PDA

View Full Version : Do women's points for rankings work the same as men's?


Brett
01-15-2011, 08:46 AM
Like do they defend their points at each tournament and lose them as same as the men's? And do they gain points based off how far they got in the tournament just like the men? How is it different from the men's ranking system?

Max G.
01-15-2011, 11:59 AM
It is similar in that it is a 52-week rolling system, like mens.

The point values for tournaments are different, and they have different systems for deciding how much a tournament is worth. Also, a different number of tournaments is required.

Up until recently they also had "quality points" awarded for beating high-ranked players, but I think they've since done away with that.

So yeah, as far as I know, it's pretty similar.

Bud
01-15-2011, 12:15 PM
It is similar in that it is a 12-week rolling system, like mens.

The point values for tournaments are different, and they have different systems for deciding how much a tournament is worth. Also, a different number of tournaments is required.

Up until recently they also had "quality points" awarded for beating high-ranked players, but I think they've since done away with that.

So yeah, as far as I know, it's pretty similar.

I think you mean 52 week ;)

msc886
01-15-2011, 12:56 PM
Don't think so. These days we rarely get slamless no.1's in the mens whereas in the women tennis, slamless no.1's are common.

Bryan Swartz
01-15-2011, 02:15 PM
Yes, it is basically the same. The differences are minor: both work on a rolling 52-week ranking period, with points being defended the next year. Great example at the AO: all other things being equal, Serena Williams will drop to approximately #14 from #4 as she will not be defending her crown.

Main differerences:

** Men's are based on 18 events(bonus for DC and WTF); women's is based on 16 events

** Women's points don't drop off as drastically for losing. For example, the loser of a Slam final gets 1200 points for the men, but 1400 for the women: SF gets 720 men, 900 women; etc.

'Slamless no. 1's' has very little to do with differences in the ranking system, but in the players themselves. Nobody on the women's tour is as dominant as Federer or Nadal, and they also aren't nearly as consistent in playing events throughout the year(esp. the Williams' sisters). IIRC, everyone who won a slam last year on the women's side also missed a slam(most of them multiple slams) as well as major lesser events -- so a more consistent player who didn't win a slam still easily outpoints them(i.e, Zvonareva and Wozniacki).

Max G.
01-15-2011, 05:37 PM
I think you mean 52 week ;)


Oops, you're right. I was thinking something of a mix between 52-week and 12-month, and it didn't work out :)

jamesblakefan#1
01-15-2011, 06:29 PM
IIRC, everyone who won a slam last year on the women's side also missed a slam(most of them multiple slams) as well as major lesser events -- so a more consistent player who didn't win a slam still easily outpoints them(i.e, Zvonareva and Wozniacki).

Schiavone didn't miss a slam I think, but SW and Clijsters both did. And yes the two systems are pretty similar, to the point that where it's not unfathomable to think Murray could have been #1 in another era given his resume, and Rios was #1 without a slam.