Call me cynical but I think I was one of only 3 people out of 30 odd to put Harriet in the top 100. All the latecomers have put her top 100. Would any of the 5 or 6 latecomers be honest and tell the truth about their predictions? Probably not, therefore the competition is flawed already.
Jaggy, I think you'll find that just over half of those that posted by the Dec 31st deadline had Harriet in the top 100 (23/42). Although I wasn't one of them, and will probably regret not revising it.
Jaggy, I think you'll find that just over half of those that posted by the Dec 31st deadline had Harriet in the top 100 (23/42). Although I wasn't one of them, and will probably regret not revising it.
And Harriet had also won all her matches before new year. A lot of people revised her upwards before 1 Jan.
I was the first to submit my WTA predictions and have since edited them (before the deadline), however, while I did knock a few spaces of Harriet, I still have her outside the top 100 (121, come in from 140odd) - I'd say it was still odds on that she finishes outside the top 100, despite the very encouraging start. Happy to be proved wrong.
I was the first to submit my WTA predictions and have since edited them (before the deadline), however, while I did knock a few spaces of Harriet, I still have her outside the top 100 (121, come in from 140odd) - I'd say it was still odds on that she finishes outside the top 100, despite the very encouraging start. Happy to be proved wrong.
Yes I edited mine too and not just Harriet.
Whether some of us may have overreacted to Harriet's early pre deadline wins who knows but it was certainly open to everyone to change up until then.
Late entries are I think up to Sim but I'm not sure that there has been much post deadline info to be gleaned in the big scheme of things and as for Harriet, as said her wins were pre deadline.
Hopefully vohor's pretty optimistic across the board slate turns out quite close with at least some and I note within these that Harriet is GB #5 which may actually be lower than the overall average GB prediction.
If you were going to make it a strict, serious competition, then I think it should be based around the end of the tennis year, with a two-week or so window after the end-of-year rankings are issued, and running to the end-of-year rankings to the next year.
Then there are no issues of stellar starts to the new year being factored in and the predictions mirror the rankings in term of timeframe which surely makes sense.
However, that's not the aim and the calendar year is far more instinctive and natural and ties in with Xmas festivities, New Year resolutions and everything that is seasonal.
As such, Dec 31st is Dec 31st, a deadline, and with a little leeway coz it's just a game.
For what it's worth, Harriet's wins made no difference to my predictions (posted on the 29th, I think) and actually on the 30th I thought about moving Katie S up a bit (and would have done if I'd posted them on the 30th), and putting Katy Dunne back in (probably a daft reasoning for leaving her out) but then left it, because you can fiddle around and drive yourself mad and - for me - short of a typo, once they're up, they're up.
I explained my reason for late posting - no internet while moving house. But since someone has questioned it, my predictions have been on the back of an envelope since Christmas Eve, including Harriet ranked 98. If you remember, she was ill in 2017 so while her rise up the rankings during 2018 might have come as a surprise to some I think there is potential for even greater rise for her. I saw her at Ilkley and liked the look of her game and attitude.
Rule me out for being late if you wish but as a newbie on this forum I didn't expect to be accused of anything underhand. Besides, any of these players could receive injuries or retire during the year so the competition is all a bit of fun, surely?
Indeed, fun competition it is which is one reason why while best to be in time hardly anyone cares two hoots about the odd few often understandable slightly late entries in a season long competition.
For new / occasional posters I think interesting and often fun forum too in general although a few months ago, even after a err few posts, I felt cause to take some time out before simply thinking **** it since the cause of my pretty temporary absence simply wasn't worth it.
There is no prize so it does not matter except for pride. Everyone had the chance to edit their entries up-to Dec 31st so there should not be a disadvantage of posting early.
Harriet had won all her matches by Dec 31st so there is no additional advantage of posting in the last couple of days.
There is always a danger of reading too much in one week's results especially the first week.
I will put up the initial tables this weekend including the late entries but no more now.....
-- Edited by Sim on Friday 4th of January 2019 12:58:51 PM
There is no prize so it does not matter except for pride. Everyone had the chance to edit their entries up-to Dec 31st so there should not be a disadvantage of posting early.
Harriet had won all her matches by Dec 31st so there is no additional advantage of posting in the last couple of days.
There is always a danger of reading too much in one week's results especially the first week.
I will put up the initial tables this weekend including the late entries but no more now.....
-- Edited by Sim on Friday 4th of January 2019 12:58:51 PM
Thanks for doing this again Sim. It is always great to know in January that I can anticipate being completely wrong every year by December!!
I have compiled all the tables but can't upload them at the moment. I think Steven must have changed the password for access.
This is the current "standings". All it shows is how close your predictions are to the current rankings. Status Quo is an additional entry which is as it says the current GB top 10 with their world rankings so currently gets 100 points. This will enable you to see if your predictions are better than simply keeping the top 10 exactly as they are today