admin
|
WTA Ranking System ChangeThe WTA has announced that they are changing their ranking system. There will no longer be quality points (extra points awarded for beating higher ranked players), and Grand Slam winners and Tier I winners get more points. Do you think this is a good change?
|
Babzzzzz
|
I think that's pretty much like the ATP ranking, right?
|
J-man
|
i don't really understand what are the benfits???
|
beachjm
|
I'm a little confused also about this new ranking system. I think it's good to give more pts. for wins in the big events, but I'm surprised players aren't rewarded more for beating the better players. So many players know how to "play the system" and get high rankings for a lot of quantity but few quality wins.
|
PSALT
|
| beachjm wrote: | | I'm a little confused also about this new ranking system. I think it's good to give more pts. for wins in the big events, but I'm surprised players aren't rewarded more for beating the better players. So many players know how to "play the system" and get high rankings for a lot of quantity but few quality wins. |
namely the Russians.
|
Agassi2000
|
I think there are some good things about it and some not. The good thing is giving more points to the GS winners. The bad thing is practically everything else. Tier I winners should not get more points, and quality points should remain. It should be better to beat davenport in the 2nd round of Wimbledon than to beat sugiyama. So now, if someone does upset davenport in the 2nd round if wimby, they only get points for getting into the 3rd round. That is not right.
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | I think there are some good things about it and some not. The good thing is giving more points to the GS winners. The bad thing is practically everything else. Tier I winners should not get more points, and quality points should remain. It should be better to beat davenport in the 2nd round of Wimbledon than to beat sugiyama. So now, if someone does upset davenport in the 2nd round if wimby, they only get points for getting into the 3rd round. That is not right. |
yeah i agree 
|
Not_Even_Amateur
|
| beachjm wrote: | | I'm a little confused also about this new ranking system. I think it's good to give more pts. for wins in the big events, but I'm surprised players aren't rewarded more for beating the better players. So many players know how to "play the system" and get high rankings for a lot of quantity but few quality wins. |
Enter: Petrova and Schnyder. Getting to the WTA Champs based on quantity alone, disgraceful and undeserving.
|
Agassi2000
|
| Not_Even_Amateur wrote: | | beachjm wrote: | | I'm a little confused also about this new ranking system. I think it's good to give more pts. for wins in the big events, but I'm surprised players aren't rewarded more for beating the better players. So many players know how to "play the system" and get high rankings for a lot of quantity but few quality wins. |
Enter: Petrova and Schnyder. Getting to the WTA Champs based on quantity alone, disgraceful and undeserving. |
I SO agree. I couldn't believe when I heard that they were in the tour champs and venus williams wasn't. Even serena, with her awful playing, are better than them.
|
J-man
|
| Agassi2000 wrote: | | Not_Even_Amateur wrote: | | beachjm wrote: | | I'm a little confused also about this new ranking system. I think it's good to give more pts. for wins in the big events, but I'm surprised players aren't rewarded more for beating the better players. So many players know how to "play the system" and get high rankings for a lot of quantity but few quality wins. |
Enter: Petrova and Schnyder. Getting to the WTA Champs based on quantity alone, disgraceful and undeserving. |
I SO agree. I couldn't believe when I heard that they were in the tour champs and venus williams wasn't. Even serena, with her awful playing, are better than them. |
yeah but was was extremly surprised that patty was in it 
|
leftys_rock
|
ya im a little confused w/ the new ranking system too....but with what u guys are saying i understand it better.....
|
wickedspin
|
This new saystem is in my opinion prejudice towards up and comers  ! The WTA ranking system is messed up as it is all it needs is this.! 
|
x.doublea
|
The WTA is doing the right thing with their ranking system modification. There should be no reason why players should be awarded extra points for beating high ranked-players. When players beat high ranked-players, they still move through the draw the same way as they do if they beat a lower ranked-player; they just have to play a better match. So, really, awarding extra-points is not really fair to other players.
Awarding more points to Grand Slam and Teir-I champions is very good. The WTA probably wants this increase of points available to attract higher ranked players and force them into participating in as many Teir-I tournaments as they can. The WTA doesn't want to see another 2004 Indian-Wells-Miami attendance problem, where only half of the Top 10 showed up in both tournaments.
|
leftys_rock
|
how do players get 0.5 of a point??
|
x.doublea
|
I'm not sure. However, the WTA should model their ranking system like the ATP Entry Ranking system.
|
Agassi2000
|
I guess the ATP ranking system does work better. It always seem to come out more accurate (accept for this year). Even though I do think quality points are good somewhat, the ATP ranking is usually much better than the WTA's so now I'm not so sure.
|
dav6789
|
The thing i dislike the most on te wta tour is byes for the top players. Its completely unfair and atupid. Some players only have to win 4 matches to win a title ! It's unfair to the lower-ranked players who work hard ( especcialy the qualifiers).
|
Agassi2000
|
| dav6789 wrote: | | The thing i dislike the most on te wta tour is byes for the top players. Its completely unfair and atupid. Some players only have to win 4 matches to win a title ! It's unfair to the lower-ranked players who work hard ( especcialy the qualifiers). |
They don't get points for the byes if they lose their first match anyway, so it only really helps the lower ranked players because they don't have to play the top seeds in the early round.
|
leftys_rock
|
thats true....usually a qualifying round is how long??
|
dav6789
|
I understand your point Agassi2000, but if a seed wins 1 match, they will get the same amount of points as someone who had to win 2 matches to get to that stage. Also , the seeds would be fresher than the unseeded players, which is an unfair advantage.
Qualifying rounds are usually 3 matches long.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah i dont really get the byes in there....but uve made a good point agassi2000.....
|
x.doublea
|
In the ATP, AMS Madrid, AMS Paris, and some International Series Gold tournaments also award byes to the top eight seeds, so it is not just the WTA. However, if the top eight seeds lose the second round matches (their first), they only get the amount of points awarded to first round losers, while the other players are awarded the 'normal' amount of points given to second round losers if they lose in the second round.
(Hope it makes sense)
|
leftys_rock
|
oh...like in the medibank that starts on monday, byes are only given to the top four seeds....
|
x.doublea
|
Sorry, this is probably correct (ATP):
AMS Indian Wells- top 32 seeds get byes
AMS Miami- top 32 seeds get byes
AMS Madrid- top 16 seeds get byes
AMS Paris- top 16 seeds get byes
ISG Barcelona- top 8 seeds get byes
IS Queen's Club- top 8 seeds get byes
ISG Stuggart- top 8 seeds get byes
IS Indianapolis- top 8 seeds get byes
IS Kitzbuhel- top 8 seeds get byes
IS Washington- top 8 seeds get byes
IS New Haven- top 8 seeds get byes
ISG Tokyo- top 8 seeds get byes
IS- International Series
ISG- International Series Gold
Not sure about the WTA...
|
x.doublea
|
I guess in the WTA they give the top 4 seeds byes in some tournaments with 28 participating players (Ex. Medibank).
|
leftys_rock
|
hingis lost today to JHH....oh...cuz sometimes they give different numbers of players byes...
|
lobsided
|
I do think a player should be awarded much better if they perform well in a slam. I also feel that a lower ranked player should get rewarded just as much if they beat a top player in a smaller tourny. I think the system is putting to much reward on the bigger tournaments maybe trying to get the top players to play.
|
leftys_rock
|
wait, so if the players get bonus points if they beat higher ranked players, then does that mean that davenport wont be able to get any bonus points?? well it will be clijsters on monday, but davenport for right now.....
|
x.doublea
|
Didn't the WTA abolish the bonus point system?
|
Babzzzzz
|
| x.doublea wrote: | | Didn't the WTA abolish the bonus point system? |
Yes, they did. And now, more points can be earned in Grand Slams.
|
x.doublea
|
I think the abolishing of bonus points is fairer for top ranked players. there should be no reason why lower ranked players should get extra points for beating higher ranked ones; a win is a win and an advance to the next round. It shouldn't be worth anything more statistically.
|
canadian-southpaw
|
| Babzzzzz wrote: | | x.doublea wrote: | | Didn't the WTA abolish the bonus point system? |
Yes, they did. And now, more points can be earned in Grand Slams. |
This is the way the point system should work.
|
x.doublea
|
Awarding more points at the Grand Slams will encourage players to try harder at the Grand Slams, knowing that they can improve their rankings more significantly.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah...that would benefit tennis a lot more.....
|
canadian-southpaw
|
I agree that the slam should reward more points. The participation by top players would be more and they would try even harder if they knew that the points awarded could effect their rankings significantly.
|
leftys_rock
|
so how many points does a player get if they win a GS??
|
x.doublea
|
In the WTA, a Grand Slam win is worth 700 points.
In the ATP, a Grand Slam win is worth 1000 points.
|
leftys_rock
|
oh wow....so that explains why fed has like 6000 points....and the top women only have like 4000 or 3000 points.....
|
x.doublea
|
Precisely. Both point systems are a bit flawed, but I would say that the ATP one is better.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah....that probably explains why roger is so much more dominant in mens tennis....he has like twice the points of anybody on the tour...
|
x.doublea
|
He has ONLY approximately 2000 more points than Nadal.
|
leftys_rock
|
who has ONLY 1000 points more than roddick....
|
x.doublea
|
Federer has over double the amount of points Roddick, the number 3 player, has.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah....thats kind of sad if u think about it....in contrast to the womens game, who's rankings sometimes differ by like 20 points.....
|
x.doublea
|
If I'm correct, years back, Graf and Seles were tied for World Number 1 for two weeks.
|
leftys_rock
|
wow....yeah, i remember when davenport and sharapova were separated by like 23 points or something.....but tied....right at the dot.....wow...
|
x.doublea
|
It happened twice in August 1995 to November 1996.
They were tied for Number 1 from August 15, 1995 to November 3, 1996. Graf then had two weeks of being the sole Number 1 from November 4, 1996 to November 17, 1996. They then both shared Seles's last days as Number 1, for a week from Novemeber 18, 1996 to November 24, 1996.
This means that they were tied for Number 1 for a total of 65 weeks.
|
leftys_rock
|
quite....has that ever happened before them??
|
x.doublea
|
Never happened, men or women.
|
leftys_rock
|
wow....they had QUITE a rivalry....too bad it couldnt have continued longer....
|
J-man
|
| x.doublea wrote: | It happened twice in August 1995 to November 1996.
They were tied for Number 1 from August 15, 1995 to November 3, 1996. Graf then had two weeks of being the sole Number 1 from November 4, 1996 to November 17, 1996. They then both shared Seles's last days as Number 1, for a week from Novemeber 18, 1996 to November 24, 1996.
This means that they were tied for Number 1 for a total of 65 weeks. |
that's very cool. it shows how competitve they both were
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, we havent had THOSE types of rivalries since then.....right now, its basically the top 5 racing for the top spot....
|
J-man
|
but those ravlaries are hard to come by. i mean to have two players so evenly in points is extremely hard. both players have to win like the same amount of matches and everything. very hard in today's game where th competion is very tough
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, im surprised that they had the same ranking for such a long time.........cuz if they play in the same tournament, then only one can win...
|
J-man
|
no they didn't play the same tournment and both win, that's immposible. they proably (and please someone back me up on this if i am wrong) played the same amount of tournments and won the same amount of tournments.
|
leftys_rock
|
wow, must have been a pretty even split then.....
|
x.doublea
|
Yes...they probably had the same amount of points and had the same results a year later.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah.....quite astonishing.....it would have been something if what happened in 93 didnt happen and the rivalry continued....
|
x.doublea
|
Yes. Graf would have probably solved Seles and it would have been a great rivalry. Only if....
|
leftys_rock
|
yes......that was too bad that had to happen......but we cant change what happened......
|
x.doublea
|
Yes, it's too bad that some mentally retarded person had to basically sabotage Seles's career.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah.....but what happens happens u know?? but it was just a shame that had to happen.....
|
x.doublea
|
That incident actually caused tournaments director to 'beef' up the security level at tournaments. Of course, the occasional thing happens (such as naked men running on Center Court at Wimbledon).
|
Speedy-Gonzalez
|
I think somethings are good about it and some not. GS winners should recieve more points and quality wins should get more points as well. Everything else is a little mixed up.
|
x.doublea
|
I don't think that a quality win should gain more points: a win is a win, and it doesn't matter how ugly or good it is.
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, cuz in a match u either win or lose....it doesnt matter if it was a landslide or eeking by.....
|
Speedy-Gonzalez
|
But say if a #65 ranked beats a #2 ranked in a tough fought match that is a big win for them and deserves some reward. The only thing I don't like about that is higher seeds don't get quality wins points.
|
leftys_rock
|
well that wouldnt be fair to like sharapova or something, because she was #1 for a brief period and there are a lot of players better than her.....so if she beat mauresmo or something during that time, she wouldnt get any points though mauresmo is a better player than her(well thats my opinion)....
|
Speedy-Gonzalez
|
That's true I see your point. And certain players are better on different surfaces.
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah....it kind of gives an advantage to clay players because the clay season is so long......and then there is like one month of grass......and thats it.....the rest of it is mostly hard and carpet, but there are a few clay tourneys here and there....
|
J-man
|
the reason that the clay court season is so long has given players like guadio a chance to stay in the top 20
|
leftys_rock
|
yeah....and coria too......the clay season has really helped him stay in the top...
|
Jaded
|
There is only one good benefit to this new system and that is players are rewarded higher point totals when they win a slam or a big title. The rest of it is total bullocks.
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, i dont like it very much....its kind of expected that a player should get more points if they win a GS...
|
x.doublea
|
Yes, the ATP does a good job of rewarding GS winners, but the WTA gives the winners nothing.
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, because a grand slam is so much harder than a big title.....
|
Kay-Kay
|
I don't know about getting extra points for tier 1 wins, but getting extra points for slams is a good idea.
|
leftys_rock
|
i think the players should just get it for GS, not tier 1.....well maybe there could be an exception for indian wells and miami......
|
leftys_rock
|
yes, they basically are slams except for the fact that they have first round byes for all the seeds......
|
Kay-Kay
|
Yeah, but those seeds would most likely win if they did have to play.
|
leftys_rock
|
of course....but its just like the slams in that they play for two weeks and most of the top players are entered.....
|
x.doublea
|
Indian Wells and Miami are as closed to the Grand Slams as any tournament can get. That's really the only difference (what leftys_rock mentioned), and that the prize money is cut by half.
|
leftys_rock
|
do they also get as many ranking points??
|
jobird
|
i think it is a good change
|
jobird
|
how do you get the pictures of the players?
|
leftys_rock
|
do you mean in an avatar?
|
Benchwarmer1
|
so their points reset after each year?
|
x.doublea
|
| leftys_rock wrote: | | do they also get as many ranking points?? |
No, the winners get the same amount of points as any other Masters Series or Teir I winner....
|
leftys_rock
|
oh WOW, i said that in february......but thanks for the answer!
|
x.doublea
|
Sorry if you weer waiting for so long....
I thought it might help Benchwarmer's question.
|
|
|
