Re: The Top 100 Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)
Should the YE #1, which is a pretty coveted accomplishment, be measured by a depreciating ranking system, where those who perform best towards the end of the season would have a much better shot at ending the year at number one? Would Garcia have a legitimate claim to that because she had an exceptional run during the fall season? If two players have equal accomplishments over the course of the year but one peaked during the clay season and the other peaked after the USO, why should player 2 be ranked higher than player 1?The biggest flaw in the ranking system is the too long averaging time, and the missing decay factor. (The length of the decay factor is arguable - should be adjusted as well.) That's why my 1st point was about it! (And that's why the RACE RANKING is much more usable to describe the actual level of a given player during the year.) Once this problem is fixed, the ranking will reflect much better the actual/current playing level.
As a 2nd step, the introduction of some quality points would highly be beneficial. Of course, this makes the ranking system much more complicated. But this complication is NOTHING for the computers! For the same reason, instead of the ranking numbers, the ranking POINTS should be used, they measure way better the differences between the players.
To your question: YES (Why not?).
But here I'm NOT suggesting the complete change of the current official ranking system. Here we are speaking of a new, ALTERNATIVE ranking system. It can be introduced by ANYBODY, having the mach results. The advantage would be the BETTER PREDICTION of the outcome of the matches for betting purposes, for instance. After a couple of years AUTO-ADJUSTING period this alternative ranking system can become way more usable. (My suggested alternative ranking system is a so called self-consistent approximating system.)