Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British women discussion section -> WTA Rule changes 2024
Post Info TOPIC: WTA Rule changes 2024
Lambda


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Date:
WTA Rule changes 2024
Permalink  

It has taken them 7 weeks into the season, but the WTA have eventually got around to publishing the 2024 rulebook to let us know what rules everyone is playing to.

As we know the WTA have made a number of changes to the WTA calendar this year in an attempt to get the top players to play together. We also knew of some changes to entry rules. These changes and others not previously known I'll attempt to list below. Unfortunately, unlike the ITF, the WTA doesn't underline the changes or publish a summary of changes and darn if I'm reading the whole thing so these are just the sections I've looked at.

This is my interpretation of the rules which are horrendously complicated.

Commitment tournaments
WTA 1000 for players aged 18 and over - All WTA 1000s are mandatory* and will result in 0 points if not played. Eligible players who would be accepted by ranking will be automatically entered into WTA1000 Mandatory tournaments.
WTA 1000 for players aged 17 - Are required to play Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Beijing. 0 points will be award if these tournaments are not played. They are not required to play other WTA 1000 Mandatory tournaments and will only receive 0 points if they withdraw after the entry deadline.
WTA 1000 for players aged under 17 - They are not required to play WTA1000s and will not receive 0 points unless they are accepted and then withdraw after the entry deadline.
*I've assumed all WTA1000s are mandatory as the rulebook only mentions "WTA1000 Mandatory (IW, Miami, Madrid, Beijing)" and "Other WTA 1000 Mandatory" tournaments.

WTA 500 for players aged 18 and over at the start of the Tour year - must play at least 6 that they would be accepted in to if they had entered. If they would be accepted in to 5 or fewer then they are required to play all the WTA500s they would be accepted into if they had entered. Failure to meet this will result in 0 points being awarded.
WTA 500 for players aged under 18 at the start of the Tour year - Not required to play WTA500s

Entry rules
In weeks where there is a WTA500 and a WTA250 players ranked 1-30 may not enter the WTA250 unless they use a WTA 250 Play-Down Exemption (they are allowed 2 per year). WTA250 Play-Down Exemptions can be awarded to 1 player who is the defending champion, 1 player who is of the same nationality as where the tournament is held ('local player exemption'), 1 player ranked 11-30. A 2nd 11-30 player is allowed if either of the defending champion or the local player exemptions are not used. These players are chosen at the tournament's discretion. In all WTA250s only 1 top 10 player may be accepted to play singles or doubles. A top 10 player may only play 3 WTA250s.

WTA125 (second week of Grand Slam or WTA 1000) - players ranked 11+ may enter
WTA125 (other weeks during the Tour Year with a higher level tournament) - Players ranked 1 - 75 who would be accepted into a WTA500 or WTA250 in the same week may not enter or accept a WC.
WTA125 (off-season and weeks without a higher level tournament) - Players ranked 1 - 50 may not enter, but players ranked 21 to 50 may accept a WC

WTA Finals - The top 7 players on the race leaderboard qualify plus the highest ranked current year Grand Slam winner ranked 8-20 who has not already qualified. Withdrawals will be replaced by the 2nd highest current year Grand Slam champion ranked 8-20 not already qualified and then by the next highest ranked player not to have qualified.

Wild cards
"Top 20" Wild cards are replaced by "Exemption Wild Cards"
WTA 500 and WTA 250 have 2 Exemption Wild Card spots
Exemption Wild Cards are for Top 30 players, former WR1 players, former GS Champions within the last 10 years, former WTA Finals champion from the last 10 years and former WTA1000 Mandatory winners from the last 5 years.

Rankings
Singles - a player must count their best 18 results which must consist of
4 Grand Slams
6 WTA 1000 Combined/Split site combined tournaments
1 WTA 1000 (WTA Only)
best 7 other tournaments
0 point counters from Grand Slams and WTA1000s must count for 52 weeks.
0 point counters from WTA500 commitment tournaments must count until the player has results from a WTA500 in the following tour year.
Players who have not played for at least 8 weeks due to a medical condition ('Long term injury') do not have to count 0 point counters from WTA 1000s during the Long term injury and their WTA500 commitments are reduced.

And if you've got this far (well done) and are not confused than you must be an AI chatbot.

-- Edited by Lambda on Wednesday 14th of February 2024 05:38:51 PM

__________________
KK


Club Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 592
Date:
Permalink  

Thank you very much for setting them out so clearly. Lambda.



__________________
seagull


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 8829
Date:
Permalink  

Does this explain weird goings on in rankings this week?

Dart loses 13 from Surbiton and is replaced by a 1 from losing in a masters qualifying event...sort of understand that one, but Jodie loses a 2 from a masters event and is replaced by a 1 from a masters event??

__________________
SuperT


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1684
Date:
Permalink  

seagull wrote:

Does this explain weird goings on in rankings this week?

Dart loses 13 from Surbiton and is replaced by a 1 from losing in a masters qualifying event...sort of understand that one, but Jodie loses a 2 from a masters event and is replaced by a 1 from a masters event??

 Also why does the Montreal 1000 only award 1 point for first round qualifying when all the others award 2?  It seems like a mess to me.



__________________
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39512
Date:
Permalink  

SuperT wrote:
seagull wrote:

Does this explain weird goings on in rankings this week?

Dart loses 13 from Surbiton and is replaced by a 1 from losing in a masters qualifying event...sort of understand that one, but Jodie loses a 2 from a masters event and is replaced by a 1 from a masters event??

 Also why does the Montreal 1000 only award 1 point for first round qualifying when all the others award 2?  It seems like a mess to me.

Last year, although called a WTÀ 1000 event, Montreal was still being treated as an old style WTA Premier 5 event ( 900 points for the winner, 1 point for a QR1 loser ) as distinct to one of the 4 WTA Premier Mandatiries ( 1000 points to the winner, 2 points for a QR1 loser ). So Jodie did just get 1 point for Montreal.

This year they have moved all the WTA 1000 events onto the higher ranking points, evidently, as Lambda's post, treating them all as mandatories ( but not retrospectively changing the points, hence still that 1 point for Montreal ) in at last getting the event names to tie in with the winner's points. Sorting out the naming in line with the title points for all WTA and ITF events did seem a good improvement along with a much smoother and more logical points progression for ITF events.

I'm OK with all that, but yes re the latest official rankings, gawd knows why the Montreal 1 point would come in to replace 2 qualifying points from another WTA 1000 !? ( and mandatory event qualifying points have never before been mandatory counters anyway, so even replacing the Surbiton 13 points with a 2 point qualifier seems strange ). Maybe a ****-up? 

If correct, then what, please anyone, is the reasoning behind some WTA 1000 qualifying points now being treated as mandatory counters and not others?? ( even higher others )

Whatever the logic, I see that the OER ranking totals amd breakdowns do now reflect these latest official rankings for Jodie and Harriet. 



-- Edited by indiana on Monday 19th of February 2024 05:22:02 PM

__________________
Lambda


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Date:
Permalink  

Having had a look at a few players breakdowns, and assuming OER is correct with what is counting, then it appears that players are required to count:
Main draw points from Indian Wells, Miami and Madrid
Best main draw or qualifying points from 1 other WTA1000
Beijing seems to be an anomaly as I can't find anyone that counts it that has higher counters.

There are some players that have had Doha QR1 points added as counting despite having counters with more points (for example Makarova). Several players appear to have Rome added as a mandatory counter, but they are mostly those that were in the main draw.

How that corresponds with what the rule book says defeats me.


-- Edited by Lambda on Monday 19th of February 2024 08:11:25 PM

__________________
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39512
Date:
Permalink  

Thank you for looking further into this, Lambda.

Does seem to be a bit of a pig's breakfast and annoyingly complicated. Pity after the recent more welcome tournament naming and points progression changes.

I guess it just affects some of the leadng players' ranking points. In the latest rankings, Jodie and Harriet were the only Brits who have different ranking points from what I had been originally expecting.



-- Edited by indiana on Monday 19th of February 2024 09:58:57 PM



__________________
JonH comes home


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 35926
Date:
Permalink  

indiana wrote:

Thank you for looking further into this, Lambda.

Does seem to be a bit of a pig's breakfast and annoyingly complicated. Pity aftern the recent more welcome tournament naming and points progression changes.

 How do sites like OER or Livetennis.eu actually do their daily updates on live rankings? With rules so complex , writing an algorithm to calculate the correct points must be incredibly complex. 



__________________
9vicman


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 521
Date:
Permalink  

The new ranking formulae seems to have fooled some of the other live ranking sites: both Tennis Tonic and Live-Tennis have Harriet Dart on 802 points which is incorrect.

To have mandatory qualifying points is bizarre. It's so random. And have these changes only been implemented this week?

Also, if Katie Boulter qualified on ranking for Dubai, but chose not to play, will she get a zero pointer? Or does that only apply to direct entries into the main draw?

Thanks for your work on this lambda.

__________________
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39512
Date:
Permalink  

9vicman wrote:

The new ranking formulae seems to have fooled some of the other live ranking sites: both Tennis Tonic and Live-Tennis have Harriet Dart on 802 points which is incorrect.

To have mandatory qualifying points is bizarre. It's so random. And have these changes only been implemented this week?

Also, if Katie Boulter qualified on ranking for Dubai, but chose not to play, will she get a zero pointer? Or does that only apply to direct entries into the main draw?

Thanks for your work on this lambda.

Yes, the ranking points changes have just been implemented this week. 

Harriet would have had these 802 points, just as last week, without the changes. But she is instead evidently ( from the OER breakdown ) on 802 + 2 ( from WTA 1000 Rome Q ) - 13 ( Shrewsbury dropped to let these Q points in ) = 791 points.



__________________
9vicman


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 521
Date:
Permalink  

Only the WTA would confirm ranking changes midway through February. Am sure it will all come out in the wash. Or it won't and they will change again.

__________________
SuperT


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1684
Date:
Permalink  

I don't want be a purveyor of conspiracy theories, but I can't help feeling that all the changes we are seeing seem designed to make it harder and harder for lower ranked played to progress up the rankings.

__________________
Lambda


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Date:
Permalink  

9vicman wrote:

Only the WTA would confirm ranking changes midway through February. Am sure it will all come out in the wash. Or it won't and they will change again.


You're being generous. It would be nice if the WTA had confirmed what is happening, but they haven't said anything. We're still all guessing and relying on live ranking sites to try to understand what is happening.

__________________
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39512
Date:
Permalink  

It has always been pretty ridiculous at any time that the WTA site itself doesn't give players' ranking points breakdowns.

But yes, clearly worse at times like this as everyone else is left to try and work out what the heck is going on.

__________________
Lambda


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
Date:
Permalink  

So what I think is happening is this:

In the new world with the increase in 1000s and 500s and the working with the ATP to create a series of combined 2 week events, the new requirements for rankings are that players are requred to include in their ranking points 6 WTA 1000s that is combined or "virtually combined" with an ATP 1000, and all of which will be 2 week events next year. They are also required to count 1 WTA 1000 that isn't combined with an ATP 1000. Evidently participation in qualifying means they are also required to count the points from these required events.

To transition between the old and new ranking requirements they are treating all 1000 non-mandatories last year as an event for the required WTA only counter. As such, because some will be counting Doha and some an event from last year, they've required all these events to include qualifying points when determining the best counter to include. They didn't do that before Doha because there was a level playing field that no player was including in their ranking points a required WTA1000 counter including qualifying from an event this year.

As Rome, Canada and Cincinnati are played this year they will drop from being required to count in the WTA only category to being included in the combined event category. I'm unsure if the China Open is classed as a "virtually combined" tournament as the WTA runs alongside an ATP500 in Beijing and the ATP China Open is held elsewhere in a different week although overlaps for 1 of the two weeks. I think it probably is since they include it as 1 of the 4 1000s that are treated differently for under 18s and was mandatory under the previous rules.

Furthermore, as Indian Wells, Miami and Madrid are played this year they will then require points from qualifying in this year's events to be included (I assume). They're not included now because there is no unlevel playing field in some players required to count qualifying points from those events last year now and others not.

__________________
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British women discussion section -> WTA Rule changes 2024
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard