />2. Jen 329,8 p.<br />3. Lindsay 301, 2 p.
Summary:
- the current ranking system is the ONLY system where Lindsay is leading. If you consider 16 or less tournaments, Jen is always leading. So you could say that Lindsay has played very smart this year, perfectly matching the system: 17 tournaments with no failure result.<br />- the strong increase of Slam-points (in my opinion already too much) doesn't change that much. Of course Jen is ahead of Lindsay then, because the difference between them is so little right now. But Venus still is only no. 3, despite winning 2 slams, even if you consider only the best 14 results. So changes in that direction won't mix up everything, and you still need more than a few good results to move up. Because of that I really doubt that these changes are necessary. At least they shouldn't be too massive.<br />- In all divisor-systems, Venus is leading, although she didn't even play the minimum number of tournaments. This shows that, WHEN she played, her results were usually great. <br />BUT you have to remember that it's speculative to transfer this year's results into a different system. IF we had that divisor-system, Lindsay and Jen would probably also play less tournaments. And with her great results, Jen just could have stopped playing after the US Open and still would be in front with a huge lead. The worse indoor-results would have derogated her average. <br />In reality, a player with perfect 7 or 8 months (like Jen) could stop playing and just sit onher points. That's why I am against this system.
Some posters have asked for a ranking which reflects head-to-head records. Sorry, but I can't imagine a fair system which can do that. I mean, OK, Venus has not lost to Jen or Lindsay, but she only played them on her favourite surface, hardcourt (and once on grass). If Venus doesn't play indoors, how can Lindsay improve their head-to-head on HER favourite surface ? <br />At least we have the bonus-points which reward good performances against high-ranked players. But if someone has a better idea, I would like to know it.
[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: GoDominique ]</p>
That's why I have calculated how many points the top 3 players (Lindsay, Jen and Venus) would have if different ranking were already in use.
I have only used systems which regard the results of a whole year, because in my opinion that's the only way to rank the players fairly (consistency and results on all surfaces are needed). If someone has an example for a system regarding a shorter period, I am interested.
So here it is:
I. Rankings based on the current point-table.
a) Summation of best 17 results (that's the current system)
1. Lindsay 4902 points.<br />2. Jen 4892 p.<br />3. Venus 4128 p.
b) Summation of best 14 results
1. Jen 4801 p.<br />2. Lindsay 4545 p.<br />3. Venus 4128 p.
c) Summation of best 12 results
1. Jen 4618 p.<br />2. Lindsay 4180 p.<br />3. Venus 4128 p.
d) Divisor-system with 14 tournaments (you divide the points with the number of tournaments played; minimum divisor is 14; that's the system used a few years ago)
1. Venus 294,9 p.<br />2. Lindsay 288,4 p.<br />3. Jen 287,8 p.
II. Rankings based on new point-table with increased Grand-Slam-points.
Explanation: I don't know what the WTA is planning about this. The following is just my invention. I think this could be a possible way to increase the value of Grand Slams and winning them in particular.<br />I have taken the current point-table and have multiplied the GS-points by 1.3, but the points for winning by 1.5, a special reward for winning 7 matches in a row. So instead of 520 points you receive 780 points now (quite a lot; that's 3 times the tier I-points). For being finalist you receive 473 points (instead of 364) and so on. Here it is:
a) Best 17
1. Jen 5552 p.<br />2. Lindsay 5081 p.<br />3. Venus 4718 p.
b) Best 14
1. Jen 5461 p.<br />2. Lindsay 4724 p.<br />3. Venus 4718 p.
c) Best 12
1. Jen 5278 p.<br />2. Venus 4718 p.<br />3. Lindsay 4359 p.
d) Divisor 14
1. Venus 337 p.<br />2. Jen 326,6 p.<br />3. Lindsay 298,9 p.
III. Rankings based on new point-table with increased points for GS's, Indian Wells and Miami.
Explanation: I think TheBoiledEgg mentioned that the WTA is thinking about this. Although it doesn't change that much (it does help Venus a bit), I have calculated this as well. Again, I have multiplied the old point-table by 1.3, BTW also for winning, so you get 338 points instead of 260 now.
a) Best 17
1. Jen 5607 p.<br />2. Lindsay 5121 p.<br />3. Venus 4831 p.
b) Best 14
1. Jen 5516 p.<br />2. Venus 4831 p.<br />3. Lindsay 4724 p.
c) Best 12
1. Jen 5333 p.<br />2. Venus 4831 p.<br />3. Lindsay 4359 p.
d) Divisor 14
1. Venus 345,1 p.<br />2. Jen 329,8 p.<br />3. Lindsay 301, 2 p.
Summary:
- the current ranking system is the ONLY system where Lindsay is leading. If you consider 16 or less tournaments, Jen is always leading. So you could say that Lindsay has played very smart this year, perfectly matching the system: 17 tournaments with no failure result.<br />- the strong increase of Slam-points (in my opinion already too much) doesn't change that much. Of course Jen is ahead of Lindsay then, because the difference between them is so little right now. But Venus still is only no. 3, despite winning 2 slams, even if you consider only the best 14 results. So changes in that direction won't mix up everything, and you still need more than a few good results to move up. Because of that I really doubt that these changes are necessary. At least they shouldn't be too massive.<br />- In all divisor-systems, Venus is leading, although she didn't even play the minimum number of tournaments. This shows that, WHEN she played, her results were usually great. <br />BUT you have to remember that it's speculative to transfer this year's results into a different system. IF we had that divisor-system, Lindsay and Jen would probably also play less tournaments. And with her great results, Jen just could have stopped playing after the US Open and still would be in front with a huge lead. The worse indoor-results would have derogated her average. <br />In reality, a player with perfect 7 or 8 months (like Jen) could stop playing and just sit onher points. That's why I am against this system.
Some posters have asked for a ranking which reflects head-to-head records. Sorry, but I can't imagine a fair system which can do that. I mean, OK, Venus has not lost to Jen or Lindsay, but she only played them on her favourite surface, hardcourt (and once on grass). If Venus doesn't play indoors, how can Lindsay improve their head-to-head on HER favourite surface ? <br />At least we have the bonus-points which reward good performances against high-ranked players. But if someone has a better idea, I would like to know it.
[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: GoDominique ]</p>
