Rankings revealed - does the current system make sense? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rankings revealed - does the current system make sense?

smikkel
02-18-2011, 12:39 AM
These 2 articles were posted on tennis.com - I thought there were pretty interesting takes on the way that the rankings system works. They're about the WTA for the most part, but they touch on the ATP rankings, and the issues are basically the same.

Article #1 (http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2011/02/the-rally-ranking-the-rankings.html)
Article #2 (http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2011/02/the-rally-ranking-the-rankings.html)

For me, any decent tennis ranking system has to have three things:

1. Circularity: It should run over the course of a year instead of starting again at the beginning of the season, which skews the early results too much. Seems obvious, but remember that the ATP in 2000 actually wanted the Race to take the place of the regular rankings, another case of someone taking leave of their senses. (Measuring over two years, the way Nadal wants, or even just six months is also possible, but I think a year makes perfect sense for tennis given that it coincides with the season.)

2. A level playing field: Finding some way to compare players on an equivalent basis, so that Serenaís four tournaments arenít judged beside Wozniacki's 24 without accounting for the difference. This can be an average or Best Of whatever, or something else. Iím split between the two, but they both basically do the job without being too complicated.

3. Quality control: In practice, this means bonus points. Winning a tournament beating Serena, Venus and Clijsters along the way is not the same as winning a tournament beating Pironkova, Radwanska and Kvitova along the way, and the rankings should reflect this.

I'm not sure that I agree that things need to be changed as the author states - the issue of Quality control in particular. I think that the idea of bonus points for winning against higher ranked players isn't necessary. Sometimes you get easy draws, and sometimes the draws are difficult, but that generally comes out in the wash.

The thing that I think is most wrong about the current system is that getting to the finals gives you 60% of the points that you'd get by winning the tournament (e.g. 1200 points for the finals of a Slam and 2000 for winning).

Topspindoctor
02-18-2011, 01:54 AM
WTA is so erratic, the ranking system is almost pointless. Everybody could lose to anyone on any given day. Furthermore the #1 rank is so tainted by slamless jokes, it carries little to no prestiege anymore. Total mug era. ATP is legit, though. Don't see any reason to change anything. Current top 3 are slam winners and amazing players.

GlennMirnyi
02-18-2011, 02:06 AM
A mug moonballer who can't even hold a racket right being #1 makes the ATP legit... yeah right.

Topspindoctor
02-18-2011, 02:08 AM
A mug moonballer who can't even hold a racket right being #1 makes the ATP legit... yeah right.

If a mug moonballer managed to win 3/4 of the last slams, then what does it make the rest of the tour :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
02-18-2011, 02:13 AM
WTA nonsense

Nathaliia
02-18-2011, 02:38 AM
Serena and Venus are beatable, obviously the author would like them in the shape from a few years ago; now they're mostly the ghosts on tour and it's the same as if to say "winning a tournament beating Billie Jean King counts more." Serena Williams played 4 tournaments last year and in 3 of them was absolutely beatable by random top ten players; certainly Kvitova or Radwanska are more difficult to be defeated now by the likes of Petrova, Jankovic or Stosur (Serena's tamers from 2010). Venus nearly lost to Sandra Who??? Zahlavova at Australian Open. Just one name among other decent players, receiving bonus points for beating an opponent with a commercially recognized name is stupid.

Clijsters will be back soon at #1, she is a good name at the good place; Wozniacki at least was a pretty replacement and gamewise she is smarter than Zvonareva if we must choose. Kvitova is a very interesting player, quickly develops, and will win a slam soon, maybe this year. Pironkova is just at the same level of Alexandra Stevenson or other random Wimbledon semifinalist to be never repeated anywhere else, belongs in top 70, shouldn't be even mentioned.

nobama
02-18-2011, 02:43 AM
these ranking discussions are always about one person: Serena Williams. If she's not atop the WTA rankings then the ranking system is a joke and people try to improve it which really just means find a way to get Serena back on top.

Johnny Groove
02-18-2011, 02:44 AM
I thought this was Mens Tennis Forums.

Pipsy
02-18-2011, 02:46 AM
these ranking discussions are always about one person: Serena Williams. If she's not atop the WTA rankings then the ranking system is a joke and people try to improve it which really just means find a way to get Serena back on top.

They should have reintroduced the challenge round at grand slams for women after her calendar-year slam ;)

Macbrother
02-18-2011, 02:49 AM
Point #3 just makes the entire post laughable, sorry. Top players get knocked out all the time, that's tennis, doesn't make the tournament have less value. WTA is where it's at because their truly great players are old, disinterested, or retired, so it's whoever racks up the most of the lesser tournaments becomes #1. Clijsters is worthy of the spot, however.

smikkel
02-18-2011, 04:52 PM
What interests me most about possibly changing the rankings is the finals vs. winning the tournament. One question that was good in those articles was: How many tournament finals are equal to a tournament win? And the current answer is that one final is worth 60% of a win. That seems crazy to me. How can two finals (in the same tier of tournament) be worth more points than one win??

Lleyton_
02-18-2011, 05:19 PM
these ranking discussions are always about one person: Serena Williams. If she's not atop the WTA rankings then the ranking system is a joke and people try to improve it which really just means find a way to get Serena back on top.

Nope. Wozniacki will be no.1 again on Monday and she is a joke compared to Cijsters who is currently holding two majors and YEC. The problem with Serena was that at one point she wasn't No.1 despite holding three freaking slams in 2009. WTA losers get more points than ATP losers. That's the biggest problem. And more prize money :o

FormerRafaFan
02-18-2011, 05:58 PM
WTA is so erratic, the ranking system is almost pointless. Everybody could lose to anyone on any given day. Furthermore the #1 rank is so tainted by slamless jokes, it carries little to no prestiege anymore. Total mug era. ATP is legit, though. Don't see any reason to change anything. Current top 3 are slam winners and amazing players.

You nailed it. This is exactly why I don't watch the WTA, it's basically a disgrace.

alfonsojose
02-18-2011, 06:16 PM
If Nole and Pocahontas falter before Wimby and Roger not, we could have Fedzniacki :devil:

Nathaliia
02-18-2011, 06:38 PM
Nope. Wozniacki will be no.1 again on Monday and she is a joke compared to Cijsters who is currently holding two majors and YEC. The problem with Serena was that at one point she wasn't No.1 despite holding three freaking slams in 2009. WTA losers get more points than ATP losers. That's the biggest problem. And more prize money :o
Clijsters used to be a slamless joke at Wozniacki's age as well. Painfully choking and a bitch of Williams' sisters, Capriati and especially Henin. Joke #1 in her times.

Then she developed and became what she is now.

Now she doesn't have health to travel everywhere and gain points and money, loses matches in smaller events and focuses where it matters for splendor. It's Wozniacki's turn to get experience and self courage in the events like Dubai. She plays more and gets rewarded for it. If Clijsters played the same amount it could have gotten back at her where it counts. She has her limits and because of these limits she isn't #1. Not really a fault of the system. If someone wins 2 slams and sucks or doesn't show up elsewhere then isn't good enough to be #1 - about Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters. Surely is good enough to be a great commercial face of tennis but not the leader of the ranking. Wozniacki isn't winning 25K ITFs and losing in slam 1st rounds, she also has appropriate results to back up her spot.

Sapeod
02-18-2011, 06:38 PM
If a mug moonballer managed to win 3/4 of the last slams, then what does it make the rest of the tour :rolleyes:
It makes them unlucky...very unlucky that a moonballer has beaten them to all the slams. It's a joke.

nanoman
02-18-2011, 06:41 PM
Yes, current system makes sense. You can't find a fair system to get the players on top who are only interested in playing 4 tournaments a year. The players are at fault, not the system.

Can Barcelaona top their leaugue if they only play against Real Madrid and do not show up for the other matches ?

Nathaliia
02-18-2011, 06:45 PM
Yes, current system makes sense. You can't find a fair system to get the players on top who are only interested in playing 4 tournaments a year. The players are at fault, not the system.

Can Barcelaona top their leaugue if they only play against Real Madrid and do not show up for the other matches ?
Yes, people mix the commercial value of names with their capabilities throughout the whole season.

The only thing I dislike - now about ATP rank, not sure how WTA rank works like - that you can achieve one or two semifinals in 500s and keep losing elsewhere early, but your rank is very inflated comparing to more regular players.

tennishero
02-18-2011, 06:52 PM
Clijsters used to be a slamless joke at Wozniacki's age as well. Painfully choking and a bitch of Williams' sisters, Capriati and especially Henin. Joke #1 in her times.

Then she developed and became what she is now.

Now she doesn't have health to travel everywhere and gain points and money, loses matches in smaller events and focuses where it matters for splendor. It's Wozniacki's turn to get experience and self courage in the events like Dubai. She plays more and gets rewarded for it. If Clijsters played the same amount it could have gotten back at her where it counts. She has her limits and because of these limits she isn't #1. Not really a fault of the system. If someone wins 2 slams and sucks or doesn't show up elsewhere then isn't good enough to be #1 - about Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters. Surely is good enough to be a great commercial face of tennis but not the leader of the ranking. Wozniacki isn't winning 25K ITFs and losing in slam 1st rounds, she also has appropriate results to back up her spot.

Clijsters is a much better player and more talented.

oranges
02-18-2011, 06:54 PM
What interests me most about possibly changing the rankings is the finals vs. winning the tournament. One question that was good in those articles was: How many tournament finals are equal to a tournament win? And the current answer is that one final is worth 60% of a win. That seems crazy to me. How can two finals (in the same tier of tournament) be worth more points than one win??

you'd give them even more points for the win? The diffeence used to be smaller before the most recent change and I saw no problem with it even then. For me, it goes under consistency over few good results Nathalia mentioned. Besides, unless you're kicked out in the first round, you'll end up with more points for the two tournments, say for one win and one quarter, then for two finals.

Dusk Soldier
02-18-2011, 07:46 PM
Most of those suggestions seem pretty arbitrary. I don't know that they'd have any real effect on the Rankings.

But one idea I'd like to see implemented is that you have to hold one of the four major tournaments in order to be eligible for the number one rank.

Nathaliia
02-18-2011, 07:52 PM
Clijsters is a much better player and more talented.
She wasn't that good at Pushniacki's age as she is now obviously. I also prefer to watch Clijsters but people all over the forums are too harsh on Pushniacki. She thinks on the court, and yes, this is a sign of talent. Also, it isn't said Caro would make a step further because Jankovic has never done it (one season wonder over there) but I think she has a big chance for it. Ladies in their mid 20s tend to be the most successful these days (Clijsters, Na Li, Zvonareva, Schiavone, Kuznetsova, Stosur) - Wozniacki is way the youngest there. Anyway I see more future for Kvitova from that generation.

Then again, rankings aren't about fans placing players at which one is the best at their prime.

PS to all sorry for all my WTA engagement here :lol:

nobama
02-18-2011, 07:54 PM
Nope. Wozniacki will be no.1 again on Monday and she is a joke compared to Cijsters who is currently holding two majors and YEC. The problem with Serena was that at one point she wasn't No.1 despite holding three freaking slams in 2009. WTA losers get more points than ATP losers. That's the biggest problem. And more prize money :oIf WTA used ATP points system it would better, agree with that.

r2473
02-18-2011, 08:34 PM
Rankings should be strictly based on "talent" and fan voting.

All this emphasis on results is unfair.