Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, at the moment there are a lot of old and new sytems being talked about among Tennis fans as a solution to the seemingly unfair way the rankings rewards consistency over brilliance, or basically the whole Kim-Serena thing.

I think a solution which would work both ways and would provide a simple solution would be, not to reintroduce teh old divisor system, but to raise the round points for Grandslams (which most players PEAK for), from 650 to 750, and so on down the rounds.

And also, recude the number of counting tournaments from 17 to 16 (maybe even 15 at a stretch, but I reckon 16 is ok).

The only problem I could see with this is that for example, players who play rediculous amounts of tournaments like Dokic or Pistolesi could afford like 13 or 14 first round losses and not be penalised for it.

So maybe another way could be to use the divisor system with this method, and to not be too harsh on the over players, allow for players worst 3 performances to not count. This would mean say, Kim plays 22 events and loses before the quarters in 5 of them - she would only have 2 to bring her down, thus her consistency would still be rewarded.

But if Serena plays 14 tournaments, she would have her 11 best averaged, and so, if would benefit her too.

Maybe im crazy, butI think this could be a cool new way.

What do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,459 Posts
liuxuan said:
OK, at the moment there are a lot of old and new sytems being talked about among Tennis fans as a solution to the seemingly unfair way the rankings rewards consistency over brilliance, or basically the whole Kim-Serena thing.

I think a solution which would work both ways and would provide a simple solution would be, not to reintroduce teh old divisor system, but to raise the round points for Grandslams (which most players PEAK for), from 650 to 750, and so on down the rounds.

And also, recude the number of counting tournaments from 17 to 16 (maybe even 15 at a stretch, but I reckon 16 is ok).

The only problem I could see with this is that for example, players who play rediculous amounts of tournaments like Dokic or Pistolesi could afford like 13 or 14 first round losses and not be penalised for it.

So maybe another way could be to use the divisor system with this method, and to not be too harsh on the over players, allow for players worst 3 performances to not count. This would mean say, Kim plays 22 events and loses before the quarters in 5 of them - she would only have 2 to bring her down, thus her consistency would still be rewarded.

But if Serena plays 14 tournaments, she would have her 11 best averaged, and so, if would benefit her too.

Maybe im crazy, butI think this could be a cool new way.

What do you guys think?

I think GS points should be raised even more than that. I think it should be 850-900 for the winner. Also I think there should be no "reserve" tournaments just take 17 tournaments and that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
I also think points from the most recent 6 months should count more than the points from the first 6 months counted. Recent results are a better indicator of who is #1 at the moment. I think once a result is 6 months old, the points for that tournament should be cut in half.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
I agree with jenglisbe's 6 months thing. Although I would make it even more extreme. Once you've got some points from a tournament, those points would decrease by 1/52 every week, so that after 3 months you have 75% left, after 6 months you have half left, after 9 months you have just 25% left, and when the tournament comes around again next year, those points have all dropped off and are ready to be replenished.

It would make rankings a lot harder to calculate though :devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,409 Posts
I think many methods sound simple and effective until they are actually put into practice. There is however one mistake with what you wrote.

But if Serena plays 14 tournaments, she would have her 11 best averaged, and so, if would benefit her too.
If the minimum divisor was 16, Serena would not be able to drop tournaments before she plays at least 16.

Except that, your system sounds pretty good but I've yet to be convinced about a divisor system. The lower tier events offer less points so even if a top player were to win all the Tier II or III's they entered, they would still stand to lose points on their average. Winning a Tier II gives you 220 or 195 points. Winning a Tier III gives you 145 or 120 points. Losing in the semis of a slam gives you 292 points. Losing in the semis of a Tier I gives you 124-146 points. If a player, such as Kim, were to lose in the semis of every Slam and Tier 1 she entered, playing and winning a Tier III would drop her average. Doing anything but winning a Tier II would drop her average. This situation wouldn't just be for the higher ranked players. Any player who can reach about the same round in slams and Tier I's stands to lose points on their average if they only do a step or two better in the Tier II's, III's etc... The lower tier tournaments need the big names to play there because tournaments can be very fickle and most aren't assured to continue from one year to the next. Using this system and as a result having very weak fields in the lower tier events might help Serena but I don't think many other people who benefit from it. And no, the rankings are not only about proving that Serena is the best. Having rankings where the #1 is right but everything below is in chaos wouldn't be good either. It might look better, but it wouldn't be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
angele - You raise a great point that explains the inherent flaw in the divisor system. It would actually encourage top players to not enter smaller tournaments because winning a small tournament could hurt their ranking!

controlfreak - I could go along with that! No reason a result from 9 months ago should be worth the same as results from the past 2-3 months. Hantuchova is a shining example. Who really believes she is a top 10 player? She is coasting on results from fall 2002 and her Australian QF for January.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,100 Posts
The ranking is over the last year - not 6 months. If you wanted to know who the current best player was it would change by the week - indeed as Serena can't walk at present she clearly isn't the best current player. Nor will she be in January if 6 months figures are counted.

The only reason for lowering the number of counting tournaments or to have a divisor below the average number of tournaments played (17-20) at present is to make the system fit the 2 players who play the least through inclination or injury. Its a bizarre proposal - cart leading horse. Similarly with GS - there is arguably little reason to award the current level of points for GS wins. Its often easier to win a GS over 2 weeks than it is to win several top Tier 2s over a week or two other tournaments in successive weeks in terms of top competition faced and its hard to see any justification why beating the world number 60 in a GS third round is worth far more than making a Tier 2 semi.
The reality is that the only thing wrong with the ranking system is that it is not designed for number ones who only win 38 matches a year. Unless you design a system to encourage everyone else to miss half the tour, there is only one answer to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
This is all bullshit. IF you want to reward quality over quantity then up the number of points for wins in grandslams and tier ones and then up the number of points for beating higher ranked players also subtract points for losing to lower ranked players. That way quality will be rewarded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
fammmmedspin - just because the rankings are based on the past 12 months doesn't mean they should be...and no one said said to only count the past 6 months, anyway. We have suggested decreasing what results from the first 6 months counted are worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,958 Posts
Here: Make the top players play grand slams and tier ones (but reduce the # from 10 to 5). Points gained from those tournaments automatically count. Next, take all other results, average them, and then multiply the resulting number times the number of extra tournaments played or 5, whichever is lower.

What do you think? That way it will favor those who peak at big events, w/o letting players w/ "flukey" results climb too far up the rankings. I think it would also encourage a healthy schedule (15/16 tournaments a year).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
Don't kill me, but I like the limiting players to a certain number of tournaments a year idea. You can play more than that, but they won't count towards your ranking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,459 Posts
franny said:
Don't kill me, but I like the limiting players to a certain number of tournaments a year idea. You can play more than that, but they won't count towards your ranking.
I proposed this also. I think if they are only going to count 17 tourneys, then do away with having results in reserve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,201 Posts
The current system is fine. Yes, the best player may fall in the rankings if she is out injured. So what? If she comes back and plays at her peak she'll soon be back to No. 1.

I dunno what the fuss is all about. No one says that being ranked No. 1 always means you are the best player. Of course you'd expect the best player to fall in the rankings if she is not playing often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,624 Posts
The round points for a Grand Slam are high enough already. They are MORE than triple that of most Tier II's. And do you want making the QUARTERS of a Slam to be worth consistently more than winning a Tier II? Marta Marrero will like that.


If you are going to reintroduce a divisor system, you need to raise the minimum divisor to 18. Because it is a divisor system, 18 tournaments would still be better for the Williams and other low-event players, because their competition would lose the freebies. But it gives a very strong incentive for other players to play 18 events, with no incentive to play more. In fact, if you play more than 18 events it is almost bound to hurt you because you will be diluting Slam points with Tier II or lower points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,534 Posts
since everyone seems to put soooo much emphasis to Grand Slams and thinking that unless you have a Grand Slam you don't deserve to be no.1 and many feel that Grand Slams are what people peak for then just take the avg. of all the Grand Slam points of each player in a 52 week period.

Serena for example would take the points of her 2002 US Open, 2003 Australian, RG, and Wimbledon Round points and quality points and divide it by 4

Everyone would need to divide their scores by 4 because there are 4 Grand Slams people can enter!

Does this satisfy those who think Kim shouldn't be no.1 because she doesn't have Grand Slam
 

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,171 Posts
Actually I came up with another simple solution for those who thinks that GS are the be all and end all of the ranking system. Here's how:

Have the same ranking system, but when ranking put the grand slam winners on top of the non-grand slam winners.

This means that if a player wins all 4 slams and she still doesn't manage to be #1, then she will be replaced as #1 cause she's the only one who owns a GS. The #1 by numbers will be #2.

The rankings right now will be then:

1. Serena
2. Henin-Hardenne
3. Clijsters
4. Davenport

How about that?
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top