ATP M1000 WTA 1000 Cincinnati 8/12 - 8/19 2024

[ponchi101]

Well, the Tier thing is completely subjective, based on my (expert?) judgment...I don't look at rankings much. We have debated this ad nauseum on this forum, so I won't start that again!

But Ashkor. Every time you bring the TIER thing and the RANKINGS thing, you are starting the conversation again
You like to make your predictions, and that is fine. For example, you just made the claim that Parks will be a Tier 2 player one day. I see no shred of evidence for that; she is currently ranked 116 at age 23. Maybe she will do a Paolini and get better but, so far, she is a Tier 4 player, and she seems to like it there.
And you have always been very high on Alexandrova and when she does well, you praise her a lot. But she has been silent for quite a while now, and you don't mention that. She is a fine player that you have compared to Pegula and have even claimed they are equals, which, based on the last few weeks, is a comparison that is hard to accept.

And I did say this before. When you say that there are players that are in a given TIER, you are giving them a de facto ranking. It is just that it is not as numerically precise as the actual ones.

[ti-amie]

Randy Walker
@TennisPublisher

Mackie McDonald is playing the Cincinnati doubles final at 1 pm and is scheduled to play his first round singles match tonight not before 8:30 pm in Winston-Salem… will he get there in time?

[skatingfan]

Randy Walker
@TennisPublisher

Mackie McDonald is playing the Cincinnati doubles final at 1 pm and is scheduled to play his first round singles match tonight not before 8:30 pm in Winston-Salem… will he get there in time?

Well last night his singles match was scheduled for 10 am this morning, so 830 pm is an improvement.

[skatingfan]

But Ashkor. Every time you bring the TIER thing and the RANKINGS thing, you are starting the conversation again
You like to make your predictions, and that is fine. For example, you just made the claim that Parks will be a Tier 2 player one day. I see no shred of evidence for that; she is currently ranked 116 at age 23. Maybe she will do a Paolini and get better but, so far, she is a Tier 4 player, and she seems to like it there.
And you have always been very high on Alexandrova and when she does well, you praise her a lot. But she has been silent for quite a while now, and you don't mention that. She is a fine player that you have compared to Pegula and have even claimed they are equals, which, based on the last few weeks, is a comparison that is hard to accept.

And I did say this before. When you say that there are players that are in a given TIER, you are giving them a de facto ranking. It is just that it is not as numerically precise as the actual ones.

It's ranking based on vibes, and feels, which can be interesting if we're identifying players that are underachieving, or overachieving, but when a players ranking doesn't really move over the course of a number of years then it's just a player we like.

[ponchi101]

Look at Osaka. Is she a HOF? Of course she is. Is she a top player? Sure, you can say that.
Is she properly ranked at the moment? Her results say so.

[mick1303]

Look at Osaka. Is she a HOF? Of course she is. Is she a top player? Sure, you can say that.
Is she properly ranked at the moment? Her results say so.

This is because when we say "ranking" there is an ambiguity. Different kinds of ranking exist. There is current ranking - the way tours calculate. It reflects the performance for the last 52 weeks. And there is a career ranking - overall achievements of the player.

[mick1303]

BTW, I'm contemplating an additional component to my weighted ranking. Or it may exist separately. An idea is inspired by ELO, but so far it will be very simplified ("bastardized") version. I call it "Opponents' index". If a player beats #1 ranked player, he gets 1 point. If he beats #2 ranked player, he gets 0.99, for #3 he gets 0.98. For #100 he gets 0.01. He gets nothing for beating the players outside top 100. He gets nothing for losing a match. These values will be added up over the considered period. So far the obstacle is that ranking only started in August of 1973, so I have to fill those early years - from 1968 to the beginning of official ranking. But I have the results and I have my weighted ranking in its current form - it will serve as a replacement.

[ponchi101]

Very much alike when the WTA used to award point for a particularly spectacular win. If I remember well, beating Martina in the 1980's was worth 50 points.
Sole problem was, Martina never got points because she was the top ranked player. She thought it was unfair, and the system was canned.
Let's see what your improved index tells us.

[mick1303]

Very much alike when the WTA used to award point for a particularly spectacular win. If I remember well, beating Martina in the 1980's was worth 50 points.
Sole problem was, Martina never got points because she was the top ranked player. She thought it was unfair, and the system was canned.
Let's see what your improved index tells us.

I will have to look it up - how exactly this ranking component was calculated back then (Or maybe just ask ChatGPT ))). Sounds counter-intuitive that #1 never gets any points. He/she still shall get some for beating #2,#3 etc.

[ponchi101]

Nope. The system was that you got points for beating players above you, never below. So Martina never got points, Chrissie only got points when beating Martina.
Since Martina was worth 50 points, beating her was almost as good as winning a small tournament. Of course, very few people ever cashed on that bonus.

[dryrunguy]

There was a time when (WTA only?) players got bonus points for beating someone ranked either above or below them. At one point, women got 200 bonus ranking points for beating the #1 player, e.g., when Tathiana Garbin accidentally beat Henin in the second round at Roland Garros. But Henin got a few bonus points for beating her first round opponent. (Can't remember who that was.)

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ashkor87]

Sabalenka seems to have served really well..that helps a lot on a fast court - the only aspect of Sabalenka's game that a fast court suits!

[ti-amie]