Week 11 - ITF ($15,000)- Bath, UK - Hard

philwrig · Hall of fame

RE: Week 11 - ITF ($15,000)- Bath, UK - Hard

indiana · Tennis legend

OK, I already think some of the women's ranking points allocations strange to say the least, but looking at the new 15Ks, we evidently have :

L32 - 0
L16 - 1
QF - 8
SF - 11
RU - 15
W - 20

Be a hard won one point to start with, especially here, and what's with the rest of the random number generating ?

1 point for winning R1, another 7 for winning R2, and then another 3 for winning a QF ??!

Actually looks to have been based on the 10K ( 0 / 1 / 4 / 6 / 8 / 12 ) starting with its 1 for a R1 win and then initially doubling to a bit less than doubling the remaining points, but it just ends up looking absurd.

paulisi · Tennis legend

you would think they would go 1-6-10-15-20

Didn't spot Konjuh - Jade may have a problem...

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, and Apollo 13 thought they had a "problem"...

Josh · Challenger level

Konjuh wasn't having it all her own way, was 1-1 in the 3rd when I had to leave.

indiana · Tennis legend

I tend to agree korriban ( my last post was re Jade's potential problem )

Though I think the men's rankings are closer to what I would generally personally have. And at least they have logic re how they reward winning tennis matches as against whatever the thinking is re the women's.

steven · Tennis legend

Like korriban, I think the way the men's round by round increments go are too extreme and tend to favour the more streaky players. I always assumed they did it because the most streaky players (who were players like Gasquet, Gonzo & Nalby when the last major change to the rankings was made), also tended to be the most popular players. However, as Indiana says, at least there is some logic to them.

How someone at the WTA can come up with these points allocations without everyone else on the rankings committee (I assume that's how they get decided) immediately saying "we can't do that, it's nonsense!" I really don't know. In this case, they seem to have found a way to make the already silly 10K system even more illogical, which takes some doing!

philwrig · Hall of fame

Josh wrote:
Konjuh wasn't having it all her own way, was 1-1 in the 3rd when I had to leave.

Interesting !

Konjuh's record at junior level is rock solid, then played well at Fed Cup but at senior tournament level it isn't great yet.

philwrig · Hall of fame

The WTA ranking points system for early rounds is yes very weird.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Grace Dixon put up a decent show going down 6-1 6-3

won 43pts v 62pts and had more break points.

korriban · Challenger level

paulisi wrote:
Grace Dixon put up a decent show going down 6-1 6-3

won 43pts v 62pts and had more break points.

I'm confused. Isn't this a heavy loss?

korriban · Challenger level

With 14 British girls out of the 32 players in the qualies draw, including 2 of the 8 top seeded players, and 2 other players seeded 9-16, it is possible that we could have NO British qualifiers, because none of the 8 sections is Brit only!

Of course, its also possible that all 8 qualifiers are British.

My concern is that, despite the huge number of Brits, the likelihood of the former is probably as high as 50/50, whereas the likelihood of the latter is zero. These are not exciting times for British women's tennis (apart from 3 or 4 individuals) ....contrary to the official party line.

indiana · Tennis legend

Whatever the history of the women's ranking points allocations, that can not explain setting up a points allocation for a new event, thr 15K, in such a way that it is more anomalous ( and in my view frankly absurd ) than any existing event.

As Steven said, that took some doing.

0, 1, 8, 11, 15, 20 - CRAZY !

RainDelay · Pro player

Mel Beat Anna Smith 6-4 6-2

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Disappointing for Anna thought she would come through. Mel is spent at singles