WTA Rankings -- Why They Work

[Bryan Swartz]

Once again we are having a spate of threads where DMan holds forth about how much the WTA rankings suck, and why we should go to what he's advocated before, the average rankings system. This system is simple:

1. Add up all points from all events
2. Divide by the number of events, or a minimum divisor, whichever is greater. In this case we will use what the WTA uses, 16 events.

Below are listed the top 8 plus the Williams sisters, and what their ranking would be if we used the average ranking system:

1. Kim Clijsters(482.88, #3 in WTA)
2. Caroline Wozniacki(433.35, #1)
3. Vera Zvonareva(358.86, #2)
4. Maria Sharapova(340.38, #7)
5. Na Li(315.86, #5)
6. Victoria Azarenka(315.86, #4)
7. Petra Kvitova(265.05, #6)
8. Francesca Schiavone(236.19, #8 )

Serena Williams(106.88 )
Venus Williams(91.25)

So we have rankings that are in fact quite similar. Clijsters is #1, but Wozniacki is still up there as the clear #2 and unless Clijsters comes back strong for the USO, she's going to be waving good-bye to that top spot. What is absolutely not deniable is this does nothing to remove the top claim against Woz: she hasn't won a slam omgzorz we can't have a Slamless #1. Well who are the Slam champions? Clijsters, Li, and Kvitova. Note that even under the average ranking system, we have three, count em, three, players who didn't win a Slam ranked above those who did. So that accomplishes ... what exactly?

There is also the 'Wozniacki isn't a threat to the top players like Li, Williamses, Clijsters, etc.'. And yet she's ranked above almost all of those players under this system. So the point was ....

And furthermore, average rankings:

1. Penalize players coming back from injury, as early losses while they work back into shape will hurt their ranking.
2. Tell top players not to play even mid-level events. Note that if you add an event like Charleston, Stuttgart, Brussels, etc. to Clijsters and she wins it(470 points) her ranking still goes down. That's the ticket. Tell people they are only going to see top players at the few elite events.
3. Any loss prior to the final in even a Premier Mandatory like Beijing, Indian Wells, etc. will cause a similar loss, so they shouldn't play those unless they are in top form. How they are going to get into top form without playing one of those lesser tournaments that will lower their ranking for their arrogance to play such an event is beyond me, but nevertheless, there it is.
4. No penalty whatsoever for skipping a Slam if they aren't in great form.

Etc.

So what exactly of worth is accomplished by this 'brave new world', were it ever to be implemented?

 

[Boom23]

Even retired players like Davenport, Navratilova, and Evert mock the ranking system on air. Your attempts to justify the ranking system is futile my friend.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

and your alternative is what, Boom23?

Or do you just have no idea how the system actually works but just feel Wozniacki doesn't deserve to be number 1 based on your opinion?

The current ranking system rewards the players who go out and play tennis. Whoah.

If players like Serena or Kim C want to be number 1, let them play more than a handful of tournaments.

duh

I don't think that highly of Woz, either, but she has won a lot of tennis matches this year...

 

[soyizgood]

DMan probably wants an average based system so he can see fewer WTA events. That and to see the WTA die. It's not like he really cares for the problems the players are causing. He still has not answered my question as to why the ATP doesn't need an average-based scoring system.

 

[soyizgood]

and your alternative is what, Boom23?

Or do you just have no idea how the system actually works but just feel Wozniacki doesn't deserve to be number 1 based on your opinion?

The current ranking system rewards the players who go out and play tennis. Whoah.

If players like Serena or Kim C want to be number 1, let them play more than a handful of tournaments.

duh

+1 You need to perform throughout the year to be the best, not just for a few weeks.

 

[Boom23]

Winning a bunch of pointless tournys does not amount to anything. Its like the year the Patriots went 18-0 in the regular season only to lose the Super Bowl. That perfect regular season record means nothing if you can win the big game. So if the world number one can't peak for the Slams her ranking means squat. I'm only pointing out that the ranking system is flawed and because of that you can't put much stock in it.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

in 2010 she was one of only 2 players (the other was Venus) to make the 4th round or better at the Majors.

You got that? Only she and Venus managed that at all 4 majors. She also made the final (you know, as in 'last two?') of teh year end championships but lost in 3 sets (hardly a flogging) to Clijsters.

This year she lost in the 3rd Round in RG after winning Brussells (beating Schaivone on red clay among others) the week before.

She has won a couple of other Tournaments as well including the Dubai where she beats Kuznetsoava in straight sets and the Family Circle (I have no idea who was in that)

Are you getting some sort of a picture of a player who consistently out performs the rest of the tour?

You should be!

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Except that tennis isn't like football. More matters in tennis than the Slams. The official method in football of crowning a champion is the Super Bowl -- the official method in tennis of crowning a champion is the rankings. So if you don't like the method, you ought to have an idea of what could be better.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The WTA should return to the old ranking system where your point total is divided by 12 if you played 12 or fewer tournaments, then divided by the number of touraments you play if over 12. None of this throwing out a slew of your less good results if you play 30 events a year. They also need to go back to awarding bonus points for the higher ranked opponents you beat.

In addition to that they need to increase the value to slams. Right now it is 2 times a top Premier event. It needs to be raised to atleast 3 times, if not higher.

One thing they could also consider is having a special rule that only a player holding a slam title in the last 12 months can be ranked #1. So that would mean whoever has the highest points total right now out of Clijsters, Kvitova, or Na would be #1. Getting to #1 without a slam title is a hollow achievement that no player should gain any joy from anyway. Perhaps an additional rule any player holding more slam titles in the past 12 months than someone else must be ranked ahead of them, in which case Clijsters who is the only one currently holding 2 slams would be #1. I dont care if she has barely done squat since Australia, she would still make a better face as #1 for the WTA than Wozniacki, as the public atleast knows her and knows she has won big titles recently.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

The first point is exactly what my OP does. Only difference is 16 instead of 12. I think it's silly to only expect 12 events, but that would only increase Clijsters and Sharapova's rankings a bit, leaving the others the same. It wouldn't have a major impact.

Why should a Slam be worth more than it is? Twice as much as the next class of mandatory, elite events isn't enough?

You have a reasonable proposal, but we just completely philosophically disagree that Slams should be the end-all, be-all of the tour. It's both more healthy for the tour and more in keeping with the idea that we should expect year-round excellence, not once-a-quarter excellence, from top players, to have a tour that significantly rewards what you do outside the Slams, while definitely making the Slams the single most important element. What the automatic #1 for Slam titles rule would do would simply be to encourage more players like the Williamses, who can't be bothered to take any other event seriously. Such laziness and unprofessionalism should absolutely, no questions asked, not be rewarded in my opinion.

As far as the public knowing Clijsters, that's about as irrelevant a concern for #1 as I can imagine.

 

[OrangePower]

The current system is fine - it does a decent job of ranking players based on their results, taking into account consistency both in terms of how well a player does in the tournaments they enter, and in terms of how many tournaments they play. Maybe the system can be tweaked here and there, but I don't see any alternative that is clearly superior.

BUT:

Being the #1 ranked player does not equate to being the best player in the world.

The #1 ranked player is the player with the best overall results over the last 12 months. The best player in the world (at a given point in time) is the player that would come out on top if you matched all the top players against one another in a round robin.

Woz in the #1 ranked player and deserves to be so.

But throw her in a round robin with Serena and the other top players, and the smart money is on Serena to take it, while I wouldn't give Woz much of a chance. So to me that makes Serena the best player in the world at the moment.

 

[NadalAgassi]

You have a reasonable proposal, but we just completely philosophically disagree that Slams should be the end-all, be-all of the tour.

The Slams would nto be the end-all be-all of tour. They just would be the end-all and be-all of becoming #1 which is how it should be. Players could win lots of prize money, win trophies, pad their career stats, gain spots in the top 100, top 25, top 10, top 5, even top 3, whatever based on the rest of the tour. The rest of the tour could also distinguish who is ranked #1 amongst fellow slam winners, you know the way things ALWAYS were before 2008, reigning slam winners only battling for the coveted #1 title both through their slam wins and their results in other tournaments. So in that sense the regular WTA tour would still be very important as far as who was #1 as well.

The one thing they just couldnt do is be #1 based on the regular tour alone, and not on winning slams. Which is how it should be. There should be no pride or feeling of achievement of being a slamless #1 anyway. No elite should take any pride or feeling of satisfication from that completely hollow and worthless achievement, and as it is and we can see nobody who attains it that way is showered with any praise for it. So its option should simply be removed. The tour would still have a huge place and be what determines most things. The #1 ranking without a slam title would simply not be one of them.

As far as the public knowing Clijsters, that's about as irrelevant a concern for #1 as I can imagine

Actually nothing could be more relevant than having a system which ensures only someone who has in the last year won some sort of big title, preferably multiple is #1. The public sees an inferior player who has never won any big titles at #1 and they start thinking the womens tour is an even bigger joke than many already feel it is.



Anyway your proposal wasnt too bad. Clijsters at #1 would make alot more sense than Wozniacki right now, even with Kim having done almost nothing since the Australian Open. She is still holder of 3 big titles, 2 of the 4 slams, and the biggest non slam event at the WTA Championships. At the very least it would be a big improvement on the current system. Even if a new system still produced farces like Wozniacki at #1, they atleast need to try and change something, since they are the laughing stock of ex players, commentators, writers, fans, everyone at the moment. Atleast show that they made the effort.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

The Slams would nto be the end-all be-all of tour.

Yes they would be, because it's all a top player would need to concern themselves with. If you inflate their value significantly beyond what it is now, what reason is there for players like the Williamses to ever show up for anything that isn't a slam?

The public sees an inferior player who has never won any big titles at #1 and they start thinking the womens tour is an even bigger joke than many already feel it is.

Have any data to back this up? Everything I've seen says that people do not think Wozniacki is a joke of a #1. Multiple polls done on this forum have indicated that 2:1 people think she deserves the spot. I just don't see any credible evidence that the 'laughingstock', 'farce' etc. comments reflect reality.

The inconsistent players who win a slam or two and then disappear for six months to a year -- repeatedly -- are in my opinion a far bigger problem.

Let me be clear that the OP does not represent my proposal. It's not mine. It's DMan's. I completely oppose it, and outlined some reasons, which have gone almost completely ignored I might add.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Except that tennis isn't like football. More matters in tennis than the Slams. The official method in football of crowning a champion is the Super Bowl -- the official method in tennis of crowning a champion is the rankings. So if you don't like the method, you ought to have an idea of what could be better.

Bryan, at the end of it all, when careers are measured to determine the great of the sport, it IS all about the majors--above weeks at #1, above how many finals reached or other stats. If Wozniacki plays another five or ten years, never wins a major, but jumps from #1 or 2 in the rankings, will her career be considered as important--great as (for example) Mauresmo or Pierce?

If your answer is "no," then it speaks to the overwhelming importance of the majors above any other feat in the sport, for the retired, as well as the active.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Yes they would be, because it's all a top player would need to concern themselves with. If you inflate their value significantly beyond what it is now, what reason is there for players like the Williamses to ever show up for anything that isn't a slam?

Their incentive to show up for anything but a slam would be to try and beat out the other SLAM winners for the #1 ranking (the others eligible for it). That is if they even care about the #1 ranking at this point, in which case it would be a lost cause anyway just like it has been in recent years with the current farcial system so no change there. Either way you would get what makes most sense- a reigning slam winner of some kind always at #1.

ave any data to back this up? Everything I've seen says that people do not think Wozniacki is a joke of a #1. Multiple polls done on this forum have indicated that 2:1

Are you actually applying this forum is reflective of the real World. ROTFL!!! This forum is made up of 80% total idiots. On this forum Nalbandian is the uncrowned GOAT and has as much talent or more than a 12 slam winner, Nadal is a scrub on surfaces outside of clay, Safin at his best cannot be touched ever even on natural surfaces, Henin is the best player of this era and not Serena, Sampras was a Karlovic with nothing but a great serve, Federer needed a walking cane at age 26 but all his losses dont count before 24 since he was a late bloomer and he is still the undisputed GOAT btw, everyone who serves for a match and loses MUST have choked even if the opponent is hitting cold winners off 100+ mph serves on each point. A poll on this forum is as meaningless as Wozniacki #1 ranking so it is appropriate that this is the only place on the planet the two things would find some harmony.

John McEnroe, Mary Carillo, Chris Evert, Patrick McEnroe, Renee Stubbs, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, have all gone on record saying Wozniacki is a joke #1 and is becoming an increasingly embarassing one all the time. Polls that have been done on yahoo and espn which have thousands of voters also suggest the same thing. That is more important date than a TW poll.

 

[Tanya]

BUT:

Being the #1 ranked player does not equate to being the best player in the world.

The #1 ranked player is the player with the best overall results over the last 12 months. The best player in the world (at a given point in time) is the player that would come out on top if you matched all the top players against one another in a round robin.

Woz in the #1 ranked player and deserves to be so.

But throw her in a round robin with Serena and the other top players, and the smart money is on Serena to take it, while I wouldn't give Woz much of a chance. So to me that makes Serena the best player in the world at the moment.

Are you suggesting then that the YEC should determine the #1 ranking? For example, prior to the YEC the #1 ranked player should be whoever has the most points like it normally is, however in October (or whenever the YEC is) the year end #1 is decided by the round robin tournament?

 

[soyizgood]

You could make the YEC the event for end-of-year champion, but that would just extend the season. And the ladies made it clear they wanted a longer off-season.

In theory, get the top 16 players for a single elimination draw down to the finals. Set the prize money at a decent level. The winner would be automatically #1 until the end of the Australian Open.

The problem I see here is it would likely conflict with Fed Cup finals. Otherwise, the part-time players wouldn't mind this setup while the full-time players would love the potential prize money and the chance to grab a prestigious title.

 

[OrangePower]

Are you suggesting then that the YEC should determine the #1 ranking? For example, prior to the YEC the #1 ranked player should be whoever has the most points like it normally is, however in October (or whenever the YEC is) the year end #1 is decided by the round robin tournament?

No, I wasn't suggesting that... although that would actually be a pretty cool tournament with the #1 ranking always at stake

All I was pointing out is that the current system is fine for determining the #1 ranked player, but that the '#1 ranked player' does not necessarily mean 'the best player in the world', in terms of predicting who would actually win on the court.

 

[mellowyellow]

Winning a bunch of pointless tournys does not amount to anything. Its like the year the Patriots went 18-0 in the regular season only to lose the Super Bowl. That perfect regular season record means nothing if you can win the big game. So if the world number one can't peak for the Slams her ranking means squat. I'm only pointing out that the ranking system is flawed and because of that you can't put much stock in it.

Those tourney's wouldn't be pointless if your fav's would actually play them and support the year long tour... Instead of trying to design clothes or make records.

 

[mellowyellow]

No, I wasn't suggesting that... although that would actually be a pretty cool tournament with the #1 ranking always at stake

All I was pointing out is that the current system is fine for determining the #1 ranked player, but that the '#1 ranked player' does not necessarily mean 'the best player in the world', in terms of predicting who would actually win on the court.

It would be cool to have a sudden death No.1 tourney, but it would have to include outdoor/indoor conditions and multiple surfaces, maybe in a 2-3 week long format?

 

[OrangePower]

It would be cool to have a sudden death No.1 tourney, but it would have to include outdoor/indoor conditions and multiple surfaces, maybe in a 2-3 week long format?

LOL. Here's something that would never happen, except for in my perfect fantasy world, where I'm a gazillionaire tournament owner:

1. Five players get to participate in the OrangePower invitational season-ending tournament.
2. Three of the spots are automatic, going to the #1-3 ranked players. The two remaining spots are wildcards given to the best remaining players, as determined by me.
3. The tournament takes place over three weeks, at the OrangePower Tennis Garden, which has hard, clay and grass courts.
4. Format is round-robin, with each player playing against every other player four times - 2 on hard, 1 on clay, 1 on grass - for a total of sixteen matches per player.
5. Total prize-money is $100,000,000, to ensure participation by all the invitees. The winner gets $50,000,000, and the right to be called the best player in the world.

 

[mellowyellow]

you would still have someone pull out even with that kind of money

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Yes they would be, because it's all a top player would need to concern themselves with. If you inflate their value significantly beyond what it is now, what reason is there for players like the Williamses to ever show up for anything that isn't a slam?



Have any data to back this up? Everything I've seen says that people do not think Wozniacki is a joke of a #1. Multiple polls done on this forum have indicated that 2:1 people think she deserves the spot. I just don't see any credible evidence that the 'laughingstock', 'farce' etc. comments reflect reality.

The inconsistent players who win a slam or two and then disappear for six months to a year -- repeatedly -- are in my opinion a far bigger problem.

Let me be clear that the OP does not represent my proposal. It's not mine. It's DMan's. I completely oppose it, and outlined some reasons, which have gone almost completely ignored I might add.

point 1- they do that already, serena,clijsters, and venus only care about slams.
point2-http://tvnz.co.nz/tennis-news/navratilova-wozniacki-needs-step-up-3890024
she disagrees with you.
point3- the inconsistent players you allude to(serena, kimmy) are considered better than woz. period.

 

[mellowyellow]

Keep Clijsters out of it. She as much said that her schedule would be limited in her comeback. She legitimately has not been able to compete the last few weeks. Williams sisters have had a 10 yr history of blowing off tourneys and *****ing about their rank.......

 

[DMan]

Once again we are having a spate of threads where DMan holds forth about how much the WTA rankings suck, and why we should go to what he's advocated before, the average rankings system. This system is simple:

1. Add up all points from all events
2. Divide by the number of events, or a minimum divisor, whichever is greater. In this case we will use what the WTA uses, 16 events.

Below are listed the top 8 plus the Williams sisters, and what their ranking would be if we used the average ranking system:

1. Kim Clijsters(482.88, #3 in WTA)
2. Caroline Wozniacki(433.35, #1)
3. Vera Zvonareva(358.86, #2)
4. Maria Sharapova(340.38, #7)
5. Na Li(315.86, #5)
6. Victoria Azarenka(315.86, #4)
7. Petra Kvitova(265.05, #6)
8. Francesca Schiavone(236.19, #8 )

Serena Williams(106.88 )
Venus Williams(91.25)

So we have rankings that are in fact quite similar. Clijsters is #1, but Wozniacki is still up there as the clear #2 and unless Clijsters comes back strong for the USO, she's going to be waving good-bye to that top spot. What is absolutely not deniable is this does nothing to remove the top claim against Woz: she hasn't won a slam omgzorz we can't have a Slamless #1. Well who are the Slam champions? Clijsters, Li, and Kvitova. Note that even under the average ranking system, we have three, count em, three, players who didn't win a Slam ranked above those who did. So that accomplishes ... what exactly?

There is also the 'Wozniacki isn't a threat to the top players like Li, Williamses, Clijsters, etc.'. And yet she's ranked above almost all of those players under this system. So the point was ....

And furthermore, average rankings:

1. Penalize players coming back from injury, as early losses while they work back into shape will hurt their ranking.
2. Tell top players not to play even mid-level events. Note that if you add an event like Charleston, Stuttgart, Brussels, etc. to Clijsters and she wins it(470 points) her ranking still goes down. That's the ticket. Tell people they are only going to see top players at the few elite events.
3. Any loss prior to the final in even a Premier Mandatory like Beijing, Indian Wells, etc. will cause a similar loss, so they shouldn't play those unless they are in top form. How they are going to get into top form without playing one of those lesser tournaments that will lower their ranking for their arrogance to play such an event is beyond me, but nevertheless, there it is.
4. No penalty whatsoever for skipping a Slam if they aren't in great form.

Etc.

So what exactly of worth is accomplished by this 'brave new world', were it ever to be implemented?

<sigh>

Pity poor Bryan. Does it get tiring having to defend the ranking system you nd your boss Stacy just love!

OK, so here's the deal.

Just how, and I mean EXPLAIN HOW:
An average ranking system actually tells top players not to play certain tournaments? Is an average ranking system a person? An organization? Does the WTA ever tell players which events NOT to play?

How does an average ranking system penalize players coming back from injury? Early losses hurt rankings? What, as opposed to early round losses should improve a ranking? And PS. Using an average ranking system, with a minimum divisor actually HELPS players returning from a long layoff, if they've played fewer than 14 events. How? If you have only 10 tournaments within a 12 month period, your divisor will be 14, until you play more events. Therefore, your ranking average goes up, even with a 1st round loss!!! So see, the average ranking system may not be perfect. But you don't even get how it works!

Now getting back to telling fans they're only going to see top players at elite events? Got any proof? Or are you projecting fear again?

If one player competes at a very high level, but chooses to enter an event in which the total # of points for a tour victory is less than their actual ranking,a player has to make her own choice if competing and winning is worth a temporary drop in their point average, which doesn't necessarily translate into a drop in ranking. Oh, and "arrogance" at playing a lesser events shows your complete contempt for the WTA tournaments to begin with!

And what does "No penalty whatsoever for skipping a Slam if they aren't in great form" have to do with anything?

As I've stated, often: An average ranking system si the fairest way to accurately rank players competing in a year round sport. And the biggest component of the average ranking system is that EVERY RESULT COUNTS!

Why oh why are Bryan and Stacy so fearful of that? A simple concept. You step on the court in a professional tournament, and the RESULTS ALWAYS COUNT. No throwaways. Who could possibly argue against that? Who thinks that some results should not count? And WHY?


Finally, this 'brave new world' has already been implemented. Consult with the WTA with how they did their rankings, beginning in 1984. And that system also did something that I wish BOTH WTA and ATP would do. and that is award bonus points for victories based on a player's ranking at the time of the match. So that in addition to tournament points, i.e., 1000 for winning, 600 for runner up, etc., you also received points, such as 100 for beating the #1 player, 70 for the #7 player, down to 1 point for the #200. Scaled appropriately. But why am I sure Bryan will absolutely HATE that idea! Because it's so FAIR and LOGICAL!

 

[DMan]

Even retired players like Davenport, Navratilova, and Evert mock the ranking system on air. Your attempts to justify the ranking system is futile my friend.

I know. Isn't it delicious that someone has taken the time to start a thread called "WTA Rankings - Why They Work!" It took me 20 minutes to respond, I was bellowing and laughing so hard at the absolute ridiculousness of such a post, and concept! :twisted:

 

[DMan]

DMan probably wants an average based system so he can see fewer WTA events. That and to see the WTA die. It's not like he really cares for the problems the players are causing. He still has not answered my question as to why the ATP doesn't need an average-based scoring system.

You've never explained why there would be fewer WTA events with an average ranking system.

PS - I have never, nor will I ever, address the ATP ranking system.

I will, however, continue to ASSAULT the ridiculousness of the WTA ranking system!

 

[Bryan Swartz]

at the end of it all, when careers are measured to determine the great of the sport, it IS all about the majors--above weeks at #1, above how many finals reached or other stats.

I don't agree. That's not how I measure it. Using any one metric to determine these things is illogical -- a player's career should be taken in total. There's no one thing that can tell the whole story.

If Wozniacki plays another five or ten years, never wins a major, but jumps from #1 or 2 in the rankings, will her career be considered as important--great as (for example) Mauresmo or Pierce?

To begin with, such comparisons are inherently subjective and simply a matter of opinion. Era comparisons are so by their very nature. But having said that, in the situation you describe it would depend on the details. Mauresmo was a top player for years before she won a Slam. The fact that Pierce's Slam titles were five years apart speaks to the fact that she had decent longevity as well. But assuming several more years from Wozniacki of the same level of achievement she's displayed the last couple years roughly, she would be right there with them: superior in some ways, inferior in others.

This is of course, a sidebar to the main topic. We fundamentally disagree that Slams are all that ultimately matter. They are the merely the single most important among many important considerations, and should not overwhelm the other factors.

I came across a good analogy the other day that is not original, but makes a lot of sense. Consider the Tour de France. Every once in a while a rider will win the race without winning a single stage. That would be like being #1 without winning any event, much less a Slam. Luke Donald becomes #1 on the PGA tour without a major title. Not much controversy about that. Why should there be controversy here? What's the difference?

Either way you would get what makes most sense- a reigning slam winner of some kind always at #1.

Again, I don't agree at all that this is what makes most sense. Espescially in the women's game, when there's no fundamental difference between the events(3 sets just like the rest of the year is).

Their incentive to show up for anything but a slam would be to try and beat out the other SLAM winners for the #1 ranking (the others eligible for it).

This doesn't make any sense to me. If they can be #1 simply by winning the most Slams, regardless of whatever else happens, then that's all they have to do and there's no reason for them to try to do anything else.

Are you actually applying this forum is reflective of the real World. ROTFL!!! This forum is made up of 80% total idiots.

So is the rest of sports fandom. All the stuff you mention is not substantially different from what I have heard most sports fans I know spout about the sports they follow.

John McEnroe, Mary Carillo, Chris Evert, Patrick McEnroe, Renee Stubbs, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, have all gone on record saying Wozniacki is a joke #1 and is becoming an increasingly embarassing one all the time. Polls that have been done on yahoo and espn which have thousands of voters also suggest the same thing.

Link to any of this? Every poll -- and I mean every single one -- that I have ever seen on the subject supports Wozniacki as #1. Public opinion doesn't change what should be done, but I just don't see this swell of outrage that you describe.

point 1- they do that already, serena,clijsters, and venus only care about slams.
point2-http://tvnz.co.nz/tennis-news/navratilova-wozniacki-needs-step-up-3890024
she disagrees with you.
point3- the inconsistent players you allude to(serena, kimmy) are considered better than woz. period.

1. Which is another argument in favor of having encouragements in the ranking system for players to play events other than slams, as is presently the case. When you have a problem with professionalism, the solution is not to encourage more players to be unprofessional by removing the incentive for them not to be.

2. No she doesn't. Nowhere in that article does Navratilova say that Wozniacki is not a valid #1, that the ranking system needs to be changed, or that there is another player more deserving. In fact, she says the exact opposite: "She was the best player day in, day out." She also says that Wozniacki needs to win a Slam, and I agree. But that's about Wozniacki's career, which is not the subject here. This is about the best way to rank players and whether the current way makes sense. Nowhere in the article you linked does Navratilova dispute that in any way.

3. See above. Navratilova clearly thinks otherwhise. But even more fundamentally, it's irrelevant. Who is considered best is always going to be a matter of opinion. The ranking system measures one thing, and one thing only: achievement. Not talent, not potential, not 'peak level'.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Does it get tiring having to defend the ranking system you nd your boss Stacy just love!

Feel free to grow up and stop repeating this lie any time you want.

Just how, and I mean EXPLAIN HOW:
An average ranking system actually tells top players not to play certain tournaments? Is an average ranking system a person? An organization? Does the WTA ever tell players which events NOT to play?

I answered this in my post, which you quoted. I'll re-quote myself here, and I hope you'll actually address the point this time instead of deflecting:

"Note that if you add an event like Charleston, Stuttgart, Brussels, etc. to Clijsters and she wins it(470 points) her ranking still goes down."

Obviously the ranking system isn't a person. And of course I never said it was. But when it is set up so that a top player can't play an event without their ranking decreasing, no matter how well they do at it, it is telling them they shouldn't play that event because there is no ranking reward and a significant ranking penalty if they do. If you don't like the word 'telling', we can use incentivize and disincentivize, or feel free to suggest a more accurate or appropriate term.

How does an average ranking system penalize players coming back from injury? Early losses hurt rankings? What, as opposed to early round losses should improve a ranking?

I never said an early-round loss should improve a ranking. Feel free to stop making stuff up at any time here. It penalizes them by providing a ranking penalty for their 'getting back into shape' events when they are not nearly in their former playing ability yet.

Using an average ranking system, with a minimum divisor actually HELPS players returning from a long layoff, if they've played fewer than 14 events.

Where do you get this number 14 from? But aside from that, an average ranking system wouldn't hurt those below the minimum divisor, but it doesn't help them either. More importantly, most players returning from injury aren't going to have been off so long that they have that many events in the ranking period. Typically, injuries knock a player out for a month or two, not most of a year or longer.

is award bonus points for victories based on a player's ranking at the time of the match.

This is redundant. That's already done by virtue of the fact that you are going to get more points by going farther in a tournament. The players left at the end of a tournament are by definition the ones who are playing the best. Bonus points penalize top players(i.e., you can't get #1 bonus points if you are the #1) so you have a built-in bias against them. Additionally, it should be just as valuable to beat a player who just beat the #1 or #10 or whatever as it should be to beat the player who has that ranking.

An average ranking system si the fairest way to accurately rank players competing in a year round sport. And the biggest component of the average ranking system is that EVERY RESULT COUNTS!

I'm not against every result counting. As I've said before, I agree with you that this is the greatest weakness of the current system. But as I demonstrated in the OP(and I note you did not reply to the fact that there isn't very much difference in how the rankings actually look under either system) it doesn't fundamentally change the problems people see with the current system, while creating a whole host of new ones. I still say it would be great to average out the non-mandatory events, but when you include the WTF, Slams, and Mandatory events in that, you penalize top players and that is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do. Because of that, the current system is much better than a ranking average, which is still unfair, just in different ways. Instead of allowing players to ignore bad results, it forces them to be penalized for good results. It simply isn't fair in any way to penalize a player for winning and being successful.

 

[soyizgood]

I can see using a hybrid average system as a possibility. Take the average points from the slams (or take the average and divide it by 2) and add that to the average points of the 12 other tour events. I'm not too fond of that idea, but I'll do a pros and cons of that thought later.

 

[bluetrain4]

I always thought the rankings "worked" even if Woz, and others, are weak No. 1s.

The rankings assume, and IMO rightfully, that players will play consistently. The rankings wouldn't look so crazy if Serena and others played anywhere near a regular scedule and performed consistently. But, we got this weird situation where the Williams sisters, to various degrees, were playing sporadically or absent, and there were also issues with Clijsters and Henin for a while, not to mention the rapid descent of players like Jankovic, Ivanovic, and safina. So, basically, it's just a situation where the "best" players weren't the highest ranked players and someone like Woz could, with consistent results, ascend the rankings. Again, this wouldn't happen if the best players played normal schedules.

What are the other options? Awarding 5 times the points for a Slam as for a Tier 1, so someone like Serena can maintain a top 3 ranking despite not playing for a year? Or, having tennis writers vote every week based on their subjective analysis?

I don't understand why the WTA rankings cause people to melt down. It's an above-the-board, fairly easy to understand ranking system. People ask, increduously, "How can Woz be No. 1?!*(#@"? She earned the points when others were not earning as many points, either because they aren't as good as Woz or because they were playing too sporadically to gain enough points.

 

[DMan]

Have any data to back this up? Everything I've seen says that people do not think Wozniacki is a joke of a #1. Multiple polls done on this forum have indicated that 2:1 people think she deserves the spot.

ROFLMAO at you! That you think TW polls constitute reality. And that you really and truly think and believe Wozniacki is truly deserving of the #1 ranking. That's she's the <snicker, snicker, snicker> "best" (can only be put in quotes) the WTA can currently offer. ! ? ! :-? :-?

I just don't see any credible evidence that the 'laughingstock', 'farce' etc. comments reflect reality.

But they do my dear, they do!

The inconsistent players who win a slam or two and then disappear for six months to a year -- repeatedly -- are in my opinion a far bigger problem.

Oh, the players who win majors are a "problem." A problem, for being able to excel and WIN at the biggest events of all (not the New Havens and the Ponte Vedra tournaments considered so prestigious and relevant to the health and success of the WTA Tour!!!!)

Let me be clear that the OP does not represent my proposal. It's not mine. It's DMan's. I completely oppose it, and outlined some reasons, which have gone almost completely ignored I might add.

Oh snit, snit my dear.

 

[ttbrowne]

This is about as stupid as saying a team cannot be ranked #1 unless it has won a National Championship. Utterly nonsense.
Plus I haven't seen one of you come up with a workable & fair plan that keeps a player from being #1 that hasn't won a slam.
And if so, what would your criteria be?:
Win a slam in the last calendar year
Win a slam in the last 5 years
Win a slam in the last 10 years

Average ranking system? Yeah right.

 

[Atherton2003]

This crop or crap of women's players is so weak, there is no fair way to have a ranking system for them as none of them deserve to be #1 at the moment.

 

[soyizgood]

This crop or crap of women's players is so weak, there is no fair way to have a ranking system for them as none of them deserve to be #1 at the moment.

Sadly I'm inclined to agree. That's one reason for my proposal to make a super YEC event with #1 up for grabs. Consistency is a concept these ladies can't grasp.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

I really don't understand that at all. You can think there isn't a player among them that is worth a pot to **** in or a window to throw it out of, but that says nothing about who is worthy to be #1.

What #1 means, all that it means, is the most accomplished in the past year of the current players. They can all completely suck, but there is still going to be some who suck less and some who suck more. It's a comparative honor: most accomplished among the current players. The lesser of many evils it may be, but there's still always going to be someone who deserves the top spot.

A big part of the problem seems to be that people are equating #1 with things it isn't and was never intended to be -- all-time great, or an endorsement of the player as being the most 'talented' or impressive player in the game. It isn't about that. It's about ranking their achievements over the past year. Nothing more.

 

[Socoti]

Sadly I'm inclined to agree. That's one reason for my proposal to make a super YEC event with #1 up for grabs. Consistency is a concept these ladies can't grasp.

Totally. And the most sad part? Wozniacki hits wimpy like a counterpuncher, but with no consistency to back it up! I think a Slam title should be necessary to become #1. And perhaps the ability to defeat at least one other top ten player.

 

[soyizgood]

I really don't understand that at all. You can think there isn't a player among them that is worth a pot to **** in or a window to throw it out of, but that says nothing about who is worthy to be #1.

What #1 means, all that it means, is the most accomplished in the past year of the current players. They can all completely suck, but there is still going to be some who suck less and some who suck more. It's a comparative honor: most accomplished among the current players. The lesser of many evils it may be, but there's still always going to be someone who deserves the top spot.

A big part of the problem seems to be that people are equating #1 with things it isn't and was never intended to be -- all-time great, or an endorsement of the player as being the most 'talented' or impressive player in the game. It isn't about that. It's about ranking their achievements over the past year. Nothing more.

In 2010 Wozniacki failed to reach the QF of an event I think 12 times. This year she basically peaked at Indian Wells. Brussels and Charleston are the type of events she should be winning, but blows chunks during the USO Series and non-hardcourt majors. Played a hardcourt tuneup for Wimbledon? Then a clay tournament right after Wimbledon where she retired up 6-2 0-1 right after she won an absolutely terrible match vs Cornet that had 16 breaks in 20 games. But the appearance fee was worth it I guess..

 

[Bryan Swartz]

That says a lot of Wozniacki's self-evident weaknesses as a player. And I agree with you about those. Don't think that I think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread or whatever.

What I'm saying is that when it comes to #1, the only relevant question is this: who deserves it more? Again it's a comparative, not absolute, honor.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Have any data to back this up? Everything I've seen says that people do not think Wozniacki is a joke of a #1. Multiple polls done on this forum have indicated that 2:1 people think she deserves the spot. I just don't see any credible evidence that the 'laughingstock', 'farce' etc. comments reflect reality.

Then why do ex-players like Fernandez, McEnroe, Drysdale and others always groan though comments about how Wozniacki comes up short--how she needs to break through. This would not be much of a discussion at all if she held any rank other than #1, and shared a fate similar to Jankovic and Safina.

Wozniacki herself would not be defensive in interviews and now drop her father as coach if she was not repsonding to external forces--criticism--of her #1 ranking.

Few see a player as legitimate #1 if they cannot win the most important prize in the sport.

The inconsistent players who win a slam or two and then disappear for six months to a year -- repeatedly -- are in my opinion a far bigger problem.

How? If you're referring to Serena or Kim, they're doing their job according what is the top priority in the sport: winning majors. When either wins, it is an act fans actually care about, because they love to see genuine champions move forward at the biggest events, but what is a slamless #1 doing for the sport?

More importantly, how are the negative effects of a slamless #1 shifted to others (as a form of blame) when doing her job--winning majors--is a responsbility Wozniacki fails to live up to? The others are doing what sponsors and fans love most, while Wozniacki is the one smearing the face of the WTA by grinning along for the ride sans proving the ultimate worth of a tennis player.

 

[SLD76]

rofl..winning majors is a responsibility?


please.


as someone else said, its a comparative honor, the ranking doesnt mean the player is the most talented or the best, just the most consistently good performer.

In time, the tour will correct itself and we will have a true number one who is the most consistent and who can win majors( maybe kvitova???). But the WTA is going thru a transition phase much like the ATP did in the early 2000s when guys like Pete, Andre, Rafter, Moya and that group were phasing out and hewitt, roddick, safin were ascending.

its not the ranking system's fault that clijsters and henin retired/were injured, the WS play a sparse schedule/are injured,
or that sharapova can't serve. Wozniacki, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Safina took advantage.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

rofl..winning majors is a responsibility?

To your career as a tennis player, and what is expected of one who is-allegedly--the best player in the world. If you fail to do that over the course of a career in singles, what the hell were you playing for? Collecting checks? There are easier ways to do that. If there's any blame to be cast at players for the ranking controversy, its not the players who step on the biggest stage and win, but the center of the controversy for...you know the rest.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Then why do ex-players like Fernandez, McEnroe, Drysdale and others always groan though comments about how Wozniacki comes up short--how she needs to break through. This would not be much of a discussion at all if she held any rank other than #1, and shared a fate similar to Jankovic and Safina.

Because it's best for the game to have a player who is both consistent enough to rank #1 and good enough to win majors. Women's tennis would be better off if either Wozniacki were winning them once in a while, or if one of those who are winning them decided to treat their sport professionally.

How is here fate not similar to Jankovic and Safina? They were both #1 at a point in time? What's the difference between them and Wozniacki?

Few see a player as legitimate #1 if they cannot win the most important prize in the sport.

See my earlier request for backup of this, and also my comments on the Navratilova article which supports my point of view on this.

If you're referring to Serena or Kim, they're doing their job according what is the top priority in the sport: winning majors. When either wins, it is an act fans actually care about, because they love to see genuine champions move forward at the biggest events, but what is a slamless #1 doing for the sport?

Are you serious? Again, the majors are the top priority -- but that emphatically does not mean the only priority that counts. A slamless #1 does quite a bit for the sport. To be a slamless #1 you are drawing fans to lots of events, because you have to be quite successful at Premier M, Premier 5, etc. events to get there. She is promoting and drawing fans to events that others can't be arsed to be there for or go out early at more than she does(I'm looking at Na Li and Petra Kvitova here).

how are the negative effects of a slamless #1 shifted to others (as a form of blame) when doing her job

I'm not the one doing the shifting here. I blame Wozniacki for not winning majors, and the others for not consistently showing up. In other words, I hold them all accountable for the ways in which they fall short. You are shifting all the blame to Wozniacki.

Wozniacki is the one smearing the face of the WTA by grinning along for the ride sans proving the ultimate worth of a tennis player.

Do you think she doesn't want to win a major? She hasn't been good enough to thus far, though she has been close. In no way is she smearing the face of the WTA. Again, it's just as much a problem that the opening is there in the first place -- and that's on current Slam titlists Clijsters, Na, and Kvitova for not bringing it more consistently throughout the year.

To your career as a tennis player, and what is expected of one who is-allegedly--the best player in the world. If you fail to do that over the course of a career in singles, what the hell were you playing for?

She's playing for the same reason all should be playing -- to be the best she can. Most players never win a major and aren't good enough to have a chance. Are you saying they should all quit? There's more to the sport than that. It is once again a comparative honor. She is only #1 because no-one is capable of both being consistent and good enough to win a Slam. That is not only her fault -- part of it is.

 

[mellowyellow]

Its funny to me, the only reason the Slams are reguarded as a bigger tourney, is because of the money the men draw. The fact is the tourneys are easier for the women as they play no more tennis, have a bigger draw pool, and play ever other day. Seems to me this is not the formula to determine who is the better athlete in the sport of tennis.....

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Because it's best for the game to have a player who is both consistent enough to rank #1 and good enough to win majors. Women's tennis would be better off if either Wozniacki were winning them once in a while, or if one of those who are winning them decided to treat their sport professionally.

Wholly subjective. I'm guessing you may wish to see players run to every--or nearly every event (as a sign of alleged "professionalism"), but as players begin to age--even if only to take precaution--they focus on the majors because they are not confused about what are the most important events for the remainder of their careers. For one example, Sampras certainly gutted his schedule to focus on majors above all else as he entered his last few years on tour. Kim & Serena are no different.

How is here fate not similar to Jankovic and Safina? They were both #1 at a point in time? What's the difference between them and Wozniacki?

No one said there was a difference. In fact, in several threads, I have said they are all members of the same "club."

See my earlier request for backup of this, and also my comments on the Navratilova article which supports my point of view on this.

The Wozniacki discussion happened as recently as this year's Wimbledon broadcasts. In fact, Pam Shriver also added her voice to the issue of Wozniacki's slamless status. Again, this would not a conversation from the commentators down to fans if a problem was not precieved.

Are you serious? Again, the majors are the top priority -- but that emphatically does not mean the only priority that counts.

You just confirmed the perception for the players and the average tennis fan--the type who make the majors the biggest live events in person and particularly on TV, where the majors are the key program of the sport.

The very nature of pro sports leans in favor of supporting champions. Do you really think the sport--or audiences love to see repeat perfomances of someone they are now conditioned to know has no chance of winning at the majors? That's not the psychology of sports fans. At this point, Wozniacki's even lost the "young" advantage, since her #1 ranking means she's (at the very least) experienced, and considering the hype machine surrounding her, she's never been an underdog, so what legion of fans desires to see a guaranteed loser over proven champions--anywhere?

A slamless #1 does quite a bit for the sport. To be a slamless #1 you are drawing fans to lots of events, because you have to be quite successful at Premier M, Premier 5, etc. events to get there. She is promoting and drawing fans to events that others can't be arsed to be there for or go out early at more than she does(I'm looking at Na Li and Petra Kvitova here).

Li can be streaky, and Kvitova is still a player in development, even after her majors breakthrough.

I'm not the one doing the shifting here. I blame Wozniacki for not winning majors, and the others for not consistently showing up. In other words, I hold them all accountable for the ways in which they fall short. You are shifting all the blame to Wozniacki.

See my reply about the priorties of older players. They have "served their time" in earlier years. There's no blame to go around at this point, except for the person who is not doing her job at the majors. This could not be easier to understand, since the problem is a personal one. Whether real champions play random event A or B is of no matter--she was still hyped as something special even before she reached #1, yet she's failed to live up to the bells and whistles.

Why else would she drop the coach--her own father--who helped her reach the level she currently occupies? She's responding to the reality of her situation--and criticism (rendering her months-old claim about not caring what others say a lie). It would be different thing if the big guns of the WTA never won majors during Wozniacki's rise to #1--then, there would be room to criticize the Kims and Serenas of the field for not maintaining "order" where it counts most, but that's not the case. Wozniacki is the center of a self-made controversy--her own failures while being hailed as the "best,", and only she can change that.

Another note on player participation: considering numerous player complaints about the long schedule on both the women and men's side, some do not wish to become workhorses (see Safina during her slamless #1 period) or find themselves beaten into the ground / making themselves subject to more injury than usual.

She's playing for the same reason all should be playing -- to be the best she can. Most players never win a major and aren't good enough to have a chance. Are you saying they should all quit?

I'm saying slamless number one players do what others--like majors newbie Kvitova have done: raise the level of their game beyond all personal expectation to rip it from the hands of the competition. If that's too much to expect--or ask, then I suggest some players probably selected the wrong profession.

 

[Peters]

rofl..winning majors is a responsibility?


please.


as someone else said, its a comparative honor, the ranking doesnt mean the player is the most talented or the best, just the most consistently good performer.

In time, the tour will correct itself and we will have a true number one who is the most consistent and who can win majors( maybe kvitova???). But the WTA is going thru a transition phase much like the ATP did in the early 2000s when guys like Pete, Andre, Rafter, Moya and that group were phasing out and hewitt, roddick, safin were ascending.

its not the ranking system's fault that clijsters and henin retired/were injured, the WS play a sparse schedule/are injured,
or that sharapova can't serve. Wozniacki, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Safina took advantage.

Exactly. Ranking system is fine as it is.

Just going through a funny patch of 'top' players not playing anywhere near enough tournies/playing consistently all year round. It'll sort itself out.

Tbh, I don't really get why there's such a debate about it. It's blatantly obvious there are mitigating factors in Caro's number 1 spot at the moment. Factors which no ranking system could correct.

 

[boredone3456]

If you want to see a slam winner as # 1 write to them all and tell them to actually do something productive outside of the slams.

Clijsters Wins the US Open and Australian and then gets hurt, which added to the self imposed limited schedule she is playing because she has a family to be concerned about doesn't help her cause, neither do some of the early loses she has had at some of the select few non slam events she has deemed to play since her comeback.

Li is the Current French Open Champion, Aussie Runner Up, and Sydney Champion, however, after the Australian she lost 5 matches in a row...and you wonder why her ranking isn't higher? Gee..I wonder, especially since she lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon as well.

Schiavone won the French Open in 2010 and then after that she did not win a single tour event, not one. She also went 3-6 until her US Open QF run, including a first round loss at Wimbledon, a Wimbledon which marked the 1st time ever both the French Chanpion and Runner Up lost in the opening round....

Kvitova has been surging up this year, we'll see how much higher she goes. she has relatively few points to defend for most of the rest of the year and if she has a good showing at the US Open she could take the top spot, or she could bomb out from the pressure and not go anywhere at all..who knows.

Serena in 2008 and 2009 was the best at the majors, however other then the 2009 YEC in those 2 yrs she did not win a single non slam event. She won the US Open in 2008 then for the rest of the year went 1-2. She regained the ranking in 2009 and then when she lost it to Safina she went 0-3 going into the French then lost in the QF there while Safina won 2 tournaments and made the French Open Final.

Up until recently Slamless numbers one have been rare because the players who were dominating the slams were usually able to win enough titles outside of them as well to get the top spot. Now-a-days, not the case. If there is a problem, its with the players, not the system. Tell the players to actually play and bring similar effort to non slam events they do to slams and they wouldn't have a problem being at the top of the rankings.

 

[DMan]

Feel free to grow up and stop repeating this lie any time you want.

Aw shucks. Is Stacy not giving you the bonus you've been desperately trying to earn? I'll write at once to Ms Stacy, and tell her what a bang up job you've been doing, defending the WTA's pathetic ranking system.



I answered this in my post, which you quoted. I'll re-quote myself here, and I hope you'll actually address the point this time instead of deflecting:

"Note that if you add an event like Charleston, Stuttgart, Brussels, etc. to Clijsters and she wins it(470 points) her ranking still goes down."

So here's the deal Bryan. In an average ranking system, winning a small tournament does not automatically constitute a ranking going down. In very rare cases, an AVERAGE (hey that's why it's called an average ranking system!) may decrease. It DOES NOT translate into a ranking going down. And that's also why the WTA instituted a "play down" rule when they had the average ranking system. That ensured that the very top players (and all it ever applied to was Chris, Martina, Steffi and Monica, since they were the only ones with such high ranking averages that they could even be possibly affected by winning a tournament, and their averages go down. And even then, it only happened when they played in Tier III events.....hardly the type of events that should necessarily boost a #1 or #2 player int he rankings anyway.)

Obviously the ranking system isn't a person. And of course I never said it was. But when it is set up so that a top player can't play an event without their ranking decreasing,

Again, fear and mistrust. TOTAL FEAR AND BUNK at work here. Someone who doesn't even understand a simple concept whines and spreads fear. First, that a system is set up so that a top player can't (your words Bryan...and who says they can't?.....you) play an event without their ranking decreasing. <sigh> See my explanation above on HOW the system ACTUALLY works!!!

no matter how well they do at it, it is telling them they shouldn't play that event because there is no ranking reward and a significant ranking penalty if they do.

AGAIN, FEAR and TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING! But said perfectly from the perspective of the WTA folks, and the top player agents, the ones who fear and despise the average ranking system the most.

FACT:
1. An average ranking system would have no significant ranking penalty for playing tournaments.

QUESTION:
Exactly HOW does a ranking system tell players not to play tournaments? I'm still not getting that Bryan.

It penalizes them by providing a ranking penalty for their 'getting back into shape' events when they are not nearly in their former playing ability yet.

I've never heard of 'getting back into shape' events. Is that a new segment of the WTA Tour? Are there specially designated tournaments like that? The Tour already has ranking protection for entry into tournaments, when players are off the tour for a significant amount of time. And again, if you use a minimum divisor system, players with fewer than the minimum # of tournaments will only see their ranking average INCREASE until they play the minimum # of tournaments. So there actually is no ranking penalty for 'getting back into shape' events, as you point out.

Where do you get this number 14 from?

I proposed 14 as a number that could be used by the WTA as a minimum divisor for calculating ranking averages.

But aside from that, an average ranking system wouldn't hurt those below the minimum divisor, but it doesn't help them either.

See my comment above.

More importantly, most players returning from injury aren't going to have been off so long that they have that many events in the ranking period. Typically, injuries knock a player out for a month or two, not most of a year or longer.

Which means exactly what?

The players left at the end of a tournament are by definition the ones who are playing the best. Bonus points penalize top players(i.e., you can't get #1 bonus points if you are the #1) so you have a built-in bias against them. Additionally, it should be just as valuable to beat a player who just beat the #1 or #10 or whatever as it should be to beat the player who has that ranking.

Ah, so you are against the bonus points system. That clinches it. You definitely work for IMG or a big player agent company,. Because the only ones who have ever disliked the bonus point system are those whose clients are the top players! Naturally, every one wants to protect their turf!

And I love your statement: it should be just as valuable to beat a player who just beat the #1 or #10 as it is to beat the player who has that ranking. So in other words, your words, rankings don't matter. Everyone is equal. Cause it doesn't matter the ranking of the player who you've just beaten. That's what Bryan just said.

But of course bonus points make absolute sense!!!!!!! That's why you don't like it.

I'm not against every result counting.

But you are, Bryan, you are!

I still say it would be great to average out the non-mandatory events, but when you include the WTF, Slams, and Mandatory events in that, you penalize top players and that is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do.

The average ranking system would not penalize top players at all. You are merely projecting what you think might happen!

Because of that, the current system is much better than a ranking average,

NO, it isn't. Plain and simple.

My proposal:
EVERY result counts
Total # of points divided by # of events played (or minimum divisor)
Bonus points for wins over players based on ranking.

Bryan's system:
Caroline Wozniacki as #1 <snicker, snicker, snicker!!!!!!>

Instead of allowing players to ignore bad results, it forces them to be penalized for good results.

For the 100,000,000,000th thousand time: An average ranking system does not penalize any player for winning!

It simply isn't fair in any way to penalize a player for winning and being successful.

But an even better system is to allow players to THROW out bad results, and not have that negatively impact their ranking. I get Bryan's logic: he thinks an average ranking system will penalize players who win (but can never demonstrate how that would happen), but prefers a system that REWARDS players who have bad results, by allowing then to throw out those bad results!

 

[darrinbaker00]

You've never explained why there would be fewer WTA events with an average ranking system.

PS - I have never, nor will I ever, address the ATP ranking system.

I will, however, continue to ASSAULT the ridiculousness of the WTA ranking system!

Difference being.....?

 

[soyizgood]

Difference being.....?

DMan is just ranting for no real reason. He doesn't fault the ATP system even though Wozniacki would be #1 under that system as well as there's no real difference between the two systems. He can't seem to find fault with the WTA players for being injury-prone, inconsistent, and just not tough enough to be the best.

He's too girly to tell the ATP to go to an average rank system, but will act like a keyboard warrior when it comes to WTA. The system works, but not necessarily the players.