Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well we have seen how much hue and cry is there on how safina can possibly be the new no.1 if serena does not reach finals which also led to many people state tht how the ranking system is silly!...and how it gives more emphasis on QUANTITY rather thn QUALITY.


so my question is how should the ranking system be changed so that it gives more emphasis to QUALITY than QUANTITY?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,190 Posts
bring the quality points back

take best 15 results instead of 16

only a few suggestions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,197 Posts
Yeah I agree with bringing back quality points. And maybe if people don't play mandatory events, the maximum points they could have won for that tournie should be subtracted from their total..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,786 Posts
More points for Slams :
GS = 1000
YEC (without losses) = 500
Premier Mandatory = 300
Premier Five = 250
Premier = 150

but WTA will never do it because Slams are not WTA events

Less points for beaten finalist : RU = W * 0.6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
^ Should the same be done on ATP tour?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
Bring average points back, add quality points, don't have mandatories and lower the number of maximum tournaments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
Redesign it in such a way that will gaurantee Venus and Serena will always be ranked 1/2 (2/1) as long as they are on the tour. As soon as they retire, throw a dart on a board representing various systems, and choose the system that the dart lands on.

Sarcasm aside., it is clear that V&S are the cause (that's right blame them) for all the consternation regarding rankings. Prior to 2000, there was little fuss over this. And then Venus made her move in 2000 and civilization was never the same since.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,833 Posts
1. Use best 12 results (taken from any event)

2. Reward winning by structuring the points that way.

100 % Winner
50 % Runnerup
25 % Semis
12 % Quarters
keep having the points.....

800 points for winning a slam
400 points for winning the YEC
200 points for winning I. Wells. miami, etc
100 points for Tier II's
050 points for the lesser tiers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
I don't like quality points. It's hard enough for a casual fan to follow a player's ranking without having to take them into account. Besides, looking at some of the number 1's we have had over the past 12 months, I'm not sure anyone really deserved massive bonuses for beating them. Really, if a girl can beat a top 10 player, then shouldn't that victory and the chance to move into the next round be its own reward? If the girl is really in good form, she'll go beyond the next round and pick the up extra points as a result, and if she can't, then obviously it was just a fluke win in which case I don't see why she deserves bonus points.

My one change would be point degradation, so that, say, 6 months after a tournament, the points a player earned from that tournament start to decrease e.g. 1000 points from AO. By June, that would go down to 700, then maybe 500 by August and keep sliding until it was worth very little by the next AO. It would prevent one-slam wonders from keeping high rankings for long and would make the rankings a better indication of a player's current form. Of course, it has the same drawback as quality points in that makes calculating rankings a lot more confusing for fans.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
30,623 Posts
Lets do it like this

2000 Grand Slams
1500 CHAMPIONSHIPS (without losses)
1000 Premier Mandatory
500 Premier Five
250 Premier
125 International

Place % on tournament categories

50.00% Grand Slams
25.00% CHAMPIONSHIPS
12.50% Premier Mandatory
6.250% Premier Five
3.125% Premier
3.125% International

Add bonuses to the system

* The player that wins the YEC, if she fulfilled all commitments should be getting a 50% bonus on her total season money. (Will motivate them more to play better)
* A player that wins a few tourneys in a row, the amount of tourney he has won in a row should result in giving that player the same amount of byes in the next tourney (2 tourneys won = a bye in the next 2 tournaments).

Extra info

1) The important tournaments need to weigh more in the ranks.
2) All players need to play 1 tourney per tournament category.
3) 16 tournaments played for the rank are necessary.
4) No more byes unless special reasons (see bonuses).
5) Determine the seeds on their previous tournament results. (winner = 1 ; rup 2 ; etc...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,969 Posts
I disagree with quality points. Would earning a ton of extra points for beating an off form Safina be "quality"? Drawing Safina would suddenly become like hitting the lottery.
well that's kinda true :haha:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,786 Posts
If player's ranking included :

4 Grand Slam results + YEC result + Best other 12 results

and points distribution looked as follows :

Code:
                      WON   RU   SF   QF  R16  R32  R64  R128     Q

Grand Slam           1000  600  300  150   75   35   20    2    +10
Tour Championships   75 for each RR and SF win; 200 for F win
Olympics              350  210  105   50   25   10    1
Premier Mandatory     350  210  105   50   25   10    5    1     +5
Premier 5             300  180   90   45   20   10    1          +5
Premier               150   90   45   20   10    5    1          +5
International          50   30   15   10    5    3    1          +3
... the top-20 before Miami would look like that :

Code:
                  Total      GS  Others

01 S Williams      3726    2635  1091
02 D Safina        3147    1537  1610
03 J Jankovic      2630    1050  1580
04 E Dementieva    2420    1050  1370
05 V Williams      2396    1205  1191
06 V Zvonareva     1985     415  1570
07 A Ivanovic      1693    1090   603
08 S Kuznetsova    1089     560   529
09 A Radwanska      842     302   540
10 N Petrova        805     295   510
11 V Azarenka       785     220   565
12 M Bartoli        732     262   470
13 A Cornet         697     147   550
14 C Wozniacki      670     180   490
15 F Pennetta       655     280   375
16 J Zheng          610     455   155
17 D Cibulkova      602     147   455
18 P Schnyder       554     322   232
19 K Kanepi         502     207   295
20 A Mauresmo       472     165   307
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
There's a good argument for keeping quantity points just as they are today. It encourages players to play more tourneys, deeper fields at tourneys, greater attendance, and healthier bottom lines. It's good to reward a player for making the effort week to week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
The best way to change the ranking system is legal.

The WTA should require any orgamsization to put the following, in bold faced 36 point type, at the top of any display of the WTA ranking.

"The WTA rankings exist solely to allow a fair seeding at tournaments. They in no way indicate who the best players are."
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top