Also, how is it embarassing or irrelevant right now? In the Wozniacki thread, 77% of the people here agreed that she should be the #1. Your side was the clear minority. What evidence do you have that the ranking system is causing embarassment or irrelevancy?
I am sure 77% of Caroline's family agree she should be #1.
As far as the ranking system an embarrassment, why is it constantly being discussed? Why did Jankovic, Safina, and now Wozniacki have to endure all the snickering questions about their status as #1? No one questions the ATP ranking system. But it's been a constant theme about who the "real" #1 is on the WTA Tour. It's also been a consistent joke since they did away with the average ranking system, and several women have bee ranked #1 without having ever won a major in the preceding 12 months, or were ranked year end #1 without winning a major, or even appearing in a major final!
Did you catch the latest issue of Tennis magazine? Where Chris Evert took issue with Caroline as the "best player", or whatever it is called, the WTA ranking system? (You know you have a credibility problem when conservative Chris Evert challenges the so-called best player in the women's game.)
I admit it, though, I am dense. A ranking system that exists but DOESN'T determine who is the best player ? !
And oh, a ranking system that is not supposed to determine who is the best, but merely for an entry system. While true, it does determine an entry system. But in what other sport, or system, is a ranking list distributed that is not meant to show who is best at the time of the rankings? I know year end rankings are important - because tennis is a calendar year sport. But at the same time, the WTA publishes weekly rankings, based on a rolling 52 week system. And they tout it any time a player reaches #1. So becoming #1 does not equal being the best? I guess I am dense then, I thought being the best was being #1. But in WTA and Byan speak, being #1 means doing a lot of shopping at your garden variety WTA Tour events, and focusing on QUANTITY, not quality.
And a few further clarifications: An average ranking system, WHICH COUNTS EVERY RESULT!!!! and divides total # of points by # of event splayed (and I'm perfectly fine with no minimum divisor, but to satisfy, I'll theoretically throw out a min divisor of 16 events) is a FAIR SYSTEM! And in this system, EVERY RESULT DOES COUNT, I never claimed or inferred that an average ranking system WHERE EVERY RESULT COUNTS would there be an instance where a result wouldn't count. I merely referred to instances in the 1980s and 1990s where the WTA instituted a "play down" rule when Chris-Martina and Steffi-Monica were dominating the tour, and points earned in the few Tier III events they did win would modestly drop their ranking average. So the WTA allowed those players to take their ranking average, which happened to be more than the total points for a winner. But, even if there was no play down rule, should a player win an event that had fewer points than their ranking average, oh well. There would be precious few opportunities where that scenario could take place. But the WTA has historical perspective to avoid that. And again the play down rule came into play in only a very few events. And it certainly didn't disincent Chris, Martina, Steffi or Monica. And if one of those players didn't win a Tier III event, even losing in the final, it darn well better hurt their ranking. You see, a LOSS ought to have a negative impact on a ranking. Then again Bryan, in the system you support, the current WTA one - where you get to throw out bad results, those bad results don't hurt your ranking.....at all.:evil: What a perfect happy world (for Caroline and the like, those ugly pitiful 1R losses are wiped clean from the ranking ledger! Nope, didn't happen!)
Furthermore, Chris, Martina, Steffi, and Monica did gain something from winning smaller (Tier III) tournaments. A tournament title, the satisfaction of winning. And oh, supporting the WTA Tour..... by playing in a tournament!!! You see, the average ranking system didn't scare away the top players, like you keep inferring it might. And I did not say small events wouldn't challenge a top player. But if a top player, i.e., Serena or Kim wants to enter a Tier IV event, where no other woman is ranked in the top 25, then I do say - what is the point?
Not every tournament can be a premier event. Not every tournament can be a "mandatory" event. There is a hierarchy, plain and simple. Some tournaments are bigger, more prestigious, more important than others.
And as far as Caroline touting herself as #1, she did! She said you don't get to be #1 by winning small tournaments. I LOL'd at that big time. Perhaps a language thing, but Ponte Vedra, Copenhagen, and New Haven are small events. The US Open, Australian Open, WTA Tour Championships aren't small events!
So again: ALL RESULTS COUNT.
And again, who said top players shouldn't play in the vast majority of tournaments? Pro players are free to play in as many, or few tournaments as they please. If enough of them don't want to play, it means the tournaments themselves aren't important enough, hence the WTA isn't important enough.
No one is forcing top players to skip events. (Actually, it's kind of the opposite, since the WTA has been slowly chipping away at the calendar - shortening the season!!!!) And no top player can play in every event! Physically impossible. And, why are/should the top 10 players scheduling their season with an eye towards the lower Tier events? The WTA ought to focus on getting the top players to show up for the "mandatory" events. They may be "mandatory" (and it is necessary to put mandatory in quotes since intelligent folks know there is no such thing in reality on the WTA Tour....for instance when was the last time in a regular weekly Tour event that more than 7 top 10 players competed?) tournaments, allotting zero points for not playing. But fans, media don't care about zero pointers. They want to say the players competing at these "mandatory" events. Kind of tough to claim you have a "mandatory" policy, when in reality, "mandatory" doesn't exist for WTA Tour events.
So again, it's simple: an average ranking system is the fairest. And throw in (or not) a play down rule. It's still simple. And guess what, they have real computers these days (at least I think!) at the WTA. And so does most every one else. So it's actually quite easy for most interested folks to know how the rankings work, and how they can be calculated. No moving the goal posts. Just countin' every result.
I wonder if we had elections in this country, but we decided that some counties, cities' votes wouldn't count. Would folks think
that would be fair? We shouldn't have to count every result now, should we Bryan? Or perhaps MLB can say there only going to count a team's best 150 games, not 162 (how silly a number is 162 anyway!) We shouldn't have to count every result now, should we Bryan? And the next time the Spurs trounce the Lakers, you WON'T see that in the "L" column for the Lakers! A bad result, c'mon it was a Tuesday night game, and no one really cared about that mid February game anyway! Those Lakers have been working hard all season, we shouldn't have to count
every result now, should we Bryan? Next time Tiger Woods triple bogeys that hole, let's just let him write in par for the hole. Poor Tiger, he's had lots on his mind recently. We shouldn't count every result now, should we Bryan?
Are you getting the picture yet?
Average ranking system, where every result counts = FAIR
Current WTA ranking system, where
every result does not count = fair ?