Gotcha. Noted.

10 points rule is because you can get 10 points from a WC R1 loss at GS and Prem Mandatories. Also works in tandem with the below.
3 events, I seem to remember is to mitigate against rankings from WC. The thinking being it is unlikely that one association will have enough events at a level where a R1 loss is worth 1 point, and also too few players to concentrate them in one player if they are holding lots of events. Therefore, any single player, by this method, is less likely to have a ranking just from favourable over-disposition of WC yet never winning a match. It doesn't work perfectly, but for the most part players have to win matches to get a ranking.

Still don't see any argument against a simple 3 point rule rather than 3 counting events or 10 point rule.. If you get 3 points from one or two events at lower levels you will have won a match or two ( and indeed might not if it takes three events with the potential turning up points ).

Seems to me that they are too much just thinking of top players ( probably returning top players ) so maybe 10 points is indeed linked to mandatory event R1 losses.

So essentially more to do with rewarding top players for losing than lower level players for winning ??

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 5th of February 2016 08:38:37 PM

The Optimist wrote:

---

AliBlahBlah wrote:

---

10 points rule is because you can get 10 points from a WC R1 loss at GS and Prem Mandatories. Also works in tandem with the below.
3 events, I seem to remember is to mitigate against rankings from WC. The thinking being it is unlikely that one association will have enough events at a level where a R1 loss is worth 1 point, and also too few players to concentrate them in one player if they are holding lots of events. Therefore, any single player, by this method, is less likely to have a ranking just from favourable over-disposition of WC yet never winning a match. It doesn't work perfectly, but for the most part players have to win matches to get a ranking.

---

 I didn't know the logic behind it being 3 events for a ranking, but the alternative of  minimum 10 points for a ranking was brought in when Kim Clijsters came out of retirement.  She won the 2 lead up events as an unranked WC going into the Australian Open, but as she had only played 2 events was still an unranked WC in the Australian Open itself and won that as well!!!

---

Well, 3 points ( full stop ) would have worked for Kim as well   

indiana wrote:

---

Still don't see any argument against a simple 3 point rule rather than 3 counting events or 10 point rule.. If you get 3 points from one or two events at lower levels you will have won a match or two ( and indeed might not if it takes three events with the potential turning up points ).

Seems to me that they are too much just thinking of top players ( probably returning top players ) so maybe 10 points is indeed linked to mandatory event R1 losses.

So essentially more to do with rewarding top players for losing than lower level players for winning ??

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 5th of February 2016 08:38:37 PM

---

 My take is that the WTA rankings are not a measure of ability or, especially, form, and are not intended to be so. They are a good indicator for sponsors of the ROI that they can confidently expect if they sponsor a certain player. So a huge amount of stability is deliberately built in, and without the help of a rich federation, from a major market, it is very close to impossible to rise up through the rankings, unless you have extraordinary ability, stamina, private family funds and luck with injuries.

The WTA is, imho, much less a governing body, than an American marketing franchise.

This rather reminds me of the time the government - I forget which one, or which colour even - were overhauling some aspect of the benefit system in a budget. There was, as ever, much wailing and gnashing of teeth after a tabloid paper - I forget which one - ran a story showing that a family with a certain number of children, living in certain places with a very particular set of other circumstances would be able to legally claim close to £100K a year with no working family members.
Outrage. It went on for a couple of weeks, the matter was thundered about in PMQ's and there were, as ever, calls for resignations.
Private Eye then went back and looked at the figures. They were indeed correct, such a family could indeed claim that much. Except that there were no cases of a family of that shape or nature anywhere in the UK and there was no record of one having existed in the available records.

Kim Clijster's case, and even Gabi Taylor's are very much exceptions that, might, affect one player every couple of years. You can't really make legislation for that.
At the far extreme of this argument, you could suppose a player got a WC to Wimbledon, and every one of her opponents defaults or gives a w/o for various reasons. She can't be champion, or have a ranking. Of course the scenario is realistic, it's just not remotely probable, and not worth factoring in to the system for governance of the game.
NB: if anyone knows what would happen in that instance, Id be interested

If I could have one thing answered about WTA rankings it wouldn't be the 10 point minimum, or the 3 tournament rule - both seem to me to serve some useful, if imperfect, filtering to avoid potential abuses of the system. What I would like to know is: why don't points for $25K and below go on in the same week as all other events? Why is there the delay?