Week 28 - Challenger (€42,500+H) - Scheveningen, Netherlands (red clay)

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Week 28 - Challenger (€42,500+H) - Scheveningen, Netherlands (red clay)

WD40 · Club Coach

Stircrazy wrote:
Yet another new partner for Darren, but at least he has a decent doubles ranking (134). Wonder what's happened to Adham...
R1: Colin Ebelthite (AUS) & Darren Walsh WR 433 vs Ruben Gonzales & Chris Letcher (PHI/AUS) WR 433

They both have the same ranking ? isn't that a bit unusual?

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

WD40 wrote:
Stircrazy wrote:
Yet another new partner for Darren, but at least he has a decent doubles ranking (134). Wonder what's happened to Adham...
R1: Colin Ebelthite (AUS) & Darren Walsh WR 433 vs Ruben Gonzales & Chris Letcher (PHI/AUS) WR 433
They both have the same ranking ? isn't that a bit unusual?

Combined rankings, WD40: Ebelthite/Walsh 134 + 299 & Gonzales/Letcher 225 + 208. I did the maths twice when I saw the figures! A rare coincidence, perhaps, but no less impossible for all that. wink

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Yet another short thread featuring Darren Walsh:

R1: Ruben Gonzales & Chris Letcher (PHI/AUS) WR 433 defeated Colin Ebelthite (AUS) & Darren Walsh WR 433 by 3 & 2 cry

indiana · Tennis legend

As an aside I have always tended to think CR would be a better term than WR when quoting combined rankings for doubles matches.

i.e. they are certainly not really an indication of a doubles world ranking, just more a calculation to place the pairs in order for entry and seedimg purposes. Indeed how a pair ranked overall in doubles terms would logically actually be less than the general individual doubles rankings rather than the sum of the two.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
As an aside I have always tended to think CR would be a better term than WR when quoting combined rankings for doubles matches.

i.e. they are certainly not really an indication of a doubles world ranking, just more a calculation to place the pairs in order for entry and seedimg purposes. Indeed how a pair ranked overall in doubles terms would logically actually be less than the general individual doubles rankings rather than the sum of the two.

I think I got the gist of that, Indy (am pretty hopeless when it comes to any kind of mathematical calculation/analysis), & on that basis I agree with you. I have always felt distinctly uncomfortable when posting a combined ranking as a "world" ranking, hence my recent tendency also to include Race positions, where appropriate. Then, when Steven said last week (again, I think...) that the Race had no bearing on pairs' world ranking, I decided to revert to "combined rankings"... Still confuse , but am more than happy to use "CR" as a fairer (?) indicator of relative status, if people feel that that makes more sense.

indiana · Tennis legend

Cheers SC, was just putting into writing thought I'd had.

It's not really a biggee and while I think "CR" is better, personally I can live with "WR" recognising it as a combined ranking ( as I see you have sometimes actually said ).

Happy to go with what others think, and ultmately yourself as the forum doubles guru.

steven · Tennis legend

I think it has always been obvious from the context whether you are referring to each player's doubles ranking or the combined ranking, but CR might be a good way to make the distinction.