Naiktha obviously has her Aus links, but there's 23/32 representing Australia in the main draw, and this is the only R1 match up not to involve a home player. Obviously it's a lot different geographically, and they could do with more home tournaments than most to get players on the ladder, but imagine Bath, Loughborough or Birmingham with 23 Brits.
Naiktha obviously has her Aus links, but there's 23/32 representing Australia in the main draw, and this is the only R1 match up not to involve a home player. Obviously it's a lot different geographically, and they could do with more home tournaments than most to get players on the ladder, but imagine Bath, Loughborough or Birmingham with 23 Brits.
I can understand why some players looking for ranking points dont go for British home tournament. The ranking of the number one seed at Birmingham is 141, whereas at Canberra it's 193. And Naiktha wouldn't even be seeded in the British tournament. With the vagaries of the draw, there's a much higher chance of being knocked out in the first round over here and not getting any points at all.
I'm not sure how it would work but I'd quite the points system to reflect the difficulty of the opponents. So it would be harder to just play in outposts where the draw is weak and hoover up points, and equally if you do beat number 141 in the tournament here you get a bit more credit than beating number 141 over there.
Naiktha obviously has her Aus links, but there's 23/32 representing Australia in the main draw, and this is the only R1 match up not to involve a home player. Obviously it's a lot different geographically, and they could do with more home tournaments than most to get players on the ladder, but imagine Bath, Loughborough or Birmingham with 23 Brits.
I can understand why some players looking for ranking points dont go for British home tournament. The ranking of the number one seed at Birmingham is 141, whereas at Canberra it's 193. And Naiktha wouldn't even be seeded in the British tournament. With the vagaries of the draw, there's a much higher chance of being knocked out in the first round over here and not getting any points at all.
I'm not sure how it would work but I'd quite the points system to reflect the difficulty of the opponents. So it would be harder to just play in outposts where the draw is weak and hoover up points, and equally if you do beat number 141 in the tournament here you get a bit more credit than beating number 141 over there.
Until maybe 20 years ago , perhaps longer, the ATP system had a quality points aspect- in addition to rounds points, youd get additional points for beating higher ranked opponents . Im not sure it went as low as ITF events or players ranked below say 100, ie the quality points required you to beat quality players and therefore would only be available in the main tour events by default.
I think the wta had something similar.
of course the live rankings systems like OER would never be able to cope with effectively random quality points style systems !
Naiktha obviously has her Aus links, but there's 23/32 representing Australia in the main draw, and this is the only R1 match up not to involve a home player. Obviously it's a lot different geographically, and they could do with more home tournaments than most to get players on the ladder, but imagine Bath, Loughborough or Birmingham with 23 Brits.
I can understand why some players looking for ranking points dont go for British home tournament. The ranking of the number one seed at Birmingham is 141, whereas at Canberra it's 193. And Naiktha wouldn't even be seeded in the British tournament. With the vagaries of the draw, there's a much higher chance of being knocked out in the first round over here and not getting any points at all.
I'm not sure how it would work but I'd quite the points system to reflect the difficulty of the opponents. So it would be harder to just play in outposts where the draw is weak and hoover up points, and equally if you do beat number 141 in the tournament here you get a bit more credit than beating number 141 over there.
Until maybe 20 years ago , perhaps longer, the ATP system had a quality points aspect- in addition to rounds points, youd get additional points for beating higher ranked opponents . Im not sure it went as low as ITF events or players ranked below say 100, ie the quality points required you to beat quality players and therefore would only be available in the main tour events by default.
I think the wta had something similar.
of course the live rankings systems like OER would never be able to cope with effectively random quality points style systems !
Interecting Jon. I wonder why they changed it. It just seems like there's a disparity between the ranking level of players at tournaments in different parts of the world, and players in Europe seem to have harder competition than in some other countries.
Naiktha obviously has her Aus links, but there's 23/32 representing Australia in the main draw, and this is the only R1 match up not to involve a home player. Obviously it's a lot different geographically, and they could do with more home tournaments than most to get players on the ladder, but imagine Bath, Loughborough or Birmingham with 23 Brits.
I can understand why some players looking for ranking points dont go for British home tournament. The ranking of the number one seed at Birmingham is 141, whereas at Canberra it's 193. And Naiktha wouldn't even be seeded in the British tournament. With the vagaries of the draw, there's a much higher chance of being knocked out in the first round over here and not getting any points at all.
I'm not sure how it would work but I'd quite the points system to reflect the difficulty of the opponents. So it would be harder to just play in outposts where the draw is weak and hoover up points, and equally if you do beat number 141 in the tournament here you get a bit more credit than beating number 141 over there.
Until maybe 20 years ago , perhaps longer, the ATP system had a quality points aspect- in addition to rounds points, youd get additional points for beating higher ranked opponents . Im not sure it went as low as ITF events or players ranked below say 100, ie the quality points required you to beat quality players and therefore would only be available in the main tour events by default.
I think the wta had something similar.
of course the live rankings systems like OER would never be able to cope with effectively random quality points style systems !
Interecting Jon. I wonder why they changed it. It just seems like there's a disparity between the ranking level of players at tournaments in different parts of the world, and players in Europe seem to have harder competition than in some other countries.
from memory the system they had was discontinued for two reasons - one, to simplify it for the public ie an ATP 500 would be worth the same as every other ATP 500 etc and , secondly, that the players where closer together in performance so that WR 55 was really not any worse and therefore less valuable to beat than say WR40. etc.
In the Golf Rankings, they apply a factor to an events ranking based on the overall quality of the event once the final entry is known. So all main PGA Tour level events might start as say a 50 point event, but if the event in Las Vegas has a really strong field, it may get a factor applied of say 1.25 to all the players points in that event, whereas an event with a weaker field may get no uplift or a small drop- down from the base 50 points available
Naiktha obviously has her Aus links, but there's 23/32 representing Australia in the main draw, and this is the only R1 match up not to involve a home player. Obviously it's a lot different geographically, and they could do with more home tournaments than most to get players on the ladder, but imagine Bath, Loughborough or Birmingham with 23 Brits.
I can understand why some players looking for ranking points dont go for British home tournament. The ranking of the number one seed at Birmingham is 141, whereas at Canberra it's 193. And Naiktha wouldn't even be seeded in the British tournament. With the vagaries of the draw, there's a much higher chance of being knocked out in the first round over here and not getting any points at all.
I'm not sure how it would work but I'd quite the points system to reflect the difficulty of the opponents. So it would be harder to just play in outposts where the draw is weak and hoover up points, and equally if you do beat number 141 in the tournament here you get a bit more credit than beating number 141 over there.
Until maybe 20 years ago , perhaps longer, the ATP system had a quality points aspect- in addition to rounds points, youd get additional points for beating higher ranked opponents . Im not sure it went as low as ITF events or players ranked below say 100, ie the quality points required you to beat quality players and therefore would only be available in the main tour events by default.
I think the wta had something similar.
of course the live rankings systems like OER would never be able to cope with effectively random quality points style systems !
Interecting Jon. I wonder why they changed it. It just seems like there's a disparity between the ranking level of players at tournaments in different parts of the world, and players in Europe seem to have harder competition than in some other countries.
from memory the system they had was discontinued for two reasons - one, to simplify it for the public ie an ATP 500 would be worth the same as every other ATP 500 etc and , secondly, that the players where closer together in performance so that WR 55 was really not any worse and therefore less valuable to beat than say WR40. etc.
In the Golf Rankings, they apply a factor to an events ranking based on the overall quality of the event once the final entry is known. So all main PGA Tour level events might start as say a 50 point event, but if the event in Las Vegas has a really strong field, it may get a factor applied of say 1.25 to all the players points in that event, whereas an event with a weaker field may get no uplift or a small drop- down from the base 50 points available
I honestly think that's fairer. But I'm sure there are many arguments against it that I haven't thought of but thanks for all that info.
