Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Will this give an advantage or a disadvantage?
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
20,610 Posts
It'll be great for higher ranked players who constantly do well in big events. But it is not good for players who take part in many lower tiered events, or players trying to make their way up the rankings by playing small tournaments.
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
23,053 Posts
It will help Hingis first of all, who plays all Slam and Tier I events. Williamses. who played 2 and 3 Tier Is correspondingly ( and that's a lot for them , last year Venus played 1 Tier I, Serena played 2 ) will be the most hurt. Becuase the sisters tend not to play same events, and play very lttle Tier Is, it will hurt them.
 

·
Veelieve!!!
Joined
·
32,584 Posts
It will help Hingis first of all, who plays all Slam and Tier I events. Williamses. who played 2 and 3 Tier Is correspondingly ( and that's a lot for them , last year Venus played 1 Tier I, Serena played 2 ) will be the most hurt. Becuase the sisters tend not to play same events, and play very lttle Tier Is, it will hurt them. <hr></blockquote>

<br />Umm ys, don't you think the Williames will adjust their schedules with the change??? Don't start counting them out yet... I'll bet you that they will use the change to their advantage <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
23,053 Posts
The problem is, they tend not to play together the same tournaments. I don't think they will correct the schedule. Will any of them play Pan Pacific? Moscow? Hilton Head?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
Infiniti2001 wrote

Umm ys, don't you think the Williames will adjust their schedules with the change??? Don't start counting them out yet... I'll bet you that they will use the change to their advantage <hr></blockquote>

People say that Venus and Serena can get to #1 and #2 if only they'd play enough events. Yet to this point, neither has seemed bothered to play anything close to enough events. (Yes, I know that's a bit of a loaded statement <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> ) What's to say they'll suddenly start playing a schedule richer in Tier 1's now?

Note that for all I know (which when it comes to the upcoming plans of the Williamses is next to nothing!), they might well go out an do just that. It's just that they haven't done so in the past.

However, the move to make Indian Wells and Key Biscayne worth more than other Tier 1's will of course help the Williams Sisters, and anybody else who does best on the faster American hardcourts (I'd guess a healthy Davenport, Clijsters, Seles, and Dementieva for starters).

If they wanted to make the strongest events worth more, they should have redone the formula so that Quality Points are a greater proportion of a player's total points, not just increased the round points.

Finally, the new points scheme will help one player (like Mandula this year) who gets lucky and has her one great result at a Slam. Indeed, such a player will be helped more this year than in years past now that the Tier 3 and 4 events have been downgraded in terms of points. Looking at Mandula's result at Roland Garros she received 262 points for reaching the Quarters. That would be worth slightly more than winning a Tier 3 in 2001. Under the new scheme, she'd get almost 300 points, which will be worth something closer to winning a Tier 3 *and* reaching the finals of a second Tier 3. This obviously doesn't mean much for the high-ranked players, but for the lower-ranked players, it's a *huge* deal.
 

·
Veelieve!!!
Joined
·
32,584 Posts
The Wiliames are smarter than you guys think... Whether or not they play more is not the question here... I'm just saying that they will make the new system work to their advantage... They played 22 tournaments between them and still ended up #s3 and 6 respectively... I have a feeling they will be just fine ... Just sit back and wait <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Infiniti2001 ]</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,901 Posts
It will benefit Venus.Serena and Capriati and it will disadvantage players who play tier 4's and 5's!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,250 Posts
I don't mind my fav is coetzer and maleeva

Coetzer reached Qf of Australian<br />and Final of Amelia Island<br />And some Sf of Tier 1,2,3's<br />won a tier 3 over a player like demetieva

and Maggie Same thing goes for her

4th round of wimbeldon<br />couple of finals at tier 2<br />and a title at a tier 3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
This would really hurt the lower ranked players. If they would be just lucky to have a good draw for grandslams, then its easier to pass until 4th round. But if you faced top seed player in the first round, you will go home with no points at all.

This would be advantageous to players who will stays healthy all year, having a choice to skip or enter any tournaments that will help her ranking. This is actually in advantage to players who plays just 12 to 16 tournaments. If you play less the healrthier you would be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
01 4902 DAVENPORT<br />02 4892 CAPRIATI

Under the new rules, Capriati is probably year end #1 in 2001.

03 4128 V.WILLIAMS<br />04 3944 HINGIS

No real changes

05 3265 CLIJSTERS<br />06 3004 S.WILLIAMS<br />07 2989 HENIN

Clijsters and Henin played more than twice as many tournaments each as Serena. <br />There's a good chance that, under the new rules, Serena would supplant Kim at #5.

08 2780 DOKIC - Jelena played a LOT more than Amelie, change favors Amelie<br />09 2765 MAURESMO

10 2306 MONICA - Too far behind Amelie

11 2056 TESTUD - Too far behind Monica

<br />There might be some individual flip flopping, but Capriati and Davenport still fight it out for #1 in 2001.<br />Kim, Serena, Justine are likely still #5, #6, #7.<br />Jelena and Amelie fight for #8 and #9.

The changes aren't that severe, at least at the top.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
40 Posts
I think that the change is good for the sport in general. It will help all players in that now the ranking will better reflect "actual performance", thus lending credence to the #1 position being deserved. That's the reason the WTA gave for the change. Everyone watches the big events, that's where everyone forms his/her opinion of who's best, so why not award more points.

It was foolish of the WTA to use the ranking system to try to get the players to play more. That plan backfired and now the new WTA administration seems to be well on its way to righting the wrongs of the old administration.

As far as the lower ranked players being hurt, I disagree. I think that while the quality of the lower players will have to improve, quality of play will also have to improve for higher ranked players in that the big events are now that much more important for everyone. Everyone will be playing better at those events.

The interesting point in all of this is that the better players may have less of an incentive to play more events. Since this is the case, why not go back to an average point system using the new weighted system? That would be a huge step towards getting the ranking system to better reflect performance? I just don't see a big difference between adding more points to the big events vs. using an average point system.
 

·
Veelieve!!!
Joined
·
32,584 Posts
Of course playing more is an advantage, especially if a player has good results--- but in some cases it just means that a player has just played more tournaments period...<br />Case in point: Number of tournaments played and year ending rank.

S. Testud played 28 tournaments is ranked 11<br />M. Shaughnessy 26 rank 12<br />J. Dokic 26 rank 8<br />J. Henin 22 rank 7<br />K. Clijsters 22 " 5<br />M. Hingis 18 " 4<br />J. Capriati 17 " 2<br />L. Davenport 17 " 1<br />V. Williams 12 " 3<br />S. Williams 10 " 6
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
40 Posts
Keep in mind that the ranking system currently counts only the best 17 results. So whereas Sandrine has played 28 tournaments, she only gets credit for 17 (her best 17, that is). So she doesn't really have 16 more tournaments than Venus--she only has 5.

If the WTA were to take the results of the best of 17 tournaments (or maybe 16 tournaments) and divide the number by 16, they'd have a good system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,198 Posts
Volcana, I think you're wrong about Serena, Kim and Justine.

Under the new rules Serena would not pass Kim but she would DROP 1 place, Justine would pass her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
Didn't someone (I think it was Brian) rework the rankings based on the new points system in a different thread? Most of the ranks stayed the same in that one except for Capriati-Davenport and, I think, Huber and someone else (ASV?).

The Larson newsletter was the one that mentioned Serena and Justine switching places. When I first read it I thought, "HOW?" Serena won Indian Wells (which gets more points in the new scheme) and the Canadian Open (another Tier I) while Henin won three Tier IIIs (all of which are devalued next year).

This new points system overvalues North American hardcourts, IMO. In a way, it favors Davenport (who seems to avoid clay) and both Williamses as well as anyone else who's more proficient on the surface and hurts someone like Mauresmo who prefers everything else. Then again, it's the same rules being applied to everyone.

I think it will be very interesting to compare the "rankings mobility" of next year's lower-ranked players with this year's bunch (Tulyaganova, Montolio, Farina Elia, Henin, Shaughnessy, etc.) and see how much the new points system affects them.

This system really wasn't designed to help the players but to help the WTA avoid further criticism in the media.

I wonder what changes they'll make to the system next year.

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: cynicole ]</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
Whoever said that the rankings encouraged the players to play MORE tournaments?<br />The average WTA player plays 18 tournaments ,and hence 17 tournaments were counted.<br />Becuase the Williams play a few tournies,we think that 17 tournaments is too much,while it's in no way too much.<br />By the way,this year they have not changed the number of tournaments that count.<br />It's still the top 17 results.<br />So Davenport is not No.1 ,because she played MORE tournaments, she is No.1 because Venus played LESS tournaments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
This new points system overvalues North American hardcourts, IMO. In a way, it favors Davenport (who seems to avoid clay) and both Williamses as well as anyone else who's more proficient on the surface and hurts someone like Mauresmo who prefers everything else. Then again, it's the same rules being applied to everyone.<br /><hr></blockquote>

But it's the same *bad* rules being applied to everyone!

It should also be pointed out that there are fewer Tier 3 and below events on outdoor hardcourts (when compared to the Tier 2 and up events) than on clay. IIRC, last year there were 3 Tier 1's on hardcourt, 8 Tier 2's, and 10 Tour events below Tier 2 (not counting the cancelled Surabaya). On clay, however, it was 3 Tier 1s, 3 Tier 2s, and 15 events below Tier 2 (not counting the cancelled Warsaw). The practical effect of this is that it will be even easier for the players best on hardcourts to rack up big points on hardcourts, while clay-courters (especially the lower-ranked ones) will have a more difficult time of it.

I wonder whether both tours are still traumatized by Thomas Muster, who got to #1 almost entirely with clay-court results, that they want to *punish* clay-courters.

This system really wasn't designed to help the players but to help the WTA avoid further criticism in the media. <hr></blockquote>

You're absolutely right here! If the WTA is going to jigger with its ranking system, they should first ask themselves, "What do we want the #1 player to have done?" Under the divisor system, that meant having the best overall results. Under the additive system, that more or less means having the most good results (never mind the bad results). Now, I think #1 should have the best results on all surfaces (or as close to this as possible, which means a divisor-like system penalizing players who don't play on all surfaces, with some relief for players who help the tour by playing more than the minimum number of events -- get rid of something like one out of every three events more than the minimum played). What the WTA seems to have done at the end of this year is say, "We don't like how the race for #1 ended. What changes to the current system would have made the race turn out 'right'?" And they changed the system in that way.

As I've pointed out before, if they really want to make the strongest events more important, make the Quality Points more important, not the Round Points. If you make Round Points at certain events too important, you're going to end up with a ranking system like the ATP's where men are practically tanking non-Masters Series events because those events almost won't count for their ranking. The WTA ought to look to the PGA Tour in this regard. It's almost as big a deal to hold off Tiger Woods (or Duval, Mickelson, Garcia, etc.) at Pebble Beach or the Western Open as it would be to hold him off at the Masters or British Open. Events like the Greater Hartford Open or the Greensboro Open are considered lesser not because they offer less prize money, but because the field isn't as good. And golf has become much more popular for this.

Of course, there still remains the question of how we get the rest of the WTA tour the same TV exposure that minor PGA events like the Greater Hartford Open get. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
If Venus Williams is smart, she can re-organize her schedule and play only the Grand Slams and Tier I and be #1 (only if she wins, of course <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> )

Since we know Venus won't play all those tournaments, I think if Martina Hingis regains confidence, she will take the bigger advantage of it.<br />

<img src="graemlins/wavey.gif" border="0" alt="[Wavey]" />
 

·
Plainclothes Division
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
It was me, Cynicole, in Egg's thread announcing the 2002 points table. It wasn't easy, as I have no computer, and had to go "old school" (paper and pencil). Fortunately, the top 19 players were each picked for at least one FFC team, and I had their data on the weekly results charts. Saved a ton of time. (I would have to calculate each of Iroda's individually, so I passed. Too much work. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> )

Serena does, indeed, close the gap considerably on Kim under the new system. (The final margin was 45 points.) Serena, like Lindsay, reached at least the quarters of every event she played, and only played primaries+.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top