Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is there a perfect ranking that balances common sense (to wit:slams are the 4 jewels of a crown above all others) AND makes the rest of the tour count for something?

I think so, and below is my idea of good ranking system.

Problems with the current ranking system

1. It rewards losers. My system rewards winning.

2. It allows a non-slam winner to be #1. This is no slam on Kim, but
that is lunacy. Th elast time it happened (Davenport) she threw the
fish back and declared Venus as #1. It was a well desreved a slap in
the face to the WTA.

3. The goal of the new system has been to make the top women play
more. Those who have have burned out (Hingis is exhibit A)-those
who haven't win slams and basically tell the WTA to go to hell.

Rollo's system

*Top 12 events count. This is easy to modify, but 16 would be the max IMo.

Winning an event 100%
Finalist 40
Semis 20
Quarters 10
R16 5

Below that 0 points for a first round loss unless you qualify. The idea is simple-winning should COUNT. Quarters and semis are nice, but the pressure to earn points needs to reflect the interst fans show in the later stages of an event.

Slams: Winner (1800) F (720) SF (360) QF (180) R16 (90)
WTA (900) F (360) SF (180) QF (90)

Tier 1 (450) F (180) SF (90) QF (45)
Tier 2 (300) F (120) SF (60) QF (30)
Tier 3 (150) F (60) SF (30) QF (15)
Tier 4 (100) F (40) etc


This system doesn't punish women who want to play more. It DOES punish those with mediocre results.


The Rankings using my system

1. Henin 6750
2. S. Williams 5940
3. Clijsters 5230
4. Davenport 2190
5. V. Williams 2152
6. Capriati 1780
7. Mauresmo 1642
8. Rubin 1155
9. Myskina 1000
10 Dementieva 892

Sugiyama 854
Hantuchova 735


As you can see, below the top 3 the rankings are not different at all. And to be blunt the top 3 rankings make "sense". A fan (or potential fan) of women's tennis can understand Henin as #1.

Clijsters as #1 is indefensible using any system that values quality over quantity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Of course, any idea will have to be sanctioned by me, seeing as I invented women's tennis. I will take your idea on board.

But for now, I must eat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,533 Posts
A great idea for the ranking-system! Cool! It also makes sense because Kim´s no.1 right now mostly by her bunch of semi´s and finals appearances.....but by rewarding the runner-ups and semifinalists less points, she wouldn´t even be close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
That disgusting French thing...let us not have mention of her here, on a message board devoted to My tour. OK?

Ooh, gotta go, the pizza delivery is here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,049 Posts
rollo, good attempt, but it won't work :)

if you are familiar with Excel, there is a tool named "goal seek"

what you do is simple, you set up a formula (or a set of formulas) and decide one cell to changes its value, and set a goal. Excel will calculate what that cell's value should be to achieve that.

First the problem of Serena. There is no way to have a ranking that will be fair with a player playing so few tournaments without distorting the rest.

The problem seems more serious with Justine, because she's won 2 GSs played nearly as much as Kim, had consistent results but she still isn't # 1.

There is of course an explanation, their results are nealy equivalent this year, Justine has a better GS performance and Kim has a few more tournaments played, the difference is in the last months of last year when Kim's performance was amazing, particulary, the WTA Championships is making the difference.

The problem is that if you give so much weight to the GSs, you will have fix the ranking at the top (arguably) but will mess it up everywhere else.

If a player just achieves one GS semis, that's in your system 720 points, 50% more than winning a tier 1 which isn't reasonable. That player will have an artificially high ranking for a year (and a surprising semifinalists is in nearly every GS).

Not to mention that it won't achieve the goal of giving the tour as a whole importance. You are making a GS win 4 times what a tier 1 would be, so get on Serena or even Justine's shoes, why to bother for the rest at all?

There is no perfect system, you can change a few rules or the number of points but it will never, ever be perfect and make everyone happy, and be careful when you change the rules because the result can be unpredictable.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
6,694 Posts
...it's easy to come up with a system that gives the results you want now...but there's no proof it would give the correct results in all situations...you'd have to test the system over a reasonable period of time...perhaps you could try backdating your system to show what the rankings would have been at the end of each year... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,533 Posts
Fingon said:
rollo, good attempt, but it won't work :)

if you are familiar with Excel, there is a tool named "goal seek"

what you do is simple, you set up a formula (or a set of formulas) and decide one cell to changes its value, and set a goal. Excel will calculate what that cell's value should be to achieve that.

First the problem of Serena. There is no way to have a ranking that will be fair with a player playing so few tournaments without distorting the rest.

The problem seems more serious with Justine, because she's won 2 GSs played nearly as much as Kim, had consistent results but she still isn't # 1.

There is of course an explanation, their results are nealy equivalent this year, Justine has a better GS performance and Kim has a few more tournaments played, the difference is in the last months of last year when Kim's performance was amazing, particulary, the WTA Championships is making the difference.

The problem is that if you give so much weight to the GSs, you will have fix the ranking at the top (arguably) but will mess it up everywhere else.

If a player just achieves one GS semis, that's in your system 720 points, 50% more than winning a tier 1 which isn't reasonable. That player will have an artificially high ranking for a year (and a surprising semifinalists is in nearly every GS).

Not to mention that it won't achieve the goal of giving the tour as a whole importance. You are making a GS win 4 times what a tier 1 would be, so get on Serena or even Justine's shoes, why to bother for the rest at all?

There is no perfect system, you can change a few rules or the number of points but it will never, ever be perfect and make everyone happy, and be careful when you change the rules because the result can be unpredictable.
If you tell me: Serena has to play more, that´s fine because it´s true. But there´s noway that Justine who has played only two tournaments less than Kim and has better results than her at the slams, is ranked behind her. Something must be very wrong with the wta-rankinsystem.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
You misread the points Fingon. It's a bit confusing the way I typed it.


A slam semi is worth 360 points, NOT 720. 720 is the finalist. 360 is less than a Tier 1-and only worth a bit more than winning a tier 2. The difference might even encourage say a Venus to play MORE lower tiers to avoid meeting her sister in a semi:)

And look at those rankings again please. It "fixes" the problem at top and the rest of the top 10 isn't radically different.

This year's surprise semifinalist was Petrova. She would have 764 points under my system-still outside the top 10.

And Stevenson doesn't make the top 20 the year she made the Wimby semis.

Yes, the slams are weighted, but that's reality. If the slams are healthy so is the rest of the game. By extension so is the rest of the tour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
I like it better than what we have now. I'm still a fan of the divisor, though.

The only semi-real quibble I can come up with is that the WTA would never adopt a system in which the Championships are half as important as the slams. I sometimes think the WTA would rate the Championships equal to the slams if they felt they could get away with it.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
:rolleyes:

Congratulations, you worked out the top 10.

Work out the top 1000 and I'll tell you if the system is good or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,865 Posts
If Justine ends the year as #1 and it very much looks like she will, then I think this year has been fine. Clijsters has made 12 finals so far this year and two Slam finals and has played consistently. Her # 1 ranking is also based in part on her good performances in the last few months of 2002. She deserves a stint of a few weeks at #1. Henin deserves the end of year ranking.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
You're probably right Mark, as Justine leads the points race.

I think there is ONE idea from my rankings the WTA could adopt safely without changing the points per tier, and that is the basic one-reward winning by reducing points for mediocre performances.

I bet you would get less defaults where they count at the gate-in the semis and finals:)

Controlfreak-is it worth it past the top 20 or so? I think the lower number would help the rankings of some of the girls not allowed to compete a lot because of the age limits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
billie_jean_king said:
That disgusting French thing...let us not have mention of her here, on a message board devoted to My tour. OK?

Ooh, gotta go, the pizza delivery is here.
:mad: Bonjour Billie :mad: Disgusting French thing?! You were not saying that when you came into le US Open locker room on your hands and knees begging me to defect and play Fed Cup for you.

Rollo j'adore your rankings! By this system I would have been number 1 and not number 3, therefore c'est officielle! Nathalie Tauziat was numero un!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Absolutely nothing wrong with the current system. It is fair to all. Those who chose not to play a full schedule are ranked accordingly. But as someone else has said, have you just devised a system to fit the outcome you desire?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Yes Vicky-I have absolutely devised a system guarenteed to make my fav #1-I post pro Henin and anti Serena and Clijsters stuff ALL the time
:rolleyes:

Vicky-the hit the WTA over the head problem with the rankings is no one believes them. Listen to the announcers at the US Open? Those not directly affiliated with the WTA blast the rankings every chance they get.

George Bush's election was more legit to a hall of Democrats than Kim's #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Hmm let me guess, US commentators at a US event complaining because a US player was not ranked number one even though said player has hardly played all year. Hmm, what's the common denominator here???

There is always going to be someone who is not happy with the system. The current system is known to all. There is no secret devised to favour any one player.

Rollo said:
Yes Vicky-I have absolutely devised a system guarenteed to make my fav #1-I post pro Henin and anti Serena and Clijsters stuff ALL the time
:rolleyes:

Vicky-the hit the WTA over the head problem with the rankings is no one believes them. Listen to the announcers at the US Open? Those not directly affiliated with the WTA blast the rankings every chance they get.

George Bush's election was more legit to a hall of Democrats than Kim's #1.
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top