Tennis Forum banner

41 - 60 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Where did I say that? Everyone's points should be falling off. I named Barty because she is the biggest benefactor of this system. Barty (and Kyrgios, and any other players skipping because of COVID concerns) should be able to file for a COVID protected ranking since they're making a personal choice not to compete.

And Andreescu would clearly have a protected ranking because of her injury troubles anyway, so that's a moot point.

I don't know where Konta comes into this conversation.
The biggest factor that came into the original decision was likely a lot of the talk about travel restrictions - especially around Trump and whether there would be a ban on people arriving from China. If a government has banned someone from coming in to the country, then the player should not be penalised for that fact. They could not reasonably have a separate rule for anybody impacted by travel restrictions, versus players who have other concerns (their own health or health of those around them, or the well-being of their fellow countrymen). Therefore, the ONLY reasonable approach was to hold on to the points.

I do not LIKE all of the outcomes of that decision (I think it is frankly ridiculous that Andreescu gets to stay in the Top 10 when she has not played at all. The bigger issue (in my mind) is that she gets to keep IW2019, when she had already withdrawn from the tournament before it was cancelled) - but it is the only solution that is equally fair to all parties, and does not make any player feel forced into playing if they have health conditions which would give them cause for concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,397 Posts
Where did I say that? Everyone's points should be falling off. I named Barty because she is the biggest benefactor of this system. Barty (and Kyrgios, and any other players skipping because of COVID concerns) should be able to file for a COVID protected ranking since they're making a personal choice not to compete.

And Andreescu would clearly have a protected ranking because of her injury troubles anyway, so that's a moot point.

I don't know where Konta comes into this conversation.
Spiceboy has just updated the list of players with an active SR, and Andreescu is not on the list.

This means that her absence of more than an year from the courts is not covered by a medical documentation, the physical problems cited in various occasion by several parties, to be honest often only on reply to direct questions, have never been confirmed by official statements.

Otherwise how can we explain her lack to ask for a SR?

Seems more like a Barty decision, that has nothing to do with health, just taking advantage of the odd rule existing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,675 Posts
Spiceboy has just updated the list of players with an active SR, and Andreescu is not on the list.

This means that her absence of more than an year from the courts is not covered by a medical documentation, the physical problems cited in various occasion by several parties, to be honest often only on reply to direct questions, have never been confirmed by official statements.

Otherwise how can we explain her lack to ask for a SR?

Seems more like a Barty decision, that has nothing to do with health, just taking advantage of the odd rule existing.
She doesn’t need to bother filing for an SR anymore because she’s getting to keep all these points for another year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,624 Posts
you know with this current system, why would a defending champion of 2019 tournaments play the 2020 tournament at all? Since it’s basically pointless and they keep the maximum points of that tournament already from their 2019 victory... No wonder Barty and Andreescu don’t give a second thought about not playing RG and USO this year
Yea... now you know why Barty is drinking beer — she did the math ahead of time and found out who the suckers would be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,900 Posts
I don't like Kenin but this ranking system hurts her terribly that she should sue WTA.
She is projected to be #3 after winning RG, which in the normal year she would easily be #1, but it seems impossible for her to achieve that because in 4 weeks of 2021 her 2000 points would come off again and drag her down farther from Barty.

While Barty can probably drink beer doing nothing until Miami with her #1 ranking.
 

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
20,538 Posts
Maybe there should be a secondary rankings or something for records

it's annoying to think that someone might miss on YE #1 and someone who barely played will still have it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
In the case of Kenin, I think this really hurts her. She is currently #1 in the race, so in a normal year, would finish the year as the World #1. But she won't. Even for instance, if she won RG, the highest she could finish the year is #3, holding 2 of the 3 played Grand Slams.....despite the fact she would be heads and tails above everyone else in the Race. Then the AO comes, and there goes her 2,000 pts for winning this year, and her ranking drops way down. Weird weird times.... I know there is no perfect way to handle this.. benefits others, but completely unfair to some
There hasn't been a definite solution what to do with the points from early 2020. It is yet to be decided. They should obviously extend the time those points are valid.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,769 Posts
I really don't think extending the points from early 2020 is the answer. That's just prolonging the madness. I get there appears an unfairness by cutting off the system, but the rankings needs to return to some normality at some point, and the start of a new season is as good a time as any.

If anything I would favour some sort of decaying out of 2019 points starting from 2021. It just doesn't make sense that events at the end of 2019 hold more weight in the rankings than events played post-lockdown in 2020.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
It's such a tough balancing act, but maybe one way of looking at it:

The ranking ranks the best active tennis players in the world.

It removes the discussion around fairness and 'moral obligations', and moves it to what it should be. Right now, the rankings in no way reflect who the best active tennis players are. Sure, Barty was good in May 2019 - but is she really the best active player as of late? Obviously not; she's not ... active!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,769 Posts
It's such a tough balancing act, but maybe one way of looking at it:

The ranking ranks the best active tennis players in the world.

It removes the discussion around fairness and 'moral obligations', and moves it to what it should be. Right now, the rankings in no way reflect who the best active tennis players are. Sure, Barty was good in May 2019 - but is she really the best active player as of late? Obviously not; she's not ... active!
Yes, this is a key reason why I don't think this system is fit for purpose. It does the WTA no favours whatsoever to have an inactive #1. They want to be able to market/sell the latest flavour of the month. The WTA want the top players to be those active and winning recently in people's minds. The current rules have actually robbed any semblance of a #1 battle or race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,233 Posts
It's such a tough balancing act, but maybe one way of looking at it:

The ranking ranks the best active tennis players in the world.

It removes the discussion around fairness and 'moral obligations', and moves it to what it should be. Right now, the rankings in no way reflect who the best active tennis players are. Sure, Barty was good in May 2019 - but is she really the best active player as of late? Obviously not; she's not ... active!
Normally yes the ranking ranks the best active player. We are not in normal times .


what can the WTA do ? There is /was still a lot ? about the virus ( a player getting the virus, tournament being canceled, player being unable to travel...). We can not have a ranking system to fit the latest tournament(s) result.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Normally yes the ranking ranks the best active player. We are not in normal times .


what can the WTA do ? There is /was still a lot ? about the virus ( a player getting the virus, tournament being canceled, player being unable to travel...). We can not have a ranking system to fit the latest tournament(s) result.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As I said, it's a tough one, right? At some point, someone had to make a decision, and this is what they went with.

Personally, I would have made a ranking system that strongly favored the players out there playing now. I respect others see it in a different way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
besides everything already mentioned can we talk about how this is horrible for girls outside the top 100 trying to make the cutoff for 2021 early tournaments? it's essentially creating a barrier for those who broke through late in the season or this year did better.

Example, Bouchard is 53 in 2020 points but 140 in the live rankings. If some of the girls with R2, R3 points who failed to defend the points would have dropped, she might be more in the 95-115 range, maybe even higher with direct slam entry. The difference between #100 and 150 is less than 200 points, that is one slam run or one or two good events.

Petko is #100 right now. She lost R1 here and did not attend USO, was defending R3 at both events, so she is banking 240 points total which would drop her to the #150 mark and very far outside slam entry but will most likely cash in at AO and get the opportunity to gain points after a 1R exit in 2019.

How is that fair WTA for the lower ranked girls? I think this is even a bigger issue than the top girls ranking because they get access to all tournaments regardless, the issue there is about stat padding. Here we are talking about financial sustainability and livelihood or career development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScienceFirst

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
besides everything already mentioned can we talk about how this is horrible for girls outside the top 100 trying to make the cutoff for 2021 early tournaments? it's essentially creating a barrier for those who broke through late in the season or this year did better.

Example, Bouchard is 53 in 2020 points but 140 in the live rankings. If some of the girls with R2, R3 points who failed to defend the points would have dropped, she might be more in the 95-115 range, maybe even higher with direct slam entry. The difference between #100 and 150 is less than 200 points, that is one slam run or one or two good events.

Petko is #100 right now. She lost R1 here and did not attend USO, was defending R3 at both events, so she is banking 240 points total which would drop her to the #150 mark and very far outside slam entry but will most likely cash in at AO and get the opportunity to gain points after a 1R exit in 2019.

How is that fair WTA for the lower ranked girls? I think this is even a bigger issue than the top girls ranking because they get access to all tournaments regardless, the issue there is about stat padding. Here we are talking about financial sustainability and livelihood or career development.
You are absolutely right, that's the most damaging consequence - the whole reason the rankings were invented in the first place was to have a fair entry system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
At least the WTA Finals (and Elite Trophy) points should be taken off - they are guaranteed to players who had a good 2019 and have nothing to do with the current abilities. In addition even in normal years they don't count for the next year's WTA Finals race.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,769 Posts
besides everything already mentioned can we talk about how this is horrible for girls outside the top 100 trying to make the cutoff for 2021 early tournaments? it's essentially creating a barrier for those who broke through late in the season or this year did better.

Example, Bouchard is 53 in 2020 points but 140 in the live rankings. If some of the girls with R2, R3 points who failed to defend the points would have dropped, she might be more in the 95-115 range, maybe even higher with direct slam entry. The difference between #100 and 150 is less than 200 points, that is one slam run or one or two good events.

Petko is #100 right now. She lost R1 here and did not attend USO, was defending R3 at both events, so she is banking 240 points total which would drop her to the #150 mark and very far outside slam entry but will most likely cash in at AO and get the opportunity to gain points after a 1R exit in 2019.

How is that fair WTA for the lower ranked girls? I think this is even a bigger issue than the top girls ranking because they get access to all tournaments regardless, the issue there is about stat padding. Here we are talking about financial sustainability and livelihood or career development.
Yes it's certainly true this is affecting all over the rankings in different ways. The grand slam cutoff particularly huge as that is literally worth 6 figures to players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
As I said, it's a tough one, right? At some point, someone had to make a decision, and this is what they went with.

Personally, I would have made a ranking system that strongly favored the players out there playing now. I respect others see it in a different way.
I'm guessing the wta wanted to ensure the opposite. They didn't want to risk bunch of lesser players climb to the top during these times. And it could have been much more chaotic.
From their perspective its much better to have Barty remain no1 and not play for a year, than to have 5 players like Podorska or Trevisan entering the top 10 :D.
Not maybe fair but I can understand it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
They should do 'diminshing returns', like they did back when I was on tour, wherein after six months your points are halved giving priority to the most recent six months of results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,233 Posts
I'm guessing the wta wanted to ensure the opposite. They didn't want to risk bunch of lesser players climb to the top during these times. And it could have been much more chaotic.
From their perspective its much better to have Barty remain no1 and not play for a year, than to have 5 players like Podorska or Trevisan entering the top 10 :D.
Not maybe fair but I can understand it.
There is still the possibility of a tournament being canceled at anytime or a player being withdrawn for COVID...This system protect that , it is not the best one of course but I am not sure there is one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
If Kenin wins on Saturday, I hope reporters ask her about not being #1 and she responds like this:

 
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
Top