Tennis Forum banner

21 - 40 of 567 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,382 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)

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.)
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
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?
It depends on what you want to do with the ranking. If it is used for the seeding (and reflecting the current playing level), or for betting, YES.

If you want to give a prize for the year-long best achievements, then it is possible with minor modifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)

If you want a more accurate, meaningful player ranking, please also take a look at the ELO ranking system, compiled regularly for us by WTA statistician and TF member @KleineBiere

Explanation of ELO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

KleineBiere's WTA ELO rankings:
http://www.tennisforum.com/30-statistics/471730-wta-elo-ratings-revised-04-11-2013-a-7.html#post79666506
I cannot see the fine print of how the ELO system was introduced by @KleineBiere. Looking at the result (the actual ranking) it is OBVIOUS to me that at least 2 important elements are MISSING from it, if this ranking SHOULD reflect the relative winning probabilities of the players ("... A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64% ...").
Now look at the latest ranking (updated in Oct 8th, 2017, 01:41 PM) http://www.tennisforum.com/79633454-post98.html

No.1 2101 Simona Halep
No.2 2082 Elina Svitolina
No.3 2042 Caroline Wozniacki
No.4 2041 Garbine Muguruza
No.5 2031 Venus Williams
No.6 2029 Petra Kvitova
No.7 2027 Karolina Pliskova
No.8 2025 Caroline Garcia
No.9 1998 Madison Keys
No.10 1989 Sloane Stephens
No.11 1981 Jelena Ostapenko
No.12 1966 Johanna Konta
No.13 1956 Ashley Barty
No.14 1954 Agnieszka Radwanska
No.15 1950 Ekaterina Makarova
No.16 1947 Svetlana Kuznetsova
No.17 1944 Coco Vandeweghe
No.18 1941 Angelique Kerber
No.19 1928 Barbora Strycova
No.20 1920 Timea Bacsinszky
No.21 1914 Darya Kasatkina
No.22 1905 Anastasija Sevastova
No.23 1901 Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova
No.24 1901 Daria Kasatkina
No.25 1894 Lucie Safarova
No.26 1886 Dominika Cibulkova
No.27 1878 Julia Goerges
No.28 1866 Shuai Peng
No.29 1865 Laura Siegemund
No.30 1864 Elena Vesnina

Without going into the details:
- With no decay factor introduced, even seriously injured and fatigued players can remain highly ranked for long, depending on how frequently they play with others.
- There are more important tournaments and matches, and there is the rest. For instance, when Carolina Garcia defeated Simona Halep in the Beijing 2017 Final, that was an important match. When Simona Halep was defeated by Ekaterina Makarova in the MM Washington DC QF, that was less important. This thing changes DRASTICALLY the winning/losing probabilities, and a good ranking system should reflect it. The official WTA ranking is better in this respect, because they give larger amount of points in the more important tournaments and matches.

---------------
@Riskiick : And there are too many forumers here in the belief that their life was ruined by the school... :devil:


Big Fun - Blame It on the Boogie: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzS7zVNgWrg

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)

This week definitely caused some movement in the rankings ;) Can't wait to get started in two weeks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)

Awesome idea! This is why I come to TF for :)

I'm looking forward to seeing the end result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,687 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)

If you want a more accurate, meaningful player ranking, please also take a look at the ELO ranking system, compiled regularly for us by WTA statistician and TF member @KleineBiere

Explanation of ELO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system


KleineBiere's WTA ELO rankings:
http://www.tennisforum.com/30-statistics/471730-wta-elo-ratings-revised-04-11-2013-a-7.html#post79666506


Jeff Lynne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=UkekqVPIc2M
Agreed.

Elo does the job for me too.

And Elo did a better job in satisfying the wish of the OP (Puig's 2016 Elo score didn't lift her up into the top ten or top 12 goat postion or anything like that).

But I'm still curious what Mclyle will make of it and what his method will be. I'm all for everyone coming up with their own rankings - as long as they openly state the criteria and allow a debate. Even Descabs should open a thread and present his ranking (yea Halep would somehow end up number one I fear but at least we can debate who and why became 2nd and lower...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players (begins Nov. 12)

Agreed.

Elo does the job for me too.

And Elo did a better job in satisfying the wish of the OP (Puig's 2016 Elo score didn't lift her up into the top ten or top 12 goat postion or anything like that).

But I'm still curious what Mclyle will make of it and what his method will be. I'm all for everyone coming up with their own rankings - as long as they openly state the criteria and allow a debate. Even Descabs should open a thread and present his ranking (yea Halep would somehow end up number one I fear but at least we can debate who and why became 2nd and lower...
I do NOT have the intention to fabricate a special ranking just in order to put Halep onto the top spot.
But also, I do NOT have the intention to fabricate a special ranking just in order to put her lower than the default system shows.

I explained it already ( http://www.tennisforum.com/79683146-post28.html ) why the implemented version of the Elo system is imperfect. (No decay factor, and no weighting of the tournaments and matches according to their importance.) A favorable further adjustment would be to take into account the surface type. The only problem is, that as long as all the match data has to be entered manually, this is simply too much work. (Maybe a collaboration with a site like CoreTennis could help. https://www.coretennis.net/ )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
I do NOT have the intention to fabricate a special ranking just in order to put Halep onto the top spot.
But also, I do NOT have the intention to fabricate a special ranking just in order to put her lower than the default system shows.

I explained it already ( http://www.tennisforum.com/79683146-post28.html ) why the implemented version of the Elo system is imperfect. (No decay factor, and no weighting of the tournaments and matches according to their importance.) A favorable further adjustment would be to take into account the surface type. The only problem is, that as long as all the match data has to be entered manually, this is simply too much work. (Maybe a collaboration with a site like CoreTennis could help. https://www.coretennis.net/ )
Totally agree about the decay factor, it's funny that the rating of a player stays unchanged when she is out of competition for months or years.

I guess this comes from the original source of ELO rating, chess, where the lack of competition actually doesn't impairs the skill of a player, but not considering it in all sports where physical shape is paramount is a gross error.

On the other way I totally disagree to consider the importance of the tournaments and of the run.

From a tennis point of view there is no difference at all if two players meet in a slam final or in the first round of an international, they compete with the same rules in the same field, and with the same determination.

It is just media and marketing resonance that change.

For example the Sharapova vs Halep
match in the first round of the AO
has been by far more relevant, on the sport side, than the same weak final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players (begins TODAY!)

I still have to wait until some matches are over today before I can officially begin, but here is a list of Honorable Mentions: ten players who just missed the Top 100.


Text list:

110. Bethanie Mattek-Sands
109. Kurumi Nara
108. Vania King
107. Zarina Diyas
106. Viktorija Golubic
105. Maria Teresa Torro Flor
104. Misaki Doi
103. Kristyna Pliskova
102. Oceane Dodin
101. Marina Erakovic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,312 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players, Honorable Mentions pg. 3

Question:

Are you counting people like Rezai and Alona Bondarenko as active? They have a ranking so surely yes

What about long-term absentees with no retirement announced. Kirilenko or Hampton?

Lastly, how do doubles specialists whose singles career is over count? A la Srebotnik. Still active as a tennis player?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players, Honorable Mentions pg. 3

Question:

Are you counting people like Rezai and Alona Bondarenko as active? They have a ranking so surely yes

What about long-term absentees with no retirement announced. Kirilenko or Hampton?

Lastly, how do doubles specialists whose singles career is over count? A la Srebotnik. Still active as a tennis player?
Only players who have played a singles match in the past 12 months and have not announced an official retirement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players, Honorable Mentions pg. 3

Totally agree about the decay factor, it's funny that the rating of a player stays unchanged when she is out of competition for months or years.

I guess this comes from the original source of ELO rating, chess, where the lack of competition actually doesn't impairs the skill of a player, but not considering it in all sports where physical shape is paramount is a gross error.

On the other way I totally disagree to consider the importance of the tournaments and of the run.

From a tennis point of view there is no difference at all if two players meet in a slam final or in the first round of an international, they compete with the same rules in the same field, and with the same determination.

It is just media and marketing resonance that change.

For example the Sharapova vs Halep
match in the first round of the AO
has been by far more relevant, on the sport side, than the same weak final.
I agree with your note on chess, I think the same.
But I still think that as long as the girls are playing with DIFFERENT EFFORT LEVEL vs. the same opponent depending on the importance (money and points) of the TOURNAMENTS and ROUNDS, we should take this thing into account to have a better ranking system.
OF COURSE, the relation is NOT PROPORTIONAL: you cannot say that a player will play "ten times better" if the stake is ten times bigger. We can determine the proper weight factors only AFTER analyzing statistically enough matches in this respect.

Some players are definitely and obviously playing much better in the more important matches (tournaments and rounds). The prime examples can be the Williams sisters.
While other players, like Halep, for instance, are NOT playing accordingly. That's why she lost several chances to catch the No.1 ranking this year - it was so visible for many former big champions, interpreters and experts - and that's what costed a couple of major titles to Halep. She still hasn't made her homework in this respect.
But anyway, these things should be taken into account with the ranking system, if we want to PROPERLY PREDICT the winning probability of a given player in a given match, relying on the ranking (points).

To make it clearer, let's suppose that Halep has a 8-8 balance to a Reference player, but the matches went like this:
Halep-Reverence: 60 60 (MM 1st round)
Reference-Halep: 64 64 (AOpen QF)
Halep-Reverence: 61 61 (Premier 2nd round)
Reference-Halep: 76 76 (RG Final)
Halep-Reverence: 62 63 (P5 3rd round)
Reference-Halep: 75 75 (Wimbledon SF)
Halep-Reverence: 64 63 (PM 3rd round)
Reference-Halep: 75 75 (US Open SF)

Halep won: MM 1st round, P 2nd round, P5 3rd round, and PM 3rd round. (The gained ranking points with these wins: (30-1)+(55-30)+(190-105)+(215-120)= 234 points
Reference won: AOpen QF, RG Final, Wimbledon SF, and US Open SF (The gained ranking points with these wins: (780-430)+(2000-1300)+(1300-780)+(1300-780)= 2090 points
Wouldn't you think that the Reference player is better (when it really matters)?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,004 Posts
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players, Honorable Mentions pg. 3

Bethanie :sad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players, Honorable Mentions pg. 3

100


We begin the countdown with a familiar face here on TennisForum. It is a bit strange that a fairly standard journeywoman who only seems to play well in her home country would have such a large following, but perhaps having an admin as her biggest fan has something to do with that.

Johanna's biggest career accomplishments in singles have almost exclusively come at Bastad. This includes her lone WTA title in 2015. It remains to be seen what will happen to her career now that the tournament has been canceled after 2017.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
Re: The Top 100 Greatest Active Singles Players, Honorable Mentions pg. 3

99


Alla Kudryavtseva is a name we haven't seen much on tour lately, but she arrives on the countdown at #99. In addition to winning the prized Tashkent Slam in 2010, Alla's most notable moment in singles was putting the beatdown on Sharapova at Wimbledon the year that Sharapova was wearing her tuxedo outfit. Alla promptly made fun of it in her press conference afterwards. She also took Venus to 7-5 in the third at Wimbledon in 2007, the year Venus won her fourth title.

After falling off the radar in 2012, Alla made a brief return to the Top 100 in 2014, but has since struggled with injuries. She has put more emphasis on her doubles career in the past few years, and is currently stuck in qualification purgatory in her singles career.
 
21 - 40 of 567 Posts
Top