Rankings Improvements - Strength in Depth

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Rankings Improvements - Strength in Depth

Gary Denton · Intermediate Club Player

That's what I like to see, Bob. Positivity rules. You bet it does!

steven · Tennis legend

Yes, you're right - even though numbers in the top 500 (and especially top 250) have got worse or not much better over the last few years, it has been noticeable while doing the men's top 25 table that the cut-off has been going higher and higher up the rankings.

Taking the week 29 ATP rankings for the last 5 years, the 25th-ranked British man has had the following world ranking:

2008: 1010
2009: 928
2010: 911
2011: 949
2012: 787

The odd thing is, the opposite is true of the GB women - taking the week 29 rankings in each case, the 25th-ranked British woman has had the following world ranking:

2008: 874
2009: 979
2010: 941
2011: 972
2012: 1129

... yet if you were asked which group (GB men or GB women) were doing better this year, almost everyone would say the GB women!

Three obvious possibilities for this apparent paradox:

1) This is all cyclical and more GB men will start appearing at the higher levels in the next few years. After all, in terms of players in or around the top 100, the GB women did better than the men in the 1980s and early 1990s, then they did virtually nothing while the GB men did better between the mid-1990s and the mid-noughties, and now (Muzz excepted) the pendulum is swinging back heavily towards the women.

2) The ranking needed to be in the GB women's top 25 is being distorted by what you might call the 'Borwell effect' - i.e. a recent jump in the number of GB women who might well be in the 500-1000 range at the moment going off to college in the US instead of trying to make it on the tour right away. If so, that may have a very positive effect in a few years' time, though unfortunately past experience suggests players going to college in the US is more likely to increase the number of higher-ranked doubles players a few years down the line than the number of higher-ranked singles players.

3) It takes a special individual to make the top 100, so it may be that the number of players in the top 100 (or even top 200) is never that highly correlated with the number of players who are or have been in the top 500/750/1000. Data from other countries would suggest those two things are correlated though.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I think with the women, a number of retirements and long term injuries have hurt the number( Katie, Naomi, Anna S and Georgie, Jos Rae) would have been dead certs to be in the top 500 and thus bring that 25th ranked number down.

In the forseeable the situation is going to get worse as we don't a strong group of 15- 17 year olds.

With the men the opposite is true with a strong group of juniors and thus the trend there is likely to continue.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Another minor factor in the drop in the Womens' rankings: no you don't have to have 3 tournaments under your belt, good players that have retired have their points sticking around until their last tournament drops off, which means lowly ranked players are a few places further back with the same number of points as in past years.

Malteaser · Junior player

I've noticed this too and wondered whether it would correlate with future success at the top end, say 3 years from now.

Looking at the women 3 years from now you'd probably say that Heather and Laura should be in the top 100, not sure who else though. In fact, I'd suggest that both of these are good enough to be top 50 at least 3 years from now. Obviously Anne and Bally are potentials, but I'd wonder/worry about retirement/injury etc.

In the mens, it reminds me of the old saying about sh*t at a wall - throw enough at it and some will stick. Having said that in terms of top 100 potential in 3 years time, I would suggest that Ollie is only a potential and the a lot of the rest - Dan Evans, Liam B, James W, etc. will need to improve quite a bit to make the top - possibles though.

(by the way the saying was an alliteration, not any slur on the mens players!!!)

But all the above suggests that we should judge success based on top 100, my view is that we should judge success on titles - futures and challengers, slowly but surely improve the number of these we get and eventually we will get more top 100s. i can definitely see this happening over the next 3 years.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

I don't think titles is necessarily a good way to judge rising players - you can go a long time without winning one if you are entering tournaments that are challenging to you. e.g. Laura's ranked 91, but her only tour win was a 10K in 2008 when she was 14.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Malteaser wrote:
Looking at the women 3 years from now you'd probably say that Heather and Laura should be in the top 100, not sure who else though. In fact, I'd suggest that both of these are good enough to be top 50 at least 3 years from now.

I might be optimistic/unrealistic, but I'd expect both of them to be top fifty within a year, if not this year if they carry on the way they'been goign recently and can stay injury free.

They seem to be spurring each other on nicely.

Don't forget Naomi and Johana either.