[Fingon]

Well, I don't really think the "system" should be changed.

I mean, I favour a 52 weeks system, and computing round and quality points.

But maybe, the points given to each tournament should change.

currently, for winning a tournament the players gets this

GS 520<br />Championship 390<br />Tier I 260<br />Tier II 200<br />Tier III 155<br />Tier IV 140<br />Tier V 80

Now, a tier 1 gives at least 1.2 millions in money prize while a tier 2 gives around 500,000, however, a tier one only gives a 30% more points.<br />the prize money difference between tier 3 and 2 is big as well, $500,000 to $170,000

So, I basically would keep the points for tier 3 and below.

and I would change:

Tier 2: 250<br />Tier 1: 500<br />Championship: 800<br />Grand Slams: 1,200

<br />Also, I would distribute the quality points by pairs. Beating the number 1 in a GS is 200 points, beating the # 2 is 150 points, a big difference not justified.

I would be a sligh difference to the # 1, like 100 and 90 and so on.

Also, they could consider to go back to an average system, with some few changes.

 

[disposablehero]

Your system would kill the Tier III's, unless the points were weighted more towards the later rounds than they are now. I really don't see a need to change the point totals either. It's already hard enough to get some endorsement-laden women to play Tier I's.

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

Changes are/will be made to the points and prize money and will be announced shortly.

<br />I'm pretty sure only SLAM points and the events at Indian Wells/Miami will be increased.

but that is yet to be confirmed.<br /> <br /> Will give more info when available.

 

[Fingon]

disposable, that wouldn't kill the tier IIIs, that only will make them play their role.

Top players are not supposed to play tier III, if players want to go to the top of the rankings, it should be done by playing the most important events.

The tier III have an insignificant difference with the tier IVs in prize money, but the difference is big in relation with the tier 2s.

 

[Rollo]

Speaking of rankings Fingon-do you remember our bet about Hingis and Venus? I believe I won our little essay contest... Will your essay be about Venus or Hingis?

 

[Larrybid]

As long as the ranking points system has purposes other than trying to rank by competitive results who best players are over a given time period, then the system cannot be saved.

As disposablehero has correctly pointed out, the current ranking system is designed, in large part, to get the top players to play more. It is, in effect, a personnel management device. Thats fine...but let's not pretend it tells us fans what we think it does...ie. ranking the players by performance. The problem is it doesn't, and most objective observers know that is doesn't. So what we get is a player who holds on to the Number 1 spot seemingly forever, without a grand slam victory to her credit in years. And now we have a #1 who has not even been in a grand slam FINAL in the 52 weeks the rankings cover!

Giving the Grand slams more weight in the formula might make it less obviously worthless, but as long as the formula has ANY role in trying to protect lower tier events, it is almost useless for determining a REAL number one. The only changes that would make the rankings relevent would be a formula that gives up trying to manage player schedules and solely focuses on fairly ranking players by competitive results.

If they want to get top players to play lower tier events they should just do what the PGA does...pay apperence fees. Of course thats just too commonsensical...

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Larrybid ]</p>

 

[GoDominiqu]

Eggy, is that true ? <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Well, then the WTA is just ridiculous. I mean, will they ever keep a system more than ONE single season ???<br />Every year they are changing something. This year it was reducing relevant tournaments from 18 to 17 and increase of points for tier III and IV. <br />Do they think that moaning and bickering about the system will stop because of that ?<br />To establish a system, you need some consistency and not permanent changes when a few people are mad that their favourite player is not no. 1.<br /> <img src="graemlins/firey.gif" border="0" alt="[Fiery]" />

 

[TSequoia01]

Larrybid excellent post and analysis. You should forward it to the WTA!

 

[VSFan1 aka Joshua L.]

TBE, is there any chance they will be lowering it to best-of-16 tournaments?

Thanks! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

VS....I don't think they will do that , but one major change will be points to majors.

last two years haven't looked too good for the #1 , but its not their fault they are #1 .<br /> the FAULT lies with the rank system.

WTA are looking to making changes and anything is possible as yet .

But I don't think they will go the ATP way and make all slams count and all 9 Tier 1's .

If that did happen the ranks could look stranger than this year considering Venus/Serena don't enter same tourns other than slams/plus IW/Miami but that will have to make them change their policy which will be a good thing.

One thing i do want is to increase Tier III prize money .... its gone up $20K in 12 years

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: TheBoiledEgg ]</p>

 

[Brian Stewart]

I like the system the way it is. If they want to tweak the points a bit to round them off to multiples of 5 the whole way through, or some such, fine. I don't endorse wholesale changes.

The main problem isn't the rankings system- it's complaints about the ranking system. That problem involves 2 components: the media and the fans. Fans are going to complain any time a system doesn't give them the results they want. So no system is ever going to eliminate complaints. The tennis media is going to raise a fuss at any opportunity because they're looking to say something negative about women's tennis. Think boosting the slam points would satisfy them? Wait until when someone who doesn't reach quarterfinals of regular events shoots up the charts because of an open slam draw and a fluke semifinal appearance. Think they'll keep quiet then? Not on your life!

Political reporters have a credo: if both liberals and conservatives accuse them of bias toward the other side, they must have achieved a pretty good balance. Last year, people complained that the ranking system awarded too few points for the slams because Venus wasn't #1. The year before, they complained that the ranking system awarded the slams too many points because Lucic and Stevenson were propped up solely on one result. It's the same system. Since there were complaints on both sides, they must have a pretty good balance.

 

[Larrybid]

Brian Stewart:

Fans and media complain when the scorekeepers, in this case the WTA don't keep an accurate score. That is they rank players based soley on relative competitive results. This complaint is not petty and it is not limited to tennis. I call your attention to the howl of protest when Michelle Kwan got a gift victory. Fans simply want to see the scoreboard reflect what actually happens on the field of play. This is not a petty complaint...this is the essense of what sport is about.

Now the WTA rankings, whatever their merits, do not accurately rank the top players. And judging by the lenth of time Hingis held on the the top spot, the rankings can be wrong for long periods of time. Venus Williams is not the 4th best player on tour, and she has certainly played enough tennis in the last 52 weeks to have proven this. Further anyone who thinks that Serena Williams is the 7th best player on tour hasn't been watching the matches. If you and the WTA wish to suspend logic and insist that the WTA rankings are as accurate as they can be, thats fine. But don't expect the fans and media to follow along like sheep. If the rankings made perfect sense there would be no media pointing out the obvious short-commings of the system.

Your argument that the WTA rankings "strike the right balance" simply illustrates the problem with the ranking system. It is trying to balance accuracy with the goal of encouraging the top players to play more. THE WTA SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO USE THE RANKING SYSTEM TO MANAGE THE PLAYERS SCHEDULES. If the WTA system contiues to try to do that then the systen will be riduculed, very fairly, by fans and media.

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

Larry ..... we know Serena isn't the 7th best , but thats for her to change and the only way to do that is to PLAY

you cannot rank someone #1 or 2 if they play 1=2 events and they win them.

if that was the case then the person who wins Auckland would have a case and therefore not play for rest of year and be assured of a very high rank.

 

[Larrybid]

Egg:

IF Serena had only played in 1 or 2 events the past 52 weeks you would be correct. But the fact is she played ALL the big events with the highest competition. She played and won enough to be the 3rd highest on the earnings list in 2001. The notion that she didn't play enough to tell how she ranked among the top players is false.

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

Serena played 10 events all year , thats not ALL the big events but most of the biggest.

Prize money doesn't = ranking , it never has and it never will.

One big loser in prize money would be Silvia Farina who doesn't feature in top 20 but is ranked 14.

 

[Larrybid]

Again I do acknowledge that the WTA has a legitamate interest in getting its top players to play more events. What I am saying is that they need to find a mechanism for doing so (appearance fees??) that keeps the ranking formula out of it. Aside for the fact that it casues the rankings to not make much sense...it doesn't really work.

I have never heard Venus Williams say she cares much about that ranking..she cares about winning throphies. Frankly, I'm convinced that the only reason that Serena now says she cares about being "#1" is because she hasn't won as many grand slams as her sister...she needs some basis for bragging rites. She never cared much about that ranking before now. I'm with Venus...to hell with that goofy WTA ranking. It don't mean a thing.

 

[griffin]

Any ranking system the WTA utilizes will have an effect on what tournaments the players pick to play - so why on earth NOT try to make that effect a positive one? You need a minimum number of plate appearances before your batting average counts, too.

The fact that Hingis stayed #1 for so long speaks less to her, or any problems with the ranking system than it did to Lindsay and Venus being unable to play a full schedule.

As for appearance fees, what they seem to do on the ATP is encourage people to show up - sometimes while injured - long enough to collect a check and then tank which will not help the WTA one little bit in the long run.

 

[TSequoia01]

It is very important for the ranking system to represent the true status of individual players. If it does not, it becomes a joke (like it is currently) and places undo pressure on the psuedo #1. This I firmly believe had a negative effect on Hingis' psyche. It would have affected Capriati if she had been #1 more than a few weeks. It's tough when you are supposely #1 and all these lower ranked players are actually better than you. Whipping your butt every time out of the hopper. Talk about fustration and embarrassment.

 

[AUSBOY]

My ranking change would be simple, make it compulsory that the points earned by the 32 seeded players makes up one of their 17 tournaments.

 

[xan]

"Player X isn't the real No 1" some posters say.

Please add: "IN MY OPINION" because that's all it is, your opinion. Every player knows what the ranking system is, and how many matches they must win to get to No 1. If they don't do that or CAN'T do that, they're NOT No 1. End of the matter.

On the old board there was a longstanding invitation for someone to come up with a ranking system that was workable, fair and produced a "better" result than the WTA system. No one managed it.

It's no use at all saying Serena or Jen can whip Martina or Lindsay like a dog at the moment, therefore they must be No 1. Players have ups. Players have downs. Players have favoured surfaces. That's why all rankings systems work over a year, not the last six weeks, or take your pick of ten tournaments you like.

I also think its quite legitimate of rankings systems to insist on a certain number of tournaments being played. If you don't play a full season, you are not supporting the sport or the fans or the tournaments. If a ranking system encouraged players to play only a few tournaments and then sit on their points, there would soon be a decline in the WTA, and far fewer tournaments. Imagine a football season in which a team could win 10 matches and then spend the rest of the year in barbados, secure in winning the championship!

I hope the WTA doesn't do anything foolish like reducing the number of tournaments playable drastically. 17 tournaments in a year is quite reasonable.