Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British men discussion section -> Week 34 - US Open Qualifying
Post Info TOPIC: Week 34 - US Open Qualifying
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 40894
Date:
Week 34 - US Open Qualifying
Permalink  

Spectator wrote:

More confirmation that we need Akhenaten to do the ATP rankings! There is something odd about a system in which Mr Goodall can be a top 200 player despite having only one win against a top 200 player all year ... which was in the first tournament he played in January, while Mr Ward, who has five top-200 wins for this year (and acquitted himself nicely in many of his top-200 losses, too), is lower ranked.

But some of the oddity does seem to be more the system's fault than the players'. If low rounds of Challengers offer so little in terms of points, and Futures wins offer so much, the incentives for moving up and improving your level of competition are pretty weak.

 

I don't really think that there is that much of a problem,  Yes. there are anomalies and you can get say into the 200s in the ranking when a "stronger" challenger player may not.  But there is a cap on how far you can really go, and in many ways you limit yourself and are liable to get found out when it counts.  The cream rise to the top, the divergences like this ( and  for instance i am sure someone is ready to go on about weak clay tournament points ) I can live with.

The fact that you can stack up points in futures taking you into challenger player ranking points territory can in fact in some cases then give the aspiring player a buffer as they then try to make their way in challengers 

Re a sort of Akhenaten system, I have argued against it in the past given the clarity of the current system. Nothing's usually perfect and I am sure there are at least some liitle changes many would make.

By the way,  I love looking at Akhenaten's rankings for information on how players are really performing as against the rankings of players they are beating and losing to.



-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 23rd of August 2012 11:51:36 AM

__________________
Spectator


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5679
Date:
Permalink  

More confirmation that we need Akhenaten to do the ATP rankings! There is something odd about a system in which Mr Goodall can be a top 200 player despite having only one win against a top 200 player all year ... which was in the first tournament he played in January, while Mr Ward, who has five top-200 wins for this year (and acquitted himself nicely in many of his top-200 losses, too), is lower ranked.

But some of the oddity does seem to be more the system's fault than the players'. If low rounds of Challengers offer so little in terms of points, and Futures wins offer so much, the incentives for moving up and improving your level of competition are pretty weak.

__________________
insomniacfolder


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2478
Date:
Permalink  

Spectator wrote:

More confirmation that we need Akhenaten to do the ATP rankings! There is something odd about a system in which Mr Goodall can be a top 200 player despite having only one win against a top 200 player all year ... which was in the first tournament he played in January, while Mr Ward, who has five top-200 wins for this year (and acquitted himself nicely in many of his top-200 losses, too), is lower ranked.

But some of the oddity does seem to be more the system's fault than the players'. If low rounds of Challengers offer so little in terms of points, and Futures wins offer so much, the incentives for moving up and improving your level of competition are pretty weak.

That is interesting.

Is the general consensus that the WTA allocations better balanced, and offer the right incentives and rewards at the right levels?

Or, are neither systems satisfactory, and a 'third way' is required, if so what?

 

From my cursory inspection, I edge towards the WTA system. Even threr though it seems quite possible to become ranked in the top 150 or so without ever beating a player ranked more highly than yourself. Which instinctively seems strange to me.

Perhaps more factors than the highest round reached should be taken in to account, like Duckworth-Lewis in cricket, but we do want still to have the system easily understandable for everyone. wink

Apologies if this has now become rather tangential to the original subject, and should in fact be covered by a separate topic. 



__________________
RJA


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 9639
Date:
Permalink  

I don't think there is too much wrong with the ranking system. As Indiana said players can make the top 200 just playing futures but it doesn't do much for their development. If a player lacks the ambition to try and move up a level then that is a failing on their part, not on the part of the rankings system.

__________________
Count Zero


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 11934
Date:
Permalink  

Although i imagine it would be possible to reach World No1 without ever beating a player ranked higher? just have to get super flukey on the draws for a pretty long period of time :)

__________________

 

Count Zero - Creator of the Statistical Tennis Extrapolation & Verification ENtity or, as we like to call him, that steven.


www.alexbogdanovic.com
Reeltime


Satellite level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1394
Date:
Permalink  

Count Zero wrote:

Although i imagine it would be possible to reach World No1 without ever beating a player ranked higher? just have to get super flukey on the draws for a pretty long period of time :)

 

See countless WTA players for details!   



__________________
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 40894
Date:
Permalink  

Reeltime wrote:
Count Zero wrote:

Although i imagine it would be possible to reach World No1 without ever beating a player ranked higher? just have to get super flukey on the draws for a pretty long period of time :)

 

See countless WTA players for details!   

 

Such as ?   smile



__________________
The Knight


Challenger qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 2380
Date:
Permalink  

probably means one of safina, wozniacki or jankovic i guess...

__________________
RBBOT


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1677
Date:
Permalink  

insomniacfolder wrote:

Is the general consensus that the WTA allocations better balanced, and offer the right incentives and rewards at the right levels?

Or, are neither systems satisfactory, and a 'third way' is required, if so what?

They are both flawed, although I think the WTA system is closer to being good: the ATP system is too top-heavy in each tournament, and in particular does not give enough/any points for tour-level qualifying matches. The only real problem with the WTA system is it gives too many points for a R1 win compared to a R2 win, and a QR1 win compared to a QR2 win. If QR1/R1 points were reduced by about 30% it would be about right.



-- Edited by RBBOT on Saturday 25th of August 2012 01:26:27 AM

__________________
steven


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 34418
Date:
Permalink  

Like many others, I was shocked when Josh lost to a lower-ranked Argentinian clay-courter, but Andreozzi has gone on to qualify, beating Bubka in the FQR today!

__________________

GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!

GB top 25s (ranks, whereabouts) & stats - http://www.britishtennis.net/stats.html
«First  <  1 2 3 | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British men discussion section -> Week 34 - US Open Qualifying
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard