Originally Posted by LuckyR
You scoff in your second bolded statement at the idea of W/L record being meaningful. My answer: if it works for Pros, why use a convoluted system for everyone else? If you lose in the first round of Wimbledon, it doesn't matter to your ATP points if it is to Fed or a Lucky Loser, you get the same credit.
Wins and losses are usually related to whom you get lined up against. The ratings systems should operate independently of whom the opposition lines up against you. Therefore if you only get to play weak competition in league, that is not really your fault but you can still dominate them and earn a bump. However, if you manage to win all of these matches against weak sisters, but only barely do so, then no bump for you
. Contrast that with playing line 1 singles against only the stiffest competition and earning a record of 6-4. This might show that you are ready for the next level.
I am going to provide you with a real world example of why using wins / losses would cloud the ratings issue.
My 4.0 team has won districts and gone to sectionals 3 years in a row. We were very good relative to our peers. On this team we had 5 guys get bumped up this week. Each of these guys had solid successful seasons and their average record for our team was something like 10-4. This seems good, but not great ... however, once you consider that most of the losses came against other very good 4.0 players at sectionals the record seems a little more impressive.
Contrast that with 4 other guys on our roster that went undefeated this year. Their combined record for the season was something like 15-0. Not one of them got bumped, nor are they worthy of getting bumped. Why? Because we only let them play against the weak teams where we did not need the first team available to get the win.