Tennis Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Winning isn't everything it's the only thing.

Not a saying from tennis, but what if it was?

How would the players be ranked if they only got points for winning tournaments?

This is about top 10 players, so I'm not really disposed to give out points for anything below a Tier III. No bonus points for who you beat. Just looking at how players would be ranked based on the value of what tournaments they won, not WHO they beat to do it.

Again, it's about winning, not doing well. If you're a person who believes that winning in the big spots takes a little something more than skill and will, this measure is for you.

Now obviously, there's a lot more that goes into the WTA ranking than this. For example, a GS semi is worth about what a Tier II is, and I'm ignoring that. Making the semis isn't winning.<br />This is purely about winning.

NOTE: I'm counting the Sanex Championships as a Tier I. I admit, the WTA does give it more points than a Tier I. But it isn't a GS and this isn't that precise anyway.

By sheer number of wins

7 Lindsay_: Toray Pan Pacific (I), Scottsdale (II), Eastbourne (II), Los Angeles (II), Stuttgart (II), Zurich (I), Linz (II) <br />6 Venus___: Miami (I), Hamburg (II), WB (GS), San Diego (II), New Haven (II), US (GS)<br />4 Amelie__: Paris (II), Nice (II), Amelie Island (II), Berlin (I)<br />4 Monica__: Oklahoma (III), Bahia (II), Japan (III), Shanghai (III)<br />3 Jennifer: OZ (GS), Charleston (I), RG (GS)<br />3 Martina_: Sydney (II), Doha (III), Dubai (II)<br />3 Kim_____: Stanford (II), Liepzig (II), Luxemborg (III)<br />3 Serena__: Indian Wells (I), Toronto (I), WTA Champs (CH)<br />3 Jelena__: Rome (I), Toyota Princess Cup (II), Moscow (I)<br />2 Justine_: Canberra (III), 's-Hertogenbosch (III)

Six different players won Tier I's. Very good. Especially since none of those players are Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin or Martina Hingis. Assuming Monica has returned to her 2000 form, the entire top ten is now capable of winning a Tier I.

Sheer number of wins (condensed)

# GS T1 T2 T3 T4

7 xx 02 05 xx xx Lindsay<br />6 02 01 03 xx xx Venus<br />4 xx 01 03 xx xx Amelie<br />4 xx xx 01 02 01 Monica<br />3 02 01 xx xx xx Jennifer<br />3 xx 03 xx xx xx Serena<br />3 xx 02 01 xx xx Jelena<br />3 xx xx 02 01 xx Martina<br />3 xx xx 02 01 xx Kim<br />2 xx xx xx 02 xx Justine

And we see why Lindsay edged out Jenn for #1. She won more than twice as many tournaments. None less than a Tier II. And BTW, I've noticed that not many are looking to Jenn to defend OZ or RG. Look at her year in 2001. While she was in shape, 2 GS's and a Tier I.

WEIGHTED WINS - This is roughly the weight the WTA assigns to tournaments. I've probably given too much weight to Tier II's. Especially with the new math.

10 points GS<br />05 points Tier I (WTA Champs counted as Tier I)<br />03 points Tier II<br />01 points Tier III

Condensed

PT - Points<br /># number of tournaments<br />GS - A slam event<br />T1 - Tier I<br />T2 - Tier II<br />T3 - Tier III<br />T4 - Tier IV

PT # GS T1 T2 T3 T4

34 6 02 01 03 xx xx Venus

This is why a lot of people think Venus is the best player in the WTA. Those people value winning big tournaments as more important than anything else.<br />Venus wins a lot. She wins important tournaments.<br />(Personally, I think the WTA rankings are fine the way they are.)

25 7 xx 02 05 xx xx Lindsay<br />25 3 02 01 xx xx xx Jennifer

They only ended the year separated by 10 or 15 points. A tie using as crude a measure as this is to be expected. Withthe new math, Jenn would lead, because Lindsay's 5 Tier 2's have less relative value.

15 3 xx 03 xx xx xx Serena

A lower grade version of Jenn's year.<br />Not many tournament wins but HIGH grade wins

14 4 xx 01 03 xx xx Amelie<br />13 3 xx 02 01 xx xx Jelena

One peaked early, and we forgot about her. One peaked late, and because of 9/11, we may discount it. But measured in big tournament wins alone, this pair had a better year than the Belgians.

07 3 xx xx 02 01 xx Martina<br />07 3 xx xx 02 01 xx Kim

How did Martina, Kim and Justine get below Amelie and Jelena?

Martina, Kim and Justine all did very well in most of the tournaments they didn't win. But in this system, they don't get credit for that.

05 4 xx xx 01 02 01 Monica

The Asian tour at the end of the year was a good idea for Monica. (Anna K should try it.) She got a lot of match play and played whole tournaments. Still we're talking about Tier III and Tier IV fields vs Monica Seles. No bleeping contest. Bahia was aTier II, but she only had to beat Dokic. Now it's time to see if that strategy has paid off. Monica needs to get something big out of January. I figure Toray Pan Pacific. But if she can somehow nail Sydney, OZ becomes a possibility.

02 2 xx xx xx 02 xx Justine<br /> <br />Justine played well in a lot of tournaments, but didn't win them. We may yet find she's a 2nd cousin of Kimiko Date.

NOTE: I've done my best getting the Tiers and wins correct, but there may be errors. Corrections are happily accepted.

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,114 Posts
Interesting read <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .

Judging by the prize money, I believe that Bahia is a Tier II tournament.

Unfortunately so far it looks like Monica isn't playing Sydney, only Hopman Cup, before OZ open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
How physically demanding is Hopman Cup? Is she in any danger of lack of preparation?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,114 Posts
I think Hopman cup will be sufficient practice - I'm sure she knows what she's doing re :playing Sydney, this year I think she played too much before and during Oz (Hopman cup, doubles in Sydney as well as singles and doubles in OZ as well).

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Kart ]</p>
 

·
Plainclothes Division
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
I think if you broke it down by the WTA charts, it would be roughly 10-5-4-3-2. (The IV's were a bit overvalued this year.) How would that alter the points? What if you gave a 7 or 8 for the Tour Championships?

I'd do the math myself, but I'm crunching the numbers for the past ranking systems. (Almost done.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Valuing the II's at 4 instead of 3 hands Lindsay a clear victory over Jenn.

Monica moves up close to Martina, each with 11 points.

The Champs at 7 or 8 don't make any difference. Venus, Lindsay and Jenn are jst too far ahead.

A 10-5-4-3-2 system reward quantity a little more, and quality a little less. So Lindsay, Amelie and Monica all improve slightly. But the order doesn't actually change, though there are more ties now.

<br />The #4 - #10 players are very<br /> even. You might consider Serena, Amelie, Jelena a group ahead, but Martina, Kim, Justine, Monica had a lot of wins against that group in 2001. Ahead bya nose, maybe.

The #1 - #3 players are clearly in the group by thermselves, whatever ranking method you use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
One of the tournaments Lindsay won is a Tier III, I think it's either Scottsdale or Eastborne, I can't remember.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I like this analysis. It's a really interesting way to look at it.

Under the current WTA system (which has been changed from 2001), weighted wins would be as follows:

GS ----- 650<br />Champ- 485<br />Tier I--- 300 (avg)<br />Tier II-- 213 (avg)<br />Tier III- 131 (avg)<br />Tier IV- 95

Using this weight, the Top 10 would be as follows:

On a 100 point scale, the ranks would be:

1 Venus --- 100 <br />2 Lindsay - 74<br />3 Jennifer - 72<br />4 Serena -- 48<br />5 Amelie -- 42<br />6 Kim ----- 36<br />7 Jelena -- 36<br />8 Monica -- 25<br />9 Martina -- 25<br />10 Justine - 17

<br />A player's rank point consists of two values: Round points and quality points. This analysis is looking only at a portion of the round points (i,e. the WINNING ROUND). Interestingly enough, I did an analysis using the other part of the equation (QUALITY POINTS). That showed the calibre of players that the Top 10 defeated. The results were quite different (although Venus did still come out on top).

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Cheops ]</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Bahia is a II

Eastbourne and Scottsdale were both II's in 2001.

I'll correct that Bahia

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top