WTA Ranking System - a complete mess!

luvly

Professional
That's why the promo portion of that rule is called the "Williams' Rule" because if WTA had guts the Williams' would have been banned from playing Miami for skipping out on Indian Wells. Until 2009 it wasn't a problem, but when they promoted Indian Wells to Premier Mandatory status, the WTA conceded so Venus and Serena could attract fans for Miami.

The Williams sister's are not the only one's who have benefited from this rule but such a rule pretty much does away with the idea of mandatory...why write rules that you have no intention of enforcing just leave it at the zero for the event and move on
 

DMan

Professional
I said, "you make a fundamental FALSE assumption when you claim the ranking system which averages all results punishes players who compete in a lot of events. It simply does not." and you said:
It isn't an assumption, it's a logical deduction.

So you ass-u-me'd something, right? You might consider it a logical deduction, but it is not, nor has it ever been a fact!

And in fact you yourself admitted it is true earlier in this thread, when you said:

"possible that by winning a small to medium size event, their ranking average goes down."
And I also said, right after that, that the WTA instituted their"play down rule" for Chrissie-Martina and Steffi-Monica (the only players ever afforded that, because they dominated the game), that eliminated the possibility that winning a tournament could harm a ranking average.

First of all, what you are referring to as small to medium size events(International and the smaller Premier events) are the lion's share of the WTA tour. Here's the breakdown:

Slams(4)
Premier Mandatory(4) -- Madrid, Miami, Indian Wells, Beijing
Premier 5(5) -- -- Dubai, Rome, Toronto, Cincinatti, Tokyo
Premier(11)
International(31)

The small events(International) are, by themselves, by far the majority of the events(31 of 55 events, or 56.4%). If you add in the medium events(the Premier events, which would lower Clijsters average even if won and do virtually nothing for Wozniacki if she won) you are now up to over 76%. Think about what you are saying here. You are saying that greater than three-quarters of the WTA's professional events should not be played by top players. If you want to destroy the sport, just ban it. It's a lot simpler and would have the same result.

I'll put it simply Bryan (and I know how hard it is when you work for the WTA). The WTA is not riding on the success of the Premier and International events (what used to be Tier III and Tier IV events. They may make up 76%, as you say. But fans, the media, and the top 10 players aren't hooked into these events as though they are the bread and butter of the tour. They're simply....NOT! I also didn't say that top players shouldn't play in three quarters of the events. I do wonder why you and Caroline are touting wins in Ponte Vedra, Copenhagen, and New Haven as being worthy enough to earn the distinction of being the best in the women's game, when Clijsters has won the Australian Open, US Open, and WTA Tour Championships int he same 12 month period.

Destroy the sport, ban it? What are you talking about?

Think about how you laid it out:
4 majors
4 Premier Mandatory (whatever mandatory means!!)
5 Premier events
11 sub-premier

Isn't that 24 events? Sounds like a lot to me.....and more than any woman who is routinely getting to semis and finals of events would commit to. You've got to be a Jankovic to do that. (Jankovic = a series of desultory early round losses, commensurate with her actual talent, which is certainly not nor has it ever been worthy of being #1!!!)



Not only that, but how do you get to 16 events then? Go add em up. There are only 13 above the Premier level. So you literally can't get there.
Not to mention things like warm-up tournaments, the scheduling fact that playing all of the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 events is not right for peaking at the right times, etc.

It isn't? So what's your point? The top stars should ditch the big events to play the smaller ones?



I mean to avoid these 'unworthy' events you can't play any grass tournaments between FO and Wimbledon to get your grass game into shape. Only one of them is even a Premier. After Wimbledon? You better take the next month off, and with no quality competition coming into it, then try to play well at Premier 5 Toronto and Cincinatti back-to-back. Does that make sense to ANYONE? During the three weeks between Beijing and the important year-end championships you can't play at all either, whether you might think you need to or not, because doing so will lower your ranking playing at these sad-sack events.

Who said any of these things, besides you.

Let me return to my very simple point:

To avoid further embarrassment, and near certain irrelevance, the WTA needs to institute fair ranking system for all, where EVERY tournament result counts, and total points earned are divided by # of events played, with a minimum divisor that Bryan Swartz (and not the WTA Tour) gets to choose!
How simple and easy is that to understand!

This is just so absurd!

Your argument is absurd. Please re-read what I just wrote above.

Any player who wants to play a respectably full-time schedule(20-25 events, which still allows for 20 weeks off every year!) has to play, at a minimum, 7-12 of these lower-level events.

How many top women players in the last 30+ years has ever played a respectable full-time schedule, of 20-25 events per year?

We are talking about between a third and half of a professional player's schedule that just gets poured down the drain by the average rankings system.

NOTHING gets poured down the drain in an average ranking system. In fact, just the OPPOSITE! Every result counts! It's a plain and simple formula. You're just fearing REALITY! Tennis is a sport. In EVERY match there is a winner and loser. In fact in every tournament, only one player escapes unscathed! So every week all but one player comes out a LOSER. It's simple, you know. If a player is too afraid, or someone like Bryan is too afraid a pro player might take a bad loss, and heaven forbid, a ranking suffer as a result of a LOSS, perhaps pro tennis isn't for you!

No other pro sport allows you to throw out (potentially) multiple bad losses.


Again, sorry to burst your bubble, but mandatory events don't exist, even if you say:

This is another lie. Yes there are, as discussed above. The WTA itself calls the top level of event below the Slams the 'Premier Mandatory' category. A top player has to take a result from these events. It's a zero if they don't play. It still counts against them, whether they are injured or don't like the TD or have a funeral or can't be arsed to show up or whatever the reason is.

Mandatory doesn't mean showing up to so some PR. It means playing the event. All I need to say about that is:

Indian Wells. Serna and Venus Williams.

'nuff said about "mandatory" events.

So, in summation, it's pretty clear I've won this argument by a score of 6-0,6-0. Ouch! Sorry Bryan, this loss COUNTS on your ledger in my average ranking system. You'll be forced to go back to qualies now!
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
So you ass-u-me'd something, right? You might consider it a logical deduction, but it is not, nor has it ever been a fact!

No I didn't assume. I have demonstrated it both in this thread and in the Wozniacki one. Furthermore, you admitted it in this thread as I showed in my last post.

also said, right after that, that the WTA instituted their"play down rule" for Chrissie-Martina and Steffi-Monica (the only players ever afforded that, because they dominated the game), that eliminated the possibility that winning a tournament could harm a ranking average.

Correct, but this is 'moving the goalposts'. Once you institute a play-down rule, you are no longer doing what you advocated(average ranking system). You also still have a situation where a player has a strong disincentive to play these events. They have no possibility of gaining anything no matter how well they play, and if they lose, even if in the final, they drop. This encourages less play from the top players.

Furthermore, this is also a fundamental unfairness, because how many points a tournament is worth should not depend on the players ranking going in. That's just perverse.


I'll put it simply Bryan (and I know how hard it is when you work for the WTA).

I've already said I don't work for the WTA. This is the third time since I told you that in which you've chosen to repeat this completely foundless, brazen lie. For the last time, I ask you to stop and discuss the issue like an adult.

But fans, the media, and the top 10 players aren't hooked into these events as though they are the bread and butter of the tour. They're simply....NOT!

Yes, they are the bread and butter of the tour. When you are talking about over three-quarters of the tour, it is a contradiction in terms to call it something else. The fans and media are always going to be hooked into the top events, not the bread and butter. But that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making, which is that it is ridiculous to say that top players shouldn't be playing these events.

I do wonder why you and Caroline are touting wins in Ponte Vedra, Copenhagen, and New Haven as being worthy enough to earn the distinction of being the best in the women's game, when Clijsters has won the Australian Open, US Open, and WTA Tour Championships int he same 12 month period.

Here's another lie. Actually a couple of them. Nobody has said anything in this thread about Caroline touting anything. And I have specifically said, and demonstrated with no rebuttal whatsoever from you, that the ranking system is not about establishing who is best. Furthermore, I have also said(while maintaining that it's irrelevant) that I think Clijsters is the best player.

Destroy the sport, ban it? What are you talking about?

The simple fact that telling top players they shouldn't participate in the vast majority of their own sports professional events encourages less activity from them and therefore hurts the sport.

How many top women players in the last 30+ years has ever played a respectable full-time schedule, of 20-25 events per year?

I don't need 30 years. I'll just use the last one. 13 of the current WTA Top 20 have played 20 or more events in the past year. Next question?

NOTHING gets poured down the drain in an average ranking system. In fact, just the OPPOSITE! Every result counts!

Every result does not count. You have yourself admitted at least twice in this thread(including the post where you said this) that top women cannot improve their ranking at all by playing small to medium size events. Such evenets are therefore getting poured down the drain, because they do not contribute to their ranking, it's pointless for them to play them, etc.

Mandatory doesn't mean showing up to so some PR. It means playing the event.

No it doesn't. We haven't been discussing WTA PR policy in this thread. We've been discussing the ranking system. In the ranking system, these events are mandatory. You can't replace a Slam, Premier Mandatory, or one of the required Premier 5s with a different event. Ergo, they are mandatory, whether you like it or not.

Who said any of these things, besides you.

You implied them when you said small events aren't enough to challenge top players, and admitted that you advocate them getting no ranking benefit whatsoever from them no matter how well they play there. It is the inevitable consequence of your position.

To avoid further embarrassment, and near certain irrelevance, the WTA needs to institute fair ranking system for all, where EVERY tournament result counts, and total points earned are divided by # of events played, with a minimum divisor that Bryan Swartz (and not the WTA Tour) gets to choose!
How simple and easy is that to understand!

Very simple and easy to understand, and as I've demonstrated umpteen times, not at all fair. You yourself have begun advocated exceptions being made, so you apparently don't want it to be this simple either.

Furthermore, I'm not the one coming up with the divisor. I'm using the minimum tournaments that the WTA currently uses(16) in their rankings. 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?
 

DMan

Professional
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!) :confused:

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 ? :confused:
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
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.

They had to endure all the questions because the media loves controversy. Period and end of sentence. It is an unassailable fact that the WTA and ATP have fundamentally similar systems. So if nobody questions the ATP system but they do question the WTA, that demonstrates the problem isn't the system itself(given the high similarity).

It is hardly Wozniacki's family that is voting here in the poll. Fail of an answer there. And no I haven't read Chris Evert's article. What was her argument? I'd certainly be interested in what she said, but the fact that she doesn't like something doesn't inherently make it bad. She's one person.

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.

No it doesn't. Quality is more important. I alluded to this in the other thread, but I'll break it down in detail for you. Possible WTA tour points for top players:

YEC -- 1500
Slams -- 8000
PM -- 4000
Premier 5(2 required) -- 1800(900 ea.)
Garden Variety/Mickey Mouse events(International) -- 1680(280 ea.)

Even if a player plays six of the small events(instead of playing some bigger ones instead and therefore playing tougher competition), you have 15,300 points available from the big events, 1,680 from the small events. Doing the math, that's 90.1% of points available being from the big events(in a worst-case scenario, so it's at least that much). That is almost as far at it is possible to get from favoring quantity over quality!

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!

Wozniacki's points from Pontre Vedra, Copenhagen, and New Haven: 1030(New Haven is not a small event, it's a medium event(Premier))
Clijsters points from USO, AO, and Tour Championships: 5,340

That's better than a 5:1 edge for Clijsters. The WTA is hardly rewarding Wozniacki the same for winning small events. The difference is, Wozniacki consistently had solid to good results at the big events(SF at AO, F at WTC, SF at USO), while Clijsters skipped a Slam(the French Open) and half of the PM events(Beijing and Madrid). Part-time players get part-time rankings. It's a testament to her excellence in the rest of the events that she's ranked as high as she is and is about to retake #1.

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 didn't say you did, but simply pointed out that if a tournament can only hurt a players ranking and cannot help it, the effect is that it doesn't count. I have no problems with a bad loss hurting a player's ranking: it should. But if an event only hurts you no matter how well you play, that's just as fundamentally unfair as throwing out results. That's why I proposed, and still favor, my 'compromise' system.

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.

No inference, I've directly stated it. And you are correct -- because those players were professionals, unlike some of today's players. But the system needs to be fair(not punishing players for playing a lot of events) and encourage high participation. Some players are and will be more like the Williams sisters. The ranking system has to work when players don't have a high commitment to the tour: it needs to not reward them for that and punish those who do.

who said top players shouldn't play in the vast majority of tournaments?

You did. You said smaller events aren't enough to challenge a top player, and justified it hurting them in the rankings. What other possible conclusion can be drawn from this?

And no top player can play in every event! Physically impossible.

No one has suggested this.

Current WTA ranking system, where every result does not count = fair ?

I haven't said this. I've repeatedly said I don't like throwing out results: I've just pointed out that your solution is equally unfair and, in addition, far more damaging to the game. Hence the idea that I suggested and you rejected.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Now that Clijsters is officially ranked #1 according to this obviously flawed system :roll: , just like everybody that knows how the system works predicted, - could we move this thread to 'FAIL Thread' section.....
 

cork_screw

Hall of Fame
Seriously, I don't think a lot of people other than if you're a chick really cares about the WTA. Yeah, clijsters is probably the best of them and she's probably the last remaining quality player from the whole williams sisters era to be still consistently playing and winning, but seeing Wozniacki play is a joke. She represents everything about the WTA. I keep up with the WTA as much as I keep up with the WNBA.

The only thing that I've really noticed with this era of power (eastern european) tennis is that no woman really stands out, they all blend in with each other and have the same playing style, no one has has a unique style or really identifies herself. Yeah, there's schiavonne, but she's erratic at times. All the girls play the exact same and they even have the same weaknesses:: Serve, bad net play, bad transitional game, lack of overall fundamentals, mixing it up with spins, slices, off speed shots. Most of the women don't like to play a type of off speed junk game, that I think you learn fundamentals with. Most of them are rhythm players. Does anyone remember Rocky where he had to chase a chicken to build coordination and footwork? Do we have that for learning fundamentals? I think the best era in the women's game was in the 90's. Yeah a lot less power, but more fundamentals and varied, overall well rounded game. And they were just more interesting matches to watch.
 

DMan

Professional
It is hardly Wozniacki's family that is voting here in the poll. Fail of an answer there. And no I haven't read Chris Evert's article. What was her argument? I'd certainly be interested in what she said, but the fact that she doesn't like something doesn't inherently make it bad. She's one person.

Chris Evert, a smart one. And she has a column every month in Tennis magazine. Not too difficult to understand the concept of the magazine.


I didn't say you did, but simply pointed out that if a tournament can only hurt a players ranking and cannot help it, the effect is that it doesn't count. I have no problems with a bad loss hurting a player's ranking: it should. But if an event only hurts you no matter how well you play, that's just as fundamentally unfair as throwing out results. That's why I proposed, and still favor, my 'compromise' system.
What are you talking about. I already explained that the former, FAIR, WTA average ranking system had a 'play down' rule which meant the very, very top 1 or 2, if their ranking averages were higher than the total # of points for a tournament winner would receive their ranking average instead of tournament winner points. Hence, no tournament WIN could ever hurt a player's ranking. EVER. And no result would be the equivalent of throwing it out.


No inference, I've directly stated it. And you are correct -- because those players were professionals, unlike some of today's players. But the system needs to be fair(not punishing players for playing a lot of events) and encourage high participation. Some players are and will be more like the Williams sisters. The ranking system has to work when players don't have a high commitment to the tour: it needs to not reward them for that and punish those who do.
What system "punishes" a player for playing in many events. The average ranking system which uses a minimum divisor "punishes" players who play in too few tournaments. And those gals who want to play in 28 events, half of wich they never get beyond the 2nd or 3rd round shouldn't have an "inflated" ranking merely because they collect points for showing up all the time. Again, it's called quantity. There is a difference in quality.

An average ranking system rewards quality, and it rewards high level consistency. Not your QF/SF gal results, a la Wozniacki, Jankovic.


I haven't said this. I've repeatedly said I don't like throwing out results: I've just pointed out that your solution is equally unfair and, in addition, far more damaging to the game. Hence the idea that I suggested and you rejected.

I've said over and over and over again: EVERY RESULT SHOULD COUNT! There is a complete failure in and lack of logic to concur that is an unfair system. Equality, as in all results count = unfair? :confused: And it's "damaging" to the game ? ! :confused:
Sounds like someone who works for the WTA is so fearful that WTA tournaments will disappear, because female tennis players couldn't be bothered to play in pro tournaments, merely because their RESULTS in EVERY EVENT they play in would count in their rankings!

The ranking system is still a complete mess.

Evidence #8238:
Caroline Wozniacki is #1 again!

snicker, snicker, snicker!!!

However, I find it a joyful exercise that there is an obsession over it. And it's perversely fun to see and listen to the WTA'ers like Bryan and Stacy Alalster have to exhaustively explain away their tour and ranking system.
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
Since you continue to ignore what I've said, shadow-box phantom arguments that I've not made and have in fact specifically denied, etc., I'm through with this discussion as far as you are concerned.

If you, or others, are interested at any point in the future in having an adult conversation about the rankings, I'll still be here.
 

Lunaticalm

New User
The OP is just beating a dead horse. It's no secret that Caroline is not the best number one player on tour but she is the most consistent and most dedicated player ATM, just like what happened to Jankovic and Safina these past few years. But I do believe she has the most potential out of the three of them to achieve much more, mainly to win a GS title.

Even I, as a Caroline fan, or I think any person with clear reasoning, admit that she can't hold up a candle to the Grand Slam winners like Serena, Venus or Kim but she does a great job of promoting the sport and living up to her commitments to tournaments which the aforementioned players fail to do. That is what the ranking system rewards whether you like it or not. Simply put, you must play outside of the GS events too to keep your ranking or we might as well scrap the tournaments outside the GS and watch tennis four times a year. Is that what you want?

What is so hard to understand about that? Seriously, You Woz haters are making a mountain out of a molehill and I really question your logic.
 

glazkovss

Professional
Best players who win slams (like Serena and Kim) play too little other tournaments or play them badly so it's neither system's problem, nor no.1 ranked player's.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
The ranking system is still a complete mess.

Evidence #8238:
Caroline Wozniacki is #1 again!

snicker, snicker, snicker!!!

Yes its completely the Systems Fault that Clijsters has chosen to not play again until Indian Wells and that Caroline decided to play and is winning matches. If Clijsters actually decided to play this tournament, she would probably have maintained the top spot, its not the fault of the system if the players who are the best in terms of ability are not going to work to maintain the top spot. I said this in regards to Serena and I will say this in regards to Clijsters. When Clijsters or Serena is number 1 suddenly all the complaints disappear but when they don't maintain it and lose it the system is a mess...I love the logic.
 

OrangePower

Legend
A question for those who know the ins and outs of how the WTA rankings work:

What are the major differences between it and the ATP rankings method that make the WTA ranking system a "complete mess"? (not my words, but seems to be the opinion of some)

I know the ATP system pretty well but don't really know the WTA system. I always thought is was kinda similar (slams must count, plus some compulsory tournaments, and then top whatever other results). So what about the WTA system makes it less effective than the ATP system?

Or is the ATP system equally "broken" in the eyes of some, except that we've had a period of dominant #1 players in Fed and Rafa and so the ATP system has not been exposed?
 

Kaz00

Semi-Pro
They need to reduce the amount of money earned at smaller tournaments to encourage players to try harder at slams to get the big money.
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
Those who oppose the WTA system should oppose the ATP system equally, since they are very similar as you mention.

The difference between the tours is mainly the fact that the ATP doesn't have top players who disregard the large and mid-level events between the Slams.
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
Those who oppose the WTA system should oppose the ATP system equally, since they are very similar as you mention.

The difference between the tours is mainly the fact that the ATP doesn't have top players who disregard the large and mid-level events between the Slams.

This is totally true.
 

equinox

Hall of Fame
#1 = current rolling grandslam title holder.

anything else is a joke ranking system.

a single gs is worth 10+ minor titles.
 

DMan

Professional
Since you continue to ignore what I've said, shadow-box phantom arguments that I've not made and have in fact specifically denied, etc., I'm through with this discussion as far as you are concerned.

If you, or others, are interested at any point in the future in having an adult conversation about the rankings, I'll still be here.

Awwww sweetie, I knew it would come to this. The truth sure does hurt. Condolences!

I continue to point out the flaws in the current system. I continue to explain what would be a FAIR system. EVERY RESULT COUNTS. Plain and simple.

Yet you continue to want a 'compromise' system because of paranoia that players "might" not play in a lot of events.

This has been a plenty adult conversation. As I said before, if it were a tennis match, the score would be 6-0, 6-0 in my favor. And that bad loss WOULD count in your ranking average. :twisted:

For the hundredth billionth time:

A FAIR ranking system is one where EVERY RESULT COUNTS (you simply don't get to throw away ANY bad results, EVER!) And even if you have a high ranking average, a tournament win won't hurt your ranking average. Also, no faux mandatory events either. And let the chips fall where they may as far as player participation, number of tournaments played, and the future of women's pro tournaments. Afterall, back in the 1970s there were many, many women only pro events that had participation by all the top stars. You can count on one hand how many exist today. The sport does grow and change. An average ranking system does not punish players who compete in a lot of events. If you play a lot and win a lot, your ranking average remains high. If you play a lot, and you have mixed results, why would expect to have a higher ranking?

Still, is there anyone out there who wants to make a different argument on how come bad results shouldn't count? And is there another example from pro sports today where a bad result (and I don't mean sports where judges levy a score, and the high and low are thrown out, because judging is subjective.) I am talking about objective wins and losses. Football, basketball, baseball, golf, track, soccer. Is there a pro league that lets a team throw out a loss int he standings? Do golfers get to eliminate a bad hole or two from their tournament score, so it's really the best of 70 holes?
In tennis matches, can a player erase a string of unforced errors from the match, just because she was going through a bad patch?

No, the current system is a mess!

Oh, and here's a prediction: Wozniacki will in all likelihood hold onto the #1 ranking for most of the year. I am predicting she won't win the French or Wimbledon. If that happens, and she is #1 seed at both French and Wimbledon, she will go through 4 consecutive majors as #1 seed without winning it. I relish the thought of how much more we're going hear about the current WTA ranking system! Bring it on!
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
here's a prediction: Wozniacki will in all likelihood hold onto the #1 ranking for most of the year.

Extremely unlikely. Clijsters will almost certainly gain it back by the clay-court season, and as long as she keeps playing well and full-time, Wozniacki will be hard-pressed to take it from her.
 

OrangePower

Legend
I continue to point out the flaws in the current system. I continue to explain what would be a FAIR system. EVERY RESULT COUNTS. Plain and simple.

DMan, please see my earlier question... do you feel that the ATP ranking system is similarly flawed, or is there some significant difference between the WTA and ATP system that makes the WTA significantly worse in your opinion?
 
I'm not interested in getting involved in the whole current system vs. average system or whether Clijsters or Wozniacki should be ranked #1 discussion. I just want to point out some factual errors by the OP in regards to Wozniacki.

Both Clijsters and Wozniacki have 5 tournaments in the last 1 2months. Let’s compare:
Kim: Australian Open, US Open, WTA Tour Championships, Miami, Cincinnati
Caroline: Ponte Vedra, Copenhagen, New Haven, Tokyo, Beijing
I wonder whose trophy case is more impressive?

Wozniacki also won Montreal which is a Premier 5 like Cincinatti. Clijsters also played Montreal, btw.

The tennis year is 10+ months long. Difficult for any player to maintain a high level throughout the year. Bad results happen; the competition is fierce. Currently, why can those bad losses be thrown out? How come Caroline's 1R losses in some tournaments get thrown out, but Jelena's 1R losses at other tournaments don't? I mean Jelena probably hurt her pinky at one of those bad 1R losses, the poor dear. Why should she suffer so, when Caroline gets the easy breezy way out, and tosses her 1R clunker of a loss from Madrid?

Double fault: 1) Caroline didn't lose in 1R, she lost in 2R. 2) You can't throw out your Madrid result, it's Premier Mandatory tournament. So Caroline is forced to count the only 80 points she gained there as one of her 16 results.
And since you're already talking about injury; Caroline actually was injured during Madrid (and most of the clay season).


Since you continue to ignore what I've said, shadow-box phantom arguments that I've not made and have in fact specifically denied, etc., I'm through with this discussion as far as you are concerned.

If you, or others, are interested at any point in the future in having an adult conversation about the rankings, I'll still be here.

Awwww sweetie, I knew it would come to this. The truth sure does hurt. Condolences!

I continue to point out the flaws in the current system. I continue to explain what would be a FAIR system. EVERY RESULT COUNTS. Plain and simple.

Yet you continue to want a 'compromise' system because of paranoia that players "might" not play in a lot of events.

This has been a plenty adult conversation. As I said before, if it were a tennis match, the score would be 6-0, 6-0 in my favor. And that bad loss WOULD count in your ranking average. :twisted:

As far as who 'won' the argument between you and Bryan I just want to say your slandering and demeaning attitude hurts you in my eyes. Bryan is far more objective and respectful which makes him look better whether he's 'right' or not. I wouldn't want to discuss with you, either, when you engage in the kind of personal attacks you do here.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If anyone been watching Dubai they would know why Caro is rank #1 player. You don't reach #1 for not having quality and consistency day in and day out.
 

Spin Doctor

Professional
Does Wozniacki deserve to be #1? Yes. She plays consistently in the most events which is what the ranking system is meant to reward. And I say this as someone who sees this woman/girl as a blight on women's/girl's tennis.

Sadly this situation just further degrades the meaning of the #1 ranking on the WTA. A situation started long ago by the Ivanovic/Jankovic/Safina era. On the ATP the #1 ranking still represents something worth achieving. On the WTA the #1 ranking is meaningless.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Does Wozniacki deserve to be #1? Yes. She plays consistently in the most events which is what the ranking system is meant to reward. And I say this as someone who sees this woman/girl as a blight on women's/girl's tennis.

Agree.

Sadly this situation just further degrades the meaning of the #1 ranking on the WTA. A situation started long ago by the Ivanovic/Jankovic/Safina era. On the ATP the #1 ranking still represents something worth achieving. On the WTA the #1 ranking is meaningless.

But Ivanovic won the slam in 2008, along with Maria, Serena and Venus. 4 players reached #1 that year...maria, serena, jankovic and ana. If you say Ana doesn't deserve the #1 then no player deserve the #1 ranking that year.
 

deluxe

Semi-Pro
Serena thinks Wozza is a deserving #1:

Serena.png
 

CCNM

Hall of Fame
If a player chooses not to play in a tournament (Kim C didn't play in Dubai) does she lose points, or just not get any?
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
you just don't get any. You never get negative points.

Only if you had no points to defend at the event in question the year before. Kim didn't have any to defend so she didn't get or lose any, but should she choose to not play something she played last year, she would indeed get negative points.
 

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
You are totally right that you lose points if you don't defend them, but I don't look at that as negative points. Maybe it's a semantic thing, but you are just not getting those points anymore, as opposed to having a -100 or whatever from an event which would be negative points. It's just a zero if you don't play it.
 

soyizgood

G.O.A.T.
The WTA ranking system isn't nearly as a mess as the PGA tour. Lee Westwood got to #1 without winning ANY majors in the 2 year span which the rankings tallies the points.
 

Spin Doctor

Professional
^^Good point, but the difference it that Lee Westwood is a great player with all the shots of a major winner. I think almost any pro would say that he has a great game and can beat any player on tour, including the great champions. He just hasn't done it yet in a major.

With Woz most people would say that she is not capable of beating the best players (i.e Williams/Clijsters etc.)

Which is why Westwood is not disrespected for being the #1 player. In fact he is considered very deserving.
 

Spin Doctor

Professional
Agree.



But Ivanovic won the slam in 2008, along with Maria, Serena and Venus. 4 players reached #1 that year...maria, serena, jankovic and ana. If you say Ana doesn't deserve the #1 then no player deserve the #1 ranking that year.

Yes she won a slam. But she could only hold on to #1 for what, a month? On the men's side the players hold on to #1 for years. Yeah, she got injured. But let's be honest, she was more interested in chasing boyfriends than holding on to that ranking.
 

soyizgood

G.O.A.T.
Lee Westwood was/has been hyped up for about 10 years. Sure he's helped Europe win Ryder Cups and has done well at some of the majors, but he was billed as Europe's answer to Tiger Woods. IMO he hasn't lived up to the hype. At least he's more productive than Sergio Garcia, the ultimate choker.
 
Last edited:

soyizgood

G.O.A.T.
I have nothing against Wozniacki being #1. I don't like her game and I think her mental toughness is a bit overrated by her fans. She actually is what the WTA envisions as a #1: someone who plays the schedule and shows up at all events she's scheduled to play in.

If you are truly the best, you show up to work and perform your best day in and out. Is that too much ask for from Serena, Venus, Clijsters to play more than just slams and premier mandatories? Sure Clijsters has her duties as a wife and mother. Venus has played more than Serena over the years and her injuries are catching up. Serena just sometimes doesn't seem to care at all about the tour.

Woz is ranked #1, but whether or not she's the best player is quite debatable. It probably won't mean much in two years anyway as Venus/Serena/Clijsters will all be retired and/or declining. Even before that I expect to see Azarenka/Kvitova/Kleybanova/Pavlyuchenkova/Wickmayer and perhaps any of Watson/Mladenovic/Robson/Stevens/Pervak making their presence felt.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I am already dreading Wozniacki as the next dominant player and winning 6 slams or more. I hope I am totally wrong on that. There really is nobody to stop her once the current superstars retire. Someone like Kvitova can take her on a hot day, but beyond that.
 

ninman

Hall of Fame
Can I point out that since the start of 2008 only 3 grand slams have been won by the current world number 1. That's 3 out of 12. australian Open 2009 - nadal, wimbledon and us open 2010, the rest were won by the current world number 2 or lower.
 

soyizgood

G.O.A.T.
Can I point out that since the start of 2008 only 3 grand slams have been won by the current world number 1. That's 3 out of 12. australian Open 2009 - nadal, wimbledon and us open 2010, the rest were won by the current world number 2 or lower.

Nadal won FO 2008, Wimby 2008 as well as FO 2010. That's 6. Even if you meant 2009 Nadal still holds 4 of the past 9 slams.

Now if you meant by #1 going into that particular major, you might be right. I'll have to check. I thought Federer was #1 when he won the USO 2008, but I could be mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Top