ATP & WTA rankings

[ashkor87]

very true but would that make her the third or fourth best player in the world? I dont think it is enough.

With what rankings are intended for today? Yes.

the main purpose of rankings today is to reward good and consistent performance, also to encourage you to play more. So yes, given what rankings are for, that is right.

[Suliso]

Yes, but you can calculate rankings differently and obtain presumably slightly different order.

[ashkor87]

we should never say the rankings are wrong per se - they are simply data.. they are what they are. We can disagree, and argue about, what they tell us - such as 'Pegula is a better player than Rybakina" but to say they are wrong or right is to make what they call, in philosophy, a category mistake. Rankings are like stock prices, they do not have the property of being right or wrong, they simply are.

[ashkor87]

Yes, but you can calculate rankings differently and obtain presumably slightly different order.

that is a good point, so we must always say what the ranking methodology is, else it is meaningless.

[Owendonovan]

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

[meganfernandez]

we should never say the rankings are wrong per se - they are simply data.. they are what they are. We can disagree, and argue about, what they tell us - such as 'Pegula is a better player than Rybakina" but to say they are wrong or right is to make what they call, in philosophy, a category mistake. Rankings are like stock prices, they do not have the property of being right or wrong, they simply are.

Exactly. Ranking are a measurement of a particular value system. One can disagree with that value system, but not the output unless it is malfunctioning.

So what part of the value system isn't working for someone? There are really only two components - points distribution per event/round and time window.

Every time someone complains about the ranking system, I want to ask them to fix it. We have to have rankings. Show me a better system. Revise the points distribution, since the time windows - both a season and year to date - are most logical. Or suggest something like putting all Slam winners at the top in order of their total points, then everyone else. Or then Slam finalists, and then everyone else. Should a Slam or final capatult you to the top 4 for the whole year? (Then why not keep going with semifinalists and quarterfinalists?) The points for those achievements should actually be doing that, or pretty close.

[meganfernandez]

Between now and the end of Miami , I would rank the women_
1 Swiatek
2. Sabalenka
3.. bencic
4. Samsonova
5. rybakina
6. Kudermetova
7. garcia
8.:QZ
9. ostapenko
10. Vika


All slow to meetium hard courts ..
The wtA rankings mean as little as they usually do.

Basically the women playing well so far this year.

[ashkor87]

we should never say the rankings are wrong per se - they are simply data.. they are what they are. We can disagree, and argue about, what they tell us - such as 'Pegula is a better player than Rybakina" but to say they are wrong or right is to make what they call, in philosophy, a category mistake. Rankings are like stock prices, they do not have the property of being right or wrong, they simply are.

Exactly. Ranking are a measurement of a particular value system. One can disagree with that value system, but not the output unless it is malfunctioning.

So what part of the value system isn't working for someone? There are really only two components - points distribution per event/round and time window.

Every time someone complains about the ranking system, I want to ask them to fix it. We have to have rankings. Show me a better system. Revise the points distribution, since the time windows - both a season and year to date - are most logical. Or suggest something like putting all Slam winners at the top in order of their total points, then everyone else. Or then Slam finalists, and then everyone else. Should a Slam or final capatult you to the top 4 for the whole year? (Then why not keep going with semifinalists and quarterfinalists?) The points for those achievements should actually be doing that, or pretty close.

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 ..

[Sinner Fan]

There has to be ranking system. Players must have ranking to be placed in tournaments on how they have play over time and that is done by point system. The system seems to be the best I can think of. Yes there will always be players who become hot or play better on certain surface that go against trend of rankings, but there is place for them and they should not be done with altogether.

[ashkor87]

Between now and the end of Miami , I would rank the women_
1 Swiatek
2. Sabalenka
3.. bencic
4. Samsonova
5. rybakina
6. Kudermetova
7. garcia
8.:QZ
9. ostapenko
10. Vika


All slow to meetium hard courts ..
The wtA rankings mean as little as they usually do.

Basically the women playing well so far this year.

Not necessarily .they did not all do well at the AO, where the surface is much faster than what we are going to see now..

[Sinner Fan]

Between now and the end of Miami , I would rank the women_
1 Swiatek
2. Sabalenka
3.. bencic
4. Samsonova
5. rybakina
6. Kudermetova
7. garcia
8.:QZ
9. ostapenko
10. Vika


All slow to meetium hard courts ..
The wtA rankings mean as little as they usually do.

Basically the women playing well so far this year.

Not necessarily .they did not all do well at the AO, where the surface is much faster than what we are going to see now..

That is thing I said. Surfaces come into play too whether certain players are playing well or not. Players could have good season on faster surface and not so good on slower or just become hotter player at sometime on tour. I still think rankings need to be there but other factors come into play.

[ponchi101]

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

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.

[ponchi101]

...
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.

[Fastbackss]

the main purpose of rankings today is to reward good and consistent performance, also to encourage you to play more. So yes, given what rankings are for, that is right.

It's calculated on top 16 tournaments. It's semantics - one doesn't HAVE to play more than that. However there is more safety margin if there are more drops available.

There are, in theory, rewards for being higher ranked. So yes - you are encouraged to play...should you want the aforementioned drops at your disposal.

[Deuce]

I think all of this whining about the rankings being inaccurate, etc., etc. is completely silly.
I cannot think of any other sport which does not have a ranking system that is similar to tennis. Team sports have standings, which are calculated based on the team's results over the course of the season (and not on which team is doing best at the moment). These standings are used to determine entry points into the playoffs at the end of a season.
The main difference from tennis is that in those team sports, everything resets at the beginning of the following season. There are tennis rankings available which use this format, beginning on January 1st each year - but, as tennis does not have a well defined 'off season' as those team sports do, that is not the system which is most widely used.

In any case... knowledgeable tennis people can easily override the rankings by using basic common sense when applicable - such as if one lower ranked player has habitually dominated a higher ranked player... or when a lower ranked player who is on a hot streak meets a higher ranked player who is on a cold streak.

I just don't understand people who whine about the rankings. No-one is forcing you to abide by them or to see them as gospel. It's the same as in every other sport.