WTA Rankings -- Why They Work

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

In 2010 Wozniacki 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 beat 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!

I just thought I'd post this again 'cos nobody seems to have challenged it..

There's your 'weak number 1'.

(what none of the rest could do)

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I just thought I'd post this again...

"In 2010 Wozniacki 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"

'cos nobody seems to have challenged it..

There's your 'weak number 1'.

(what none of the rest could do)

She failed to win any of the majors--that's the most glaring reason she's a weak #1.

 

[NadalAgassi]

It is pretty sad if some think simply reaching the 4th round of majors is some astounding achievement worthy of #1. That is a good result for a top 20 player alright.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Thundervolley, there are a number of things that we have started to get into discussing, and this is partially my fault, which are completely irrelevant to the rankings. Eg -- Wozniacki's truthfulness/defensiveness/coaching situation, which bears not the least on the subject. So I'll be ignoring those elements.

Wholly subjective. I'm guessing you may wish to see players run to every--or nearly every event (as a sign of alleged "professionalism"),

No more subjective than your assessments. Your guess is incorrect -- I think they should be required to consistently participate in the vast majority of the elite events(Premier 5 and up, there are only 13 of these) if they want to earn the #1 ranking though.

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.

Au contraire. First of all, at the end of his career Sampras was, by his own admission, not even trying to retain #1 -- and nobody was claiming that he should still be #1. So that by itself invalidates the argument.

But additionally, how Sampras gutted his schedule and what Kim & Serena have been doing are two very different things.

Sampras played, in his final three years, 13, 16, and 17 events respectively. In the current ranking period, Kim has 10 events and Serena 4. But it's even worse than that comparison shows. Sampras did what you'd expect a player focusing on the big events and playing a lighter schedule to do: he played masters and majors, with a few smaller events sprinkled in. Fine. But every single year he played all the slams -- every single one, 12 for 12 in his last three seasons, and every single year he played a majority of the Masters.

Meanwhile, Clijsters did not play Wimbledon this year, didn't play the French last year, didn't play anything but USO the year before that. She played 4 of 9 Premier5/M events last year. Serena is of course much worse. The problem is not the Sampras comparison: the problem is they aren't living up to it, and it's therefore not a valid comparison.

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.

What specifically did they say? Do you have a link to a transcript?

Media pundits say all kinds of things, some ridiculous, some reasonable. The fact that they said something is irrelevant, and most of the time, discussions on this end up similar to the Navratilova article. So I can't really comment on it unless you can source exactly what was said and the context.

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

See the Tour de France/PGA analogies, which nobody has responded to. You are certainly right that fans want their top players to win the biggest events. But it does not follow that, in a scenario where nobody is excelling consistently(you have some excelling, some being consistent, nobody doing both) that the fans want those who excel to be named #1 regardless of how rarely they compete.

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

Correct on both counts, but this simply demonstrates that being a Slam champion and having major weaknesses are not mutually exclusive. Again, all the top players right now have big ones.

See my reply about the priorties of older players. They have "served their time" in earlier years.

That's fine so long as they don't want to be in the race for #1.

There's no blame to go around at this point, except for the person who is not doing her job at the majors.

Yes she is doing her job, unless you think she is intentionally losing. Remember that the #1 spot is not something she gave or has the power to give herself. It is a result of the relative achievements of the players on the tour.

I totally disagree on the blame. You want others to be #1 without them earning it by regularly competing. Yet you have an excuse for every player who has won a Slam. Kvitova isn't complete yet, Li is inconsistent, Serena/Kim are old and shouldn't be expected to show up very much ...

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.

This is silly. Slams + Premier M + Premier 5 + YEC take up less than half the year, giving players over half the year off unless they decide to play more than that, the rest being wholly optional. In what other sport is having more than half the year off considered oppressive?

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.

So if the ranking system made Wozniacki #4 or #6, she'd be ok to keep playing, but she should quit because it says she's #1? It would be ok for her to not win Slams if she played a shorter schedule and Vera or Kim was #1?

#1 is not this magical thing which embues players with abilities to do things they couldn't otherwhise. Again with Kvitova, you can turn the argument on it's head and say she needs to be more consistent and is failing by not doing so. There's balance here, and you are focusing soley on the one player whose role in all this you don't like, while constantly excusing the failings of others.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

DMan, first we'll look at the lies:

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.

#1 -- The 'Bryan must work for the WTA' lie.

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!

#2 -- I'm confused. Do I work for the WTA or a player agent company? Can't you keep your absurd falsehoods straight? And then we have

#3 -- The comprehensively intellectually arrogant belief that one could only oppose your views if they are corrupt.

But you are, Bryan, you are!

#4 -- The lie that claims I'm against counting every result. I'm not. I am against counting them all equally, for a number of reasons.

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

#5 -- No it isn't. I could care less if Wozniacki is #1 or if she retires tomorrow. This is more fundamental than the Great Dane. Not to mention this is a complete lie as well since I've described what I would like to see changed.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

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.

If the average decreases, the ranking does as well. If I go from 450 to 430(or whatever), if someone else is anywhere in the middle, my ranking went down.

Your point on the play-down rule is noted, and correct. This still leaves the problem though that they can gain nothing by playing Premier events, which means they risk by playing them but with no possible ranking reward, you are giving them an incentive not to play there. We're talking big events here with purses close to a million dollars.

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

It's spelled out in plain English in what you quoted. Repeating it won't help.

Which means exactly what?

That your argument re: injuries is largely irrelevant, because the situation you described isn't normative.

n, 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.

Yes, but the point is that most people returning from injury don't have fewer than the minimum. You have to account for both in the system, accounting for only one but ignoring the more common case isn't good enough.

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!

Allowing players to throw out bad results(which as I've said, I'm opposed to) does not reward them, it merely fails to punish them. Just like average ranking fails to reward players, but with a play-down rule, would not punish them, for winning mid-level and smaller events.

 

[DMan]

So, do the WTA rankings still work?

Now that we've completed all 4 majors, here's what happened as a result of the US Open

#1 Wozniacki, who got blitzed by the #28 ranked player int he semis, strengthened her position as #1. She's never won a major. She's reached 2 semis int he majors. Thats #1 folks.
#2 Sharapova got hammered in the 3rd round by a journeywoman pro at the US Open. And she was rewarded with the #2 ranking.
#3 Azarenka. Barely won games in the 3rd round, losing to the #28 ranked player. In the third round.
#4 Zvonereva. A nice QF girl, as usual. And that's 4th best....in the world?!?

Of course the girls who won the biggies are ranked #5, 6, 7, and #9.

So the rankings work, because the biggest winners on tour don't rank anywhere near #1.

And it's almost a mathematical impossibility for any woman other than Wozniacki to finish as #1.

So, anyone out there willing to stand up and proudly announce how they still believe the current WTA rankings work?

Anybody?

Perhaps the same number of people who think Serena Williams will be awarded the WTA's Sportswoman of the Year award? !

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Of course they still work.

We simply need to recognize a couple facts.

** The Slams are not the only events on the tour calendar. They comprise 8 weeks of over 40. Therefore looking at only them to determine a ranking is short-sighted.

** Those who won the first three majors did nothing at the US Open. Now, when we say things like that we often are exagerrating, as we mean they didn't do very much. However, in this case they literally did nothing, either skipping the event entirely or losing in the first round.

Incidentally, Sharapova was not rewarded nearly as much as others were punished. Her rise from #4 to #2 is not due to any great reward for reaching the third round: but rather, to the fact that those above her did not defend their results from last year and therefore plummeted below her.

Bottom line: there's more to the tour than winning Slams. Here's your Slam winners:

Kim Clijsters: Lost in the second round of the French(to Rus, ranked 114th), has only one match win since, including completely skipping Wimbledon and the US Open.

Petra Kvitova: QF at AO(l. #2 Zvonareva), first-round losses in Dubai, Indian Wells, and Nassau, 4R at the FO(l. #7 Li), third-round losses in Toronto and Cincinatti(both to #10 Petkovic), and first-round out at USO(l. to #48 Dulgheru).

Na Li: F at AO(l. Clijsters), lost first match at her next four events, 2R at Wimbledon(l. #62 Lisicki), third-round losses to #11 Stosur in Toronto and Cincinatti, loses in first round at USO to Halep(#53)

Samantha Stosur: 3R at AO(l. #28 Kvitova), did not make the semis of any event prior to Stuttgart(mid-April), 3R at the FO(l. #51 Dulko), 1R at Wimbledon(l. #262 Czink)

Everybody on the tour is a very mixed bag this year. Yes, I'll take the achievements of any of the top 4 over these ladies, all of whom have the opportunity to earn a higher spot by cutting out more of the bad losses next year.

 

[soyizgood]

Given how sucky the top players have been this year (Petkovic was the only woman to make the QF at 3 of the majors and she lost all of those QF matches), the only person that has any chance of taking #1 from Wozniacki is Sharapova and a slim chance at that.

At least Davenport made slam finals in her 2004-5 reign as YE #1. Wozniacki can't say that and until some players get their stuff together she doesn't really need to.

 

[boredone3456]

Of course the girls who won the biggies are ranked #5, 6, 7, and #9.

So the rankings work, because the biggest winners on tour don't rank anywhere near #1.

Why don't you explain what those Girls who won the biggies have done this year thats is so impressive outside of the biggie they won?

Kim, Aussie Winner, has been absent for pretty much the entire year since due to injury, and failed to defend her US Open title or her Wimbledon points, why is she not ranked higher? she hasn't played. Or because she won a major is she supposed to be able to do nothing else at all and still remain in the top 4? How is that a decent idea?

Li, French Open Champion and Australian Runner Up. After the Australian lost 5 straight matches and after winning the French lost in the 2nd round Wimbledon and 1st round of the US Open...gee...not exactly what I would call world number 1 quality.

Kvitova also lost in the first round of the US Open...in fact since Wimbledon she hasn't done anything worth noticing as being good. She won a couple of titles early in the year but she also had some really bad performances as well. No consistency at all. Talent yes...but now she's crashing after winning her first major, maybe she'll form up a little, but if not, she doesn't deserve to be ranked any higher.

Stosur, other than the US Open, has done squat all year. Her clay season, where she had a ton of points to defend, was a stinkfest in comparison to her performance in 2010. She lost quite a few points and looked terrible. She hasn't done anything other than win the US Open this year, and thats why she isn't ranked higher.

Do you really want to see players in the top 4 who can't even consistently get the Major quarterfinals, or a top 4 in which 3 of them lost in the first round of the most recent major? How in the name of past champions is that any better for the rankings than Wozniacki at number one? What does it say about the integrity of being a Major winner if at other majors you can't even make it to the 2nd week, or in the case of the US Open, past the first round?

The problem is not the system, its players who cannot string any consistency together what so ever and hold up their rankings. It doesn't say much when Serena can come back after almost a year of not playing and win 2 titles and make a mjaor final making a fool of top 10 players along the way. The vast majority of the current womens tour is the problem, not the system regulating the points. Give the Major winners howver many points you want today, their result outside of their one major even at the other majors will still make be a mockery of it.

 

[boredone3456]

It is pretty sad if some think simply reaching the 4th round of majors is some astounding achievement worthy of #1. That is a good result for a top 20 player alright.

And yet for the majority of the top ten and recently, seemingly all of the major winners, it is nearly impossible for them to do...and people say the ranking system is entirely to blame for the fiasco...