Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,073 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is to go back to the average system. I believe that no one (slamless player), not even Hingis around 2000/01 would've been #1 under that system.

And right now, it'll be Justine who's #1. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But is Justine really the best player in the past 52 weeks? What has she done much on anything other than clay? :confused:

Of course, the other option is for all the players to be healthy and fit at all times especially the slams. But we're not God so... :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,018 Posts
well, frankly, does anyone REALLY deserve #1 right now? I think its wide open. Before when there have been slamless #1's, there has been a player who SHOULD have been #1.

2000 Hingis--Venus had two majors, she should have been #1
2001 Davenport -- Capriati and or Venus, probably Venus considering she won like 3 more titles than Capriati, and owned Capraiti in that year
2003--Clijsters--Serena should have stayed #1 until JHH won the US Open


2004/2005--Davenport/Mauresmo/Sharapova (?)-- with the injuries, no one has dominated...so to me, the most consistent player SHOULD be #1. Right now's that's been Lindsay...maybe Sharapova if she takes it over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
Get real guys. Should we just make all the tier 1,2,3,4,5 etc pointless. Not award any ranking points. when Clijsters and Davenport became number 1 they'd both won a large part of the hard court season. And although Maria hasnt won much title wise she has been very consistent getting to lots of semis and has actually played a full season.

We shouldn't change the system for players who whine about being injured but miraculously manage to win a slam or a big title on their first tournement back.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,866 Posts
Sam L said:
Is to go back to the average system. I believe that no one (slamless player), not even Hingis around 2000/01 would've been #1 under that system.

And right now, it'll be Justine who's #1. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But is Justine really the best player in the past 52 weeks? What has she done much on anything other than clay? :confused:

Of course, the other option is for all the players to be healthy and fit at all times especially the slams. But we're not God so... :shrug:
If you went with the old divisor system, the rankings right now would be:

1. Davenport - 298.3
2. Sharapova - 237.0
3. Mauresmo - 233.8
4. Henin-Hardenne - 219.2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,704 Posts
Andrew.. said:
If you went with the old divisor system, the rankings right now would be:

1. Davenport - 298.3
2. Sharapova - 237.0
3. Mauresmo - 233.8
4. Henin-Hardenne - 219.2
Exactly and Hingis would have been #1 in 2000 also, even with a minimum divisor of 12.

The reality is that most of the controversy over the illegitimacy of the rankings is in someway linked to the Williams Sisters and their odd ball schedules. Without them the issue would come up only once in a blue moon. They've done it their own way and good luck to them but you don't base you ranking system on something as ephemeral as a couple of top players, even if they are all time greats.

A slamless number one has never been an issue for me. The number one ranking is an achievement analytically distinct from Grand Slam tournaments. And when I look at the list of number ones it is more select and contains higher quality players than a list of GS winners over the same period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
The rankings have generally seemed right to me.

Even when Davenport was #1 over Capriati and Venus back in 2001, it seemed appropriate if you look at her results. She was remarkably consistent that year and won 7 titles. She just did not win a slam. She never went out early in tournaments like Venus and Capriati, and always lost to top players.

If your consistency during the year and dominance of non-slams in great enough to override you lack of a GS win, then you deserve it...having that consistency is amazing...you put yourself at risk playing so many tournaments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,873 Posts
The rankings are fine. Lindsay deserved to be #1 for 2005 and Sharapova deserves to be #1 now. Who would you replace her with?

Excatly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,227 Posts
Kim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,862 Posts
What has the #1 Ranking gotten any top player in the last 3 years besides a CUSHY DRAW? Nothing. when was the last time the #1 player in the world won a Slam?
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? Exactly.

The ranking system SUX, we know it, the WTA Know it.....no one want to put in the work for the change. So it is what it is...Lets deal with it. The rankings reflect Quantity and not Quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
Sam L said:
What has she done much on anything other than clay? :confused:
She won the Olympics which were held on hardcourts.


tennisIlove09 said:
2000 Hingis--Venus had two majors, she should have been #1
Venus missed the first couple of months of the season and was not spectacular at all on clay. Plus she didn't play the YEC. She did have an amazing summer, yes, but rankings are based on the results during the last 52 weeks. Hingis was really consistant throughout the whole season and reached 2 Slam finals.

tennisIlove09 said:
2001 Davenport -- Capriati and or Venus, probably Venus considering she won like 3 more titles than Capriati, and owned Capraiti in that year

Venus played only 12 tournaments during the whole season. She also had a 1R loss at RG, which really hurt her chances of being #1. Didn't play the YEC again, in fact, didn't play at all after US Open.
Capriati had a great beginning of the season, but was so-so after Wimbledon. And she only won 1 title outside the Slams.
Davenport benefitted from weak fields in European indoor tournaments and stockipled a great number of points. Plus she reached the finals of YEC.
To me, that was a year without "clear" year-end #1.


tennisIlove09 said:
2003--Clijsters--Serena should have stayed #1 until JHH won the US Open
Perhaps you have a point there, but it didn't really matter as Serena didn't play at all after Wimbledon.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,384 Posts
Get real guys. Should we just make all the tier 1,2,3,4,5 etc pointless. Not award any ranking points. when Clijsters and Davenport became number 1 they'd both won a large part of the hard court season. And although Maria hasnt won much title wise she has been very consistent getting to lots of semis and has actually played a full season.

We shouldn't change the system for players who whine about being injured but miraculously manage to win a slam or a big title on their first tournement back
A sensible system doesn't have to make tour events pointless-but it SHOULD weight towards the slams first, then the YEC, and finally the regular tour events.

A #1 who can't win a slam is a bad joke.
A #1 who can't win a slam or even the YEC (as Linds couldn't last year) is an even worse joke.

Being the top player in your sport is something to be proud of an hold up as a big acomplishment. Hearing Lindsay Davenport run from being #1 in an interview tells one all they need to know about how screwed up the ranking system is.

Now Sharapova will finally be #1, which made perfect sense IMO BEFORE she lost her Wimbledon title, not after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,686 Posts
Andrew.. said:
If you went with the old divisor system, the rankings right now would be:

1. Davenport - 298.3
2. Sharapova - 237.0
3. Mauresmo - 233.8
4. Henin-Hardenne - 219.2
1. Davenport - 298
2. Henin-Hardenne - 255
3. Sharapova - 247
4. Serena 233
5. Mauresmo - 224
6. Kim - 205
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
Rollo said:
A sensible system doesn't have to make tour events pointless-but it SHOULD weight towards the slams first, then the YEC, and finally the regular tour events.
That all sounds fine and dandy in theory, but look what happened in the last 5 years, almost no top player played the whole, or even 60-70% of the season. What can the rankings do in such situation? They can't magically decide who is #1.
The last time a top player actually managed to play pretty much the whole season healthy and without any serious injuries (Serena 2002-2003), we had a just and undisputed #1.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
25,017 Posts
The only way to solve the problem of slamless #1 is to...

...get a player that reaches #1 with a slam :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennisIlove09

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Foot_Fault said:
What has the #1 Ranking gotten any top player in the last 3 years besides a CUSHY DRAW? Nothing. when was the last time the #1 player in the world won a Slam?
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? Exactly.
Henin-Hardenne winning the Australian in 04, and then again when JUstine Henin-Hardenne won the Olympics in 04. so realistically it's only been less than a year.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,384 Posts
What can the rankings do in such situation? They can't magically decide who is #1.
I disagree Joana. Magic has nothing to do with it. It all boils down to priorities.

A balanced ranking system weighted towards WINNING events (as opposed to merely playing and reaching quarters/ semis) and SLAMS can produce rankings that are defensible even if some may dispute them.

Sorry, but Amelia Mauresmo as #1 when she failed to even reach the final of a major (unless you count the Olympics) isn't even defensible.

Try This As a rankings table and see if it doesn't make sense.
The top 12 results ONLY count towards a ranking.

*********************
4 slams
Champion--430
RU --172
SF --86
QF --43
4R --21

WTA Championships
Champ--250
RU-- 100
SF 50
QF 25

Tier 1--- Winner 80
RU 32
SF 16
QF 8

Tier 2--- Winner 60
RU 24
SF 12
QF 6


Tier 3---Winner 30
RU 12
SF 6
QF 2

Tiers 4 and 5 (same) W-20
RU-8
SF-4
QF-2

*******
Add together the top 12 results across the last 52 weeks--and trust me-when you crunch the numbers it makes perfect intuitive sense:)


This system rewards winning whilst taking consistency into consideration. It doesn't discourage playing but DOES discourage mediocre results.

The Fed Cup counts as a Tier 2 event.

There are no Vera Zvonareva's in Rollo's top 10
#1's always have won AT LEAST one of the 5 big events.

P.S. If it were up to me there would be a cutoff of 24 events as a maximum to enter. The current "play til you drop" rankings encourage injuries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,809 Posts
Cp6uja said:
1. Davenport - 298
2. Henin-Hardenne - 255
3. Sharapova - 247
4. Serena 233
5. Mauresmo - 224
6. Kim - 205
What formula are you using to produce these figures??

It doesn't look like you're using a minumum divisor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
Rollo said:
4 slams
Champion--430
RU --172
SF --86
QF --43
4R --21

WTA Championships
Champ--250
RU-- 100
SF 50
QF 25

Tier 1--- Winner 80
RU 32
SF 16
QF 8

Tier 2--- Winner 60
RU 24
SF 12
QF 6


Tier 3---Winner 30
RU 12
SF 6
QF 2

Tiers 4 and 5 (same) W-20
RU-8
SF-4
QF-2
I think this system gives way too much importance to Slams. A winner of one Slam gets more points than winner of 5 tier Is? IMO, that's too much. And I'm afraid this would be a huge blow to WTA tour - it would practically become meaningless. We shouldn't forget that Slams only take up 2 months of the season. The rest is WTA tour. And while Slams are, without a shadow of a doubt, the most important tournaments, other tournaments should not be disregarded like this.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
26,908 Posts
Errrrr Rollo my dear: The last time you presented your ranking system, the slam winner got 420 points, not 430.

Am I right to assume that some very special and unusual situation required a little altering of the points schedule? :p
 
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Top