ATP & WTA rankings

[ti-amie]

I liked when you got more points for beating a higher ranked opponent.

They got rid of them when the Williams sisters were beating everyone ranked higher than them back in the day.

[Owendonovan]

I liked when you got more points for beating a higher ranked opponent.

They got rid of them when the Williams sisters were beating everyone ranked higher than them back in the day.

And they certainly didn't want to elevate or reward those 2 interlopers.

[ti-amie]

I wonder how many retirements and/or injuries would disappear if quality points returned?

[ashkor87]

...
My point is the rankings are useless as predictors of the future..why would I care about the past? They are not going to give me a cut of their earnings, are they,?! The wta has a ranking system defined for certain purposes, which are tangential to my purpose...which is to understand how the upcoming matches are going to unfold ..

Oh, but then I guess most of us will agree. And the reason we actually play the matches. Predicting who will win in a match between the #5 and #15 players is not automatic: "Oh, #5 will win, she is ranked higher". But, predicting that Pegula would go far in a tournament because she has been playing well AND is the #2 seed takes the ranking in consideration.
I "predicted" that Pegula would reach the final last week, and lose. Hurray! Except that I had her losing to Bencic, whom I felt was playing well enough to give Iga a run for her money. You take an educated guess, and then see how it goes. And rankings help you there; but are not set in stone.

If it were me I would simply ignore the being seeded 2 part as irrelevant.

[skatingfan]

And players hated it. Martina and Chrissie were basically void of getting any points from that. And beating Martina was almost like getting to the semis of any tournament. It seems, on paper, like a very good idea: it is not the same to beat the #1 player in 1R than beating the #32, but it created too many distortions.

It would be interesting to see the calculations, and how it would change the rankings. I think if it were to come back all players should be able to receive quality points, and not just the lower ranked player.

[Suliso]

Also ATP never had them. I don't think they make any sense, particularly in an era of relative parity.

[ponchi101]

From us the "oldies".
The reason for the "quality wins" was specifically tied to Martina's dominance. It was her time in which she was losing 1-2 times a year (1983-86) and there really were no challengers to her reign. So, some people rightly pointed out that IF you were to beat Martina, it meant much more than beating, for example, Shriver.
Other players, like Mandlikova and Shriver, were beatable, but still carried high bonuses. So the calculation for the points became a mess. For example, people that had reached 3R would have fewer points than somebody that reached 2R; Martina never cashed on any bonus, because she was the top ranked player and the system was that you only cashed points if your beat a player ranked above you. You also needed to constantly update the table, because of course, rankings changed.
Martina's dominance created a lot of problems, at the time. For example, there was a time in which rankings were calculated as an average, but Martina's was so high that if she played a smaller tournament and still won, she would lose ground because her average was more than the points for that tournament. So she had guaranteed points, but that did not go well with the other players.

Believe me when I say: the rankings have been tweaked A LOT throughout the history of the WTA. Is it perfect now? I don't know. But it is grounded on a lot of experimentation, just to get it close to right.

[ti-amie]

[Deuce]

^ Why mention that there are "tiebreaking criteria" without revealing what they are?
I imagine head-to-head record for that period is one of them... but it would be nice to know what the others are.

[3mlm]

^ Why mention that there are "tiebreaking criteria" without revealing what they are?
I imagine head-to-head record for that period is one of them... but it would be nice to know what the others are.

From the ATP Rulebook (p 241):

E. Ties. When two or more players have the same total number of points, ties shall be
broken as follows:
1) the most total points from the Grand Slams, ATP Tour Masters 1000 mandatory
tournaments and Nitto ATP Finals main draws, and if still tied, then,
2) the fewest events played, counting all missed Grand Slams, ATP Tour Masters
1000 tournaments they could have played (as described under A. above) as if
played, and if still tied, then,
3) the highest number of points from one single tournament, then, if needed, the
second highest, and so on.

No head-to-head, just points from specified tournaments.

[Deuce]

^ Why mention that there are "tiebreaking criteria" without revealing what they are?
I imagine head-to-head record for that period is one of them... but it would be nice to know what the others are.

From the ATP Rulebook (p 241):

"E. Ties. When two or more players have the same total number of points, ties shall be
broken as follows:
1) the most total points from the Grand Slams, ATP Tour Masters 1000 mandatory
tournaments and Nitto ATP Finals main draws, and if still tied, then,
2) the fewest events played, counting all missed Grand Slams, ATP Tour Masters
1000 tournaments they could have played (as described under A. above) as if
played, and if still tied, then,
3) the highest number of points from one single tournament, then, if needed, the
second highest, and so on."

No head-to-head, just points from specified tournaments.

Personally, I'd choose head-to-head for the period covered as the first tiebreaker, as it's direct and simple.
What if one of the tied players benefited from a walkover at a Major, and that was a main factor in them getting more points than the player they're tied with? Should the other player (who did not benefit from a walkover) effectively be punished? No.

[Ainsley]

We are all aware that this game is played on the court and not from a point ranking system. There is a reason why both must coexist in the game. There must be rankings so each tournament can seed the players accordingly and that makes the rankings and the point system from what these players have done over the past valuable. That does not take away anything from having a 4th round match against an unseeded player who has rolled off 12 consecutive wins against a top seeded player. Or when Serena played in a Slam against a top rank opponent early in the tournament because she hardly played any matches.It all makes for competitive tennis in my opinion. Each match both players lace up the tennis shoes and hit the court and see what happens. Those two players when they step onto the court aren't thinking about a ranking. Maybe they are thinking about it if they win or lose the match in how the ranking may go up or down, but not the actual seeded position. They are just thinking about winning that match.

[ashkor87]

Totally agree. The only issue is- would you expect player A to beat player B purely because she is ranked higher? I am sure you would agree- no, ranking does not matter at all in this sense. Rankings, at best, tell us how a player did over the past 52 weeks, nothing much about what she will do now

[Suliso]

That's not completely true. Past performance is a decent indicator of future results.

[Ainsley]

I agree that rankings are a good indicator of how a match will turn out, but it is not always the case. There are other factors involved such as the surface of the court, if the player is coming off an injury.