2013 rankings predictions

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: 2013 rankings predictions

RJA · Hall of fame

I think it is fair to say that after 3 years of Evo seriously underachieving the vast majority of us were beginning to wonder if things were ever going to change.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

After neglecting this for a little while, I've updated the tables. Next week is the final week for the men with the last UK event, but there are still 3 more weeks for the women.

Note: The following all have their ranking calculated using the pro-rata rule due to not playing 16/18 tournaments - it's a depressingly long list:

Anne Keothavong
Elena Baltacha
Katy Dunne
Harriet Dart
Francesca Stephenson
Jamie Baker
Alex Bogdanovic
Liam Broady
Richard Bloomfield
Luke Bambridge
Evan Hoyt

Updated tables

-- Edited by RBBOT on Saturday 26th of October 2013 12:06:08 PM

A1 tennis academy · Satellite level

korriban wrote:
Men

Andy Murray: 2
Jamie Baker: 185
James Ward: 135
Josh Goodall: 375 (he may retire after Wimbledon)
Dan Evans: 200
Alex Bogdanovic: 350
Dan Smethurst: 345
Josh Milton: 495
Richard Bloomfield: 525
Oliver Golding: 345

Women

Heather Watson: 42 (but most of the year in the 30's until right at the end)
Laura Robson: 22
Anne Keothavong: 185
Johanna Konta: 120
Elena Baltacha: 295
Samantha Murray: 175
Tara Moore: 265
Naomi Broady: 325
Lisa Whybourn: 350
Amanda Carreras: 290

Teens

Kyle Edmund: 365
Luke Bambridge: 715
George Morgan: 750
Liam Broady: 440
Evan Hoyt: 1400
Francesca Stephenson: 575
Lucy Brown: 695
Harriet Dart: 675
Eleanor Dean: 850
Katy Dunne: 900

-- Edited by korriban on Friday 4th of January 2013 08:44:02 AM

No body predicted MW in top 10

indiana · Tennis legend

Gary, in this thread / competition, noone was predicting Marcus's ranking.

The competition was based on predicting the rankings of an initially set group of players, generally the highest ranked at the start of the year.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Okay, when I said last week was the final week for the men, I was looking at the ITF schedule for the last UK event, and forgot about that little shindig in the o2 this week. Doh!

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

The final results are now in and here are the winners:

Men's Competition: Josh

Women's Competition: Philwrig

Teen's Competition: Jajon

And our overall winner with a last minute over-take: Philwrig

Also, congratulations to Lucy Brown, for being the only one of the 10 teenagers chosen from the Team Aegon list who actually managed to play a full season of matches. It's quite disappointing that from the 30 British Players about whom predictions were made, only 16 of them managed to enter the 16/18 tournaments required to get a full ranking.

Full Results

philwrig · Hall of fame

Thank you RBBOT, always good fun, especially when you win ;)

indiana · Tennis legend

Well done, Mr Phil !

RBBOT, out of interest ( and I'm probably missing something re dates or whatever ), Kyle and Liam ( for example ) have a complete 18 tournament ATP rankings breakdown, albeit with some actual zero pointers for R1 losses. Indeed, according to the top 25 table Liam has played a lot more, which I presume is down to losses in qualifying which the ATP activity and rankings breakdown do not record.

Sorry to be a pain..

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Yes, I've based it off the ATP figures - it was far simpler than trying to work out for each player how many unreported tournaments were in the qualifying period (steven's top 25 is for a 52 week period, not Jan - Mid-Nov). It probably could be found on the player by player breakdown.

Given all this ranking adjustment, I've a simpler idea for next year that doesn't require so much maths:

1. Predict the GB Top 10
2. You get one point for each of your 10 predictions that is actually in the top 10
3. You get one point for each consecutive pair of predictions you get in the right order (even if one or both finish outside the top 10)

So the maximum score is 19 points if you get all 10 right. Thoughts?

-- Edited by RBBOT on Wednesday 20th of November 2013 09:34:53 PM

paulisi · Tennis legend

I'm not sure i understand point 3.

Point 1 and 2 are fine.

For the last prediction guess the final ATP/WTA ranking and if they are in the top 10 and within a fixed delta i.e 10pts within a ranking delta of 20 places etc

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks RBBOT for your reply and the new suggestion.

I really do like the concept, all points 1 to 3. How about though extending it to the top 20 rather than the top 10 ? It could be quite interesting trying to predict who might come in further down the rankings.

Similarly scored, so a maximum of 39 points. That also gives a greater range of points and less likelihood of ties.

I like too the limited effect of someone hardly playing through injury, retiral or whatever. You just really potentially lose out on 2 points i.e. them not being in the top 10 / 20 and them not finishing ahead of whoever you predicted they'ed finish immediately ahead of.

No need for any further adjustment, indeed folk might like to take a punt on a big faller for say retiring. Limited loss and gain for big punts either way on particular players, it being all about getting as many as you can of the top 10 / 20 and having each pair down your list in the right order.

Sim · County player

How about another slight variant which is even simpler:

Predict the top 10 Brits in order.

For each player you get 10 points if spot on, 9 if 1 place out (so you predict a player to be GB no.5 and they finish no.4 or no. 6) down to 1 point if 9 places out.

So a max of 100 points.

Could extend to top 20 but still only max 10 points per player so possible 200 points total.

I agree with Indiana no exceptions for illness/retirement.

If go for top 20 then no points if outside top 25 so lines up with Steven's tables

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

paulisi wrote:

I'm not sure i understand point 3.

Say, for example, you predict Dan Cox will be 4th and Edward Corrie 5th, then you score a point if Dan's ranking is better than (or equal to) Edward's, regardless of where they are in the rankings compared to everyone else. So if they finished 1st & 2nd, 6th & 15th or 12th & UNR you still get the point. Doing it that way means that if you get it roughly in the right order, you should score well, whereas if it was done based on number in exactly the right position, you get a situation where one player being injured means all your placings are out by 1 and you get nothing.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Cheers - i understand now, quite complicated though...