by Suliso I think we'll need this thread. I'll see if I can copy some interesting things from the old one.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU
by ponchi101 If my memory serves me well, the highest ranked SON has been Stolle.
Has any of the sons done better than the fathers?
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:26 pm
If my memory serves me well, the highest ranked SON has been Stolle.
Has any of the sons done better than the fathers?
Casper is ranked higher than his father ever was. Sandon did much better than his father in doubles, but Fred had a better singles career.
by mmmm8 Joachim Johansson must have been the highest-ranked, he was in the top 10. Father Leif reached No. 51.
by Suliso How many mother/daughter pairs are there? I'm only aware of Maria Sakkari (#20) and her mother Angeliki Kanellopoulou (#43).
by mmmm8 Not in the top 100, but the Safins' mother, Rauza Islanova, played on tour but I think didn't get very far because of the travel restrictions/limited potential. She was USSR No. 5 in 1968.
by JTContinental Naomi Osaka currently holds 2 grand slam titles and will be ranked #2 on Monday. Meanwhile, the #1 player in the world (by a 1300 point margin) has played 3 tournaments in the last year. The covid ranking system is no longer working.
by ti-amie I'm not sure where this is coming from or who he's talking about but this is not a new topic, at least for tennis fans.
by skatingfan Doesn't the ranking protections end in early March when it's been 1 year of the pandemic, and then the points will start to drop off.
by JTContinental Other rankings news: Serena back in the top 10 at #7, Kiki Bertens out of the top 10, Jenny Brady up to #13
by Deuce
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:53 pm
I'm not sure where this is coming from or who he's talking about but this is not a new topic, at least for tennis fans.
Not to mention Andreescu was still in the top 10 after having not played for 18 months.
This is similar to Barty.
Meanwhile, some of those who played all or most of the tournaments last year have seen their ranking drop.
I said last year that the system was ridiculous. And it still is.
by Suliso Someone on Twitter made an effort to calculate WTA rankings under a normal system. Below is how they would look like for the top 25. Differences are enormous... Some other notables further down: Kiki Bertens #27, Marta Kostyuk #35, Tsvetana Pironkova #39, Amanda Anisimova #50, Belinda Bencic #63, Sara Errani #55, Catherina Bellis #73, Angelique Kerber #77, Clara Tauson #78, Clara Burel #87, Sloane Stephens #98.
The current iteration makes it very difficult for young players and those coming back from a long injury/retirement to rise up the rankings.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:48 am
Someone on Twitter made an effort to calculate WTA rankings under a normal system. Below is how they would look like for the top 25. Differences are enormous... Some other notables further down: Kiki Bertens #27, Marta Kostyuk #35, Tsvetana Pironkova #39, Amanda Anisimova #50, Belinda Bencic #63, Sara Errani #55, Catherina Bellis #73, Angelique Kerber #77, Clara Tauson #78, Clara Burel #87, Sloane Stephens #98.
The current iteration makes it very difficult for young players and those coming back from a long injury/retirement to rise up the rankings.
Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?
by Suliso Formally she would be, but that's based on far less tournaments than would be normal. Only those played since late February 2020.
by skatingfan
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:20 pm
Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?
Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:20 pm
Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?
Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.
In a 2-year ranking system, would the same number of events count over 104 weeks, or would the number increase?
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:20 pm
Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?
Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.
I'm unclear on how a 2-year ranking system would be better. It's a compilation of 104 weeks, right? If you get injured, you're still going to go weeks or months without earning points while other players do. Some points will remain on your ranking that would have fallen off after 52 weeks, but so far everyone else's. Do the gains and losses not just offset each other?
No, it's still the best 16 tournaments only over 2 years. The current system greatly limits ability of young players to move up the rankings because nobody is moving down.
Imagine as a thought experiment an extreme case - rankings is best 16 tournaments over 10 years. In that case Djokovic is nearly an eternal #1 because during that time period he has won every tournament once and thus no one could possible do better in the next 4-5 years regardless of him playing or not playing a single match.
Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.
I'm unclear on how a 2-year ranking system would be better. It's a compilation of 104 weeks, right? If you get injured, you're still going to go weeks or months without earning points while other players do. Some points will remain on your ranking that would have fallen off after 52 weeks, but so far everyone else's. Do the gains and losses not just offset each other?
No, it's still the best 16 tournaments only over 2 years. The current system greatly limits ability of young players to move up the rankings because nobody is moving down.
Imagine as a thought experiment an extreme case - rankings is best 16 tournaments over 10 years. In that case Djokovic is nearly an eternal #1 because during that time period he has won every tournament once and thus no one could possible do better in the next 4-5 years regardless of him playing or not playing a single match.
Yeah, I see. I don't like it. A season is a year. Measure the season.
I looked a bit further down the rankings, and if you extended this to top 20 the list would include Barty and Mertens for the WTA, but still none for the ATP. In fact, there is only one ATP player in the top 50 for both singles and doubles: Shapovalov. Even he is only just in the doubles top 50 at 48.
by Deuce
Togtdyalttai wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:34 am
I looked a bit further down the rankings, and if you extended this to top 20 the list would include Barty and Mertens for the WTA, but still none for the ATP. In fact, there is only one ATP player in the top 50 for both singles and doubles: Shapovalov. Even he is only just in the doubles top 50 at 48.
That's quite sad.
And Sabalenka has just said that she'll be playing considerably less doubles from now on - so the list will be zero soon.
About 15 years ago, when the powers that be brought in the ridiculous new rules for doubles (no ad scoring, no real 3rd set), I had an hour long conversation with Gayle Bradshaw (head of officiating for the ATP) about these changes to doubles (and about shotspot/hawkeye). He was telling me that the new doubles format will have the top players playing doubles much more often. I said "No way. They'll play doubles for the first 3 months, to help you sell the new format, and that's it - we'll see them in doubles very rarely after that."
He was insistent that it would bring the top players in to play lots more doubles. I was insistent that it would not.
What has happened since then speaks for itself.
Granted, at that time (around 2006), the top players were no longer playing doubles. But I knew that the new doubles format would keep them away even more, not bring them in. Because the new format reduced doubles to being a circus sideshow. None of the doubles players at the time were happy with the new format - they hated it (I asked them).
by ponchi101 Mid 90's and Jim Courier played one tournament in which they used No-Ad scoring (it was singles). His comments after the event were pretty definitive in the ATP not trying that again (something along the lines of "this is not tennis").
by Suliso I'd like to see a serious professional match with only one serve and no lets. There is a lot of speculation, but would be curious to see how exactly would it change the game.
by ponchi101 With the current quality of returns, 50% of games would be broken, in the ATP. WTA would be around 60%.
But I agree. I would like to see that.
by JazzNU I say this as a much bigger fan of Naomi's than I am of Ash. But I'm noticing a lot of amnesia on Twitter in the Naomi #1 ranking convo. I get it. But also, let's be real here too. She's winning, so the rest is getting ignored.
Naomi played Cincy and the US Open and nothing else til getting to Australia this year. I think she played a grand total of 4 tournaments the entire year. She played possibly one or two more tournaments than Ash Barty did in all of 2020. And the last two matches we watched Naomi play in the beginning of 2020 before this hiatus? Her in a serious MOOD having a mini meltdown versus Coco at the Aussie Open and then her having a much bigger meltdown in tears losing to a a Spanish player at Fed Cup (not CSN, possibly Tormo).
Naomi clearly used the time off to get her head together more than it was, and the tour is much better for it. But let's chill a bit on the rest, everything will eventually fall into it's proper place. Yes, Naomi probably would be number one in a normal year, but there's legitimately no way to know that. And ignoring that this last year hasn't been normal in any way and that different players used the hiatus and the point freeze to their advantage in different ways is unnecessary.
Naomi played great Down Under. Full stop. She'll be #1 soon enough if she continues to play anywhere near this level when there are more tournaments. Right now, and remembering we're still in a pandemic and diminishing that we are isn't necessary or helpful, I wish we could just be happy with the exceptional level of play we've seen out of Naomi in recent months and leave it at that.
by ponchi101 I think these are only numerical fidgeting. Who is #1? Barty. Who is the best player RIGHT NOW? I don't think there is any doubt it is Naomi. And she will get to it again soon, as you say.
by Suliso Current top 10 under 20 in both WTA and ATP (from live rankings as of today)
ATP
#34 Jannik Sinner (ITA) 19.5
#115 Lorenzo Musetti (ITA) 18.9
#129 Carlos Alcaraz (ESP) 17.8
#142 Brandon Nakashima (USA) 19.5
#282 Chun Hsin Tseng (TPE) 19.5
#289 Juan Manuel Cerundolo (ARG) 19.2
#310 Jack Draper (GBR) 19.1
#328 Jiri Lehecka (CZE) 19.3
#334 Giulio Zeppieri (ITA) 19.2
#359 Jonas Firejtek (CZE) 19.91
For me the top three on this list stand clearly above every else, but clearly I would not rule out someone being a slightly later bloomer and zooming up the rankings this year or the next.
Again the top 3 is way more accomplished than those who follow albeit again I feel several others would have been in the top 100 or top 50 had we had a normal season and rankings last year.
Overall there are 4 players from USA, 3 from Italy, 2 each from Russia and Czechia with others being a one off.
by ponchi101 Interesting that the women are still doing so much better than the men, in terms of young players reaching higher rankings.
by Suliso That has been the case since the last stone age. Women mature physically at a younger age. Difference is ca 2-3 years
by Suliso Another interesting analysis this time taking all the Slam winners since 2000 AO and looking at what age they first reached top 100, top 50 and top 20.
The numbers are: Slams won (including before 2000), age (in decimal system) in top 100, top 50 and top 20. Active players in blue.
It's quite remarkable really. Only one multi Slam winner was not in the top 20 before his 21st birthday (Stan Wawrinka) and only 3 Slam winners were not in the top 100 as teenagers. Two of those were kind of flukes, it's still open as far as Thiem is concerned but he'd have to pull of another Stan like career. All the true greats started very early.
By the way that's 19 different winners for 85 Slams which also tells how much certain few have won, albeit that's not the point of this analysis.
Similar WTA analysis to follow at a later date. Need more time for that considering that data available in a less handy format.
by ponchi101 The top guys went from being outside of the top 100 to inside the top 20 in a little bit over 1.8 years, more or less. Remarkable.
by Suliso Of course the other way around is not true, not everyone who starts very bright ends up winning Slams although chances are high. I already mentioned that Thiem is not really on the "right path" statistically, but is anyone younger than Dominic on it? Let's have a look...
Alexander Zverev 18.0 // 19.0 // 19.5
Stefanos Tsitsipas 19.2 // 19.7 // 20.0
Denis Shapovalov 18.4 // 18.6 // 20.0
Felix Auger Aliassime 18.5 // 18.6 // 19.0
Jannik Sinner 18.2 // 19.1 // ??? . Sinner is currently #34 and 19.5 years old, likely would be in the top 20 already if not for covid.
As you see these five fit the mold much better than Thiem. Will they all win Slams? Unlikely, but I'll be very surprised if there are not at least two Slam winners in this group.
by ponchi101 Once the big three leave, they will. They are very young. Sinner, specially.
by skatingfan I'd be curious to see the lost generation stats - just haven't been home to do the work myself.
by ponchi101 You don't have to go home to do the work:
Grand Slams: 0
Grand Slam finals: 2
Top 4 ranking: 0
MS1000 titles: 0
WTF: 1
They simply had no chance, playing in the middle of the dominance of the three monsters and the Andy-Stan opening acts.
by Suliso Who do you count as top representatives of this "lost* generation?
by ponchi101 I thought we were talking about Grigor, Kei and Milos. Delpo and Cilic did win their USO's, so that is not a career completely void of success.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:31 pm
You don't have to go home to do the work:
Grand Slams: 0
Grand Slam finals: 2
Top 4 ranking: 0
MS1000 titles: 0
WTF: 1
They simply had no chance, playing in the middle of the dominance of the three monsters and the Andy-Stan opening acts.
But to make the age statistics more important, or important at all, don't we need to show that players that failed to win Grand Slam titles didn't hit those ranking markers at an early age?
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:31 pm
You don't have to go home to do the work:
Grand Slams: 0
Grand Slam finals: 2
Top 4 ranking: 0
MS1000 titles: 0
WTF: 1
They simply had no chance, playing in the middle of the dominance of the three monsters and the Andy-Stan opening acts.
But to make the age statistics more important, or important at all, don't we need to show that players that failed to win Grand Slam titles didn't hit those ranking markers at an early age?
Yes, we would. Feel free to look them up
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:32 pm
Yes, we would. Feel free to look them up
I made a spreadsheet but I can't get it to post to this site - clip & paste doesn't work & there doesn't seem to be an option to upload a file from my computer.
So I looked at all the players that have finished in the top 10 in the past 10 years (2011-2020) & only one player fits the pattern perfectly and hasn't won a major, and is also past the point where winning a major is likely, and that is Gasquet.
Richard Gasquet 17.3/18.9/19.0
Alexander Zverev & Stefano Tsitsipas (Reached the top 20 one day after his 20th birthday, so I'm giving it to him.) still have a few years to win a major.
Some players hit some of the milestones - Almagro, Berdych, Monfils, Nishikori, Dimitrov, & Rublev.
Almagro, Berdych, Dimitrov, & Rublev had their progress slowed after reaching the top 50, though Rublev's still got time to win a major title.
Monfils really seems to have lost the plot after reaching the top 50, and needed more than 3 years to find the motivation to reach the top 20, (much longer than other player in this category) and that can really be seen in his ranking history as he bobs around the 20's & 30's for a couple years.
Nishikori's injury issues started early & derailed his career while he was still a teenager. He made the top 100 in April 2008, but did not make the top 50 until April 2011, and that interval includes a few weeks in 2010 where his ranking completely dropped off & he had to start from scratch.
The other players that might be considered to be part of the lost generation (those born in the first five years of the '90's) were Goffin, Raonic, Carreno Busta, Schwartzman, and Sock did not meet any of the age milestones for ranking. Raonic came close to the first two by making his top 100, & top 50 debut shortly after his 20th birthday, but then injuries (hip injury 2nd round Wimbledon 2011) prevented him from making the top 20 for more than a year.
The other two active players who could possibly be seen as slam contenders, Medvedev & Berrettini, have missed all the milestones.
Seems to confirm that making the top 100, top 50, & top 20 before the 20th birthday is a strong indicator of a future slam winner, but not doing so doesn't mean that a player won't win a slam, but the odds start to drop. Might have do this for the another couple of decades & see what it looks like.
by Deuce
skatingfan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:42 am
I made a spreadsheet but I can't get it to post to this site - clip & paste doesn't work & there doesn't seem to be an option to upload a file from my computer.
If you'd prefer to show the spread sheet, you could try doing a screen shot (print screen) of the spread sheet, then dragging it into the compose box as a .jpg file.
by skatingfan
Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:53 am
If you'd prefer to show the spread sheet, you could try doing a screen shot (print screen) of the spread sheet, then dragging it into the compose box as a .jpg file.
Print screen on Windows 10 just saves the image to the clipboard & so there is nothing to drag & drop.
Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:53 am
If you'd prefer to show the spread sheet, you could try doing a screen shot (print screen) of the spread sheet, then dragging it into the compose box as a .jpg file.
Print screen on Windows 10 just saves the image to the clipboard & so there is nothing to drag & drop.
Press 'print screen', then open a photo viewing program, right click, and paste. The most recent 'print screen' should appear.
by Suliso Interesting, so actually players who fit the mold but do not win a Slam are more rare than I thought. Statistically makes it even more likely that Zverev and Tsitsipas would win a Slam soon and the other three maybe a bit later as well. Zverev in particular is a very strong candidate off clay this year if Djokovic somehow falters.
by skatingfan So I've done another decade covering players who finished in the year-end top 10 between 2001 & 2010, leaving aside players who have already been presented in previous posts.
Grand Slam Champions who fit the pattern.
Andre Agassi 16.5/17.5/17.8
Pete Sampras 17.3/18.5/18.6
Carlos Moya 19.1/19.7/19.7
Marat Safin 17.5/17.8/19.4
Lleyton Hewitt 17.8/18.2/18.9
Andy Roddick 18.6/18.7/19.0
Players who fit the pattern but failed to win a Grand Slam.
Mark Philippoussis 18.7/19.0/19.9
Other Grand Slam winners who don't fit the pattern
Patrick Rafter 20.7/21.1/21.6
Yevgeny Kafelnikov 19.8/20.0/20.3
Albert Costa 19.0/19.3/20.7
Gustavo Kuerten 20.0/20.8/20.8
Gaston Gaudio 20.4/21.4/24.2
Juan Carlos Ferrero 19.3/19.6/20.2
Should be noted that Kafelnikov, Costa, Kuerten, Ferrero missed some, or all, of the milestones by mere months. Costa in particular was a surprise to me and if we we were making this list in the early 2000's he would make the list of potential slam winners, and I always viewed his win as huge surprise.
Other players who made some of the milestones, but missed the later ones include Tommy Haas, David Nalbandian, Guillermo Coria, Tommy Robredo, Mikhail Youzhny, Mario Ancic, & Robin Soderling.
by Suliso So if we extend the latter criteria to age 21 for the top 20 as we probably should only 5 players in 3 decades are still left out and from those only two (Wawrinka and Rafter) have won a Slam more than once. I think a correlation is way too strong to consider it a coincidence!
Surprisingly to me the other way around (now going back to more stringent age 20 criteria) is even more relevant. Mere two players have failed to win a Slam from that kind of start. Gasquet's best results are three semi finals (also 15 tour titles and 18 millions in prize money) and Philippoussis managed two runner up finishes (11 tour titles, 7 millions in prize money).
by ponchi101 Rafter was indeed considered a late bloomer. I remember he came into the scene and then simply did not deliver for a while. Then again, Sampras and Agassi had his number.
Suliso's comment about women maturing earlier from the the other day made me think. There was this moment in the ATP when some of the slam champions were also very young. Becker and Edberg won grass court slams at 17. RG was plagued by teenage wins for a while: Borg, Wilander and Chang won there and then, much later, Nadal. Sampras then won his first USO at 19
You look at the women, and, as Suliso says, there are more. A lot of RG teenage winners: Evert, Graf, ASV, Seles and now Swiatek. Hingis won everything else as a teenager, Serena took her first USO as one, as did Venus (by mere days). Sharapova at W. There are more and I am missing some, of course, but this bodes well for Swiatek, who has now started this path of winning slams at a very young age.
by Suliso One could check how many teenage Slam winners stopped at only one. From top of my head I can only think of Michael Chang and that was a very long time ago.
by ponchi101 And you have to remember that final against Edberg. Edberg had 10 breakpoints in the 4th set, and Chang passed him in every one, hitting the lines.
It was one of the finals in which I would say the better player DID NOT win the match. But Chang did.
by JTContinental Coco Gauff inside the top 40, at a career high 38. Can she get a seeding for the French Open?
by ponchi101 Sure she could. Some players' points will start to drop off, and players above her.. I just hope she does not go out there and start chasing points, though. Her pace of progress is going fine.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:11 pm
Sure she could. Some players' points will start to drop off, and players above her.. I just hope she does not go out there and start chasing points, though. Her pace of progress is going fine.
Agree, and I think her team and parents will do the right thing. They have made good decisions so far.
by Suliso I was just considering the youngest generation on WTA tour in terms of rankings and accomplishments. Here I'm drawing an upper age border with Anastasia Potapova and Iga Swiatek. This just happens to be really easy to do as the next older player with serious accomplishment (Bianca Andreescu) is a full year older. The bottom border is necessarily fuzzy, there could be someone 17 or even 16 years old coming up unexpectedly fast this year and joining the group profiled below. Right now I don't see who could it be, but also harder to judge due to scrambled rankings and lack of junior tournaments.
Below are profiles of clear front runners of this generation so far. Interestingly every single one of them has won a junior GS and most have been #1 or #2 in juniors. One Grand Slam already among them and I certainly expect a lot more!
Iga Świątek (POL)
Age: 19.7
Birthplace: Warsaw, Poland
Height: 1.76 m
Current ranking: #15
Career high ranking: #15
Best WTA results: 2020 RG W, 2021 Adelaide W
Best junior results: 2018 Wimbledon W
Personal: Father was an Olympic level rower. She lives in Warsaw suburbs and is coached by Piotr Sierzputowski
Amanda Anisimova (USA)
Age: 19.5
Birthplace: Freehold, NJ, USA
Height: 1.80 m
Current ranking: #32
Career high ranking: #21
Best WTA results: 2019 RG SF, 2019 Bogota W, 2018 Tokyo RU
Best junior results: 2017 USO W
Personal: Her parents immigrated from Russia few years before she was born. Currently living in Miami area, Florida.
Coco Gauff (USA)
Age: 16.9
Birthplace: Delray Beach, FL, USA
Height: 1.75 m
Current ranking: #40
Career high ranking: #38
Best WTA results: 2019 Wimbledon 4R, 2020 AO 4R, 2019 Linz W
Best junior results: 2018 RG W
Personal: Father player basketball at college level. Grew up first in Atlanta before moving back to Florida. Has trained in Mouratoglou academy in Paris.
Marta Kostyuk (UKR)
Age: 18.6
Birthplace: Kyiv, Ukraine
Height: 1.75 m
Current ranking: #81
Career high ranking: #78
Best WTA results: 2018 AO 3R, 2020 USO 3R, 3 ITF titles
Best junior results: 2017 AO W
Personal: She is coached by her mother Talina Beiko who played tennis at pro level (career high #391).
by SulisoLeylah Fernandez (CAN)
Age: 18.4
Birthplace: Montreal, Canada
Height: 1.68 m
Current ranking: #87
Career high ranking: #86
Best WTA results: 2020 RG 3R, 2020 Acapulco RU
Best junior results: 2019 RG W
Personal: She is of Ecuadorian and Filipino descent (her father born in Ecuador). She’s fluent in English, French and Spanish and currently resides in Palm Beach county, Florida.
Anastasia Potapova (RUS)
Age: 19.9
Birthplace: Saratov, Russia
Height: 1.75 m
Current ranking: #88
Career high ranking: #64
Best WTA results: 2021 AO 3R, 2018 Moscow RU, 2018 Tashkent RU
Best junior results: 2016 Wimbledon W
Personal: Her mother played volleyball competitively and grandmother was a basketball coach. She is currently residing in Khimki, Russia (Moscow suburbs)
Clara Tauson (DEN)
Age: 18.2
Birthplace: Copenhagen, Denmark
Height: 1.82 m
Current ranking: #96
Career high ranking: #96
Best WTA results: 2021 Lyon W
Best junior results: 2019 AO W
Personal: Her uncle Michael Tauson is a former pro player (career high #101). She resides in Copenhagen.
by Omess Good group of young talent. Tauson with her biggest week so far
by ponchi101 A great QF draw at some Slam in 2025.
by Deuce Thanks for that, Suliso.
Tauson's past week should go a long way toward increasing her confidence that she can compete at the highest level. As they say - there's no substitute for experience.
Just want to add that Leylah's dad, Jorge, was a soccer player at a fairly high level. So - athletic genes. In her early childhood, Leylah wanted to be a soccer player. But her dad wanted to find a sport that used a smaller ball, because Leylah was so young. That's how Leylah started in tennis.
by Suliso Now we can say that four out of seven in this group have won a WTA title (2 more have fallen one win short).
by Deuce That's great for Clara. And she did it without losing a set all tournament, I think - good stuff.
The others can now welcome her to the top 100 group.
One more thing about Leylah... she has a sister - younger by about a year - who is also a tennis player. Her name is Bianca (which will cause some confusion here in Canada if she makes it to the 'big time').
After a doubles match that Leylah and Bianca played together a couple of years ago, I complemented Leylah on her drive and determination, then I turned to Bianca and said "Do you have that same desire and passion for the game as your sister?" Bianca replied "Ummm... No."
And that could be seen, as well. Leylah's level of determination is quite rare.
I remember thinking "Leylah will make it (as a pro), but Bianca won't." I haven't seen Bianca since then, but her results at the lower levels haven't been attention grabbing. She's less serious and more of a goofball than Leylah is - not as disciplined. But who knows? Maybe Leylah's success will inspire her - maybe she'll see Leylah doing well, doing interviews, getting sponsorships, and she'll say to herself "That looks like a lot of fun - I'm going to work toward that." But she'll have to fight through her goofy nature to get it done.
by Suliso Big day in ATP rankings - on March 15th Daniil Medvedev will become the first man outside Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray to ascend higher than #3.
by the Moz Let's enjoy this week then
by JazzNU Aryna Sabalenka in Dubai with her Doubles World #1 Trophy
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Nole will stay there for a long time, but I don't see Rafa coming back to #2. Roger less.
by ti-amie
by Suliso It's not like Medvedev did anything all that special to get there. Could easily lose to someone else like him or maybe even Rafa.
by ponchi101 That works better for him. He has one slam final, the ATP Champs, and another slam semi (USO). So he can still add points to his total.
I don't see Rafa driven for the #1 spot, which Nole was. He will go the Serena approach: selective scheduling, trying to peak for the slams.
by JazzNU It's a lot of hoopla for #2 if you ask me. I know it's been a long time, and I'm not saying don't write an article or something acknowledging it. But he won the silver medal, is it worth this much attention? Hope the coverage of this is coming to an end.
They are going to try to drag Ash to her grave any way they know how. I truly do not know why they hate her so much. If this was just about trying to make a point about the rankings in general and not target Ash, they would've left off Kvitova and Svitolina and added in Andreescu and Bencic, two players ranked very high that also haven't played much since the hiatus but never get mentioned because it doesn't actually seem like it's about just the rankings, but who they like and who they don't.
by ti-amie I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".
Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.
by ponchi101 I would not go with hatred, but if she were around 2500+ points it would be more acceptable. By now, there have been enough tournaments for the system to be tweaked once more.
And I guess nobody is talking about Bianca or Belinda because they are not #1.
I would say that at a minimum, something had to be done to get Naomi to #1. There is very little doubt where she stands right now.
by ti-amie Some will argue but for the most part we're not haters here. If you want to see real haters go to that WTA fan site. Some of the stuff posted there is just unreal especially re Barty. I've seen posters there say that she's not attractive enough to be #1 as if that's the criteria.
by ponchi101 Reason #1 why we created, and I will not leave, my abodes here
by JazzNU I go with hatred because everything keeps singling her out. I am not talking about people on here, I'm talking about the online Tennis community as a whole, and Tennis Twitter in particular. If you're trying to make a valid point, then make it an unbiased one. The way they are going after Barty in these discussions make it seem like it's her that they don't like. Because someone like Muguruza isn't ranked higher and ought to be. Who besides Barty is ranked above her that is on very shaky ground?
And this is the other thing that you can see when you look at these totals. Barty has at least performed well when she played, suggesting she's still likely worthy of the Top 10. But these other 3? Hardly at peak performance since the restart and Pliskova in particular has barely missed a tournament and still can't must a respectable showing. As I said before, a lot of players have used the point freeze to their benefits, even ones that performed well have done it. If the criticism was spread out at all, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
by Suliso Heavy is the head that wears the crown...
Barty is not a popular player, but few would be paying much attention to her inflated ranking if it was #3 instead.
by meganfernandez
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".
Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.
you think Tennis Australia manipulated Barty's draw?
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:00 pm
It's not like Medvedev did anything all that special to get there. Could easily lose to someone else like him or maybe even Rafa.
Beating 1, 2 and 3 in the tour finals is pretty special.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".
Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.
you think Tennis Australia manipulated Barty's draw?
Yes. Everyone who could've challenged her was in the bottom half of the draw. Not to disparage the women in the top half but that part of the draw should've seen her through to the semis at least. That it failed was a major topic of discussion between some members of Tennis Twitter.
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".
Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.
you think Tennis Australia manipulated Barty's draw?
Yes. Everyone who could've challenged her was in the bottom half of the draw. Not to disparage the women in the top half but that part of the draw should've seen her through to the semis at least. That it failed was a major topic of discussion between some members of Tennis Twitter.
by JazzNU Is Daniil in danger of losing the #2 ranking in the next few weeks? I feel like there's a whole lot of things that are coming out because they might not be relevant soon enough, so here's that content while it's a thing. Like why do we need a list of the guy with 1 week at #2? Let him enjoy it a bit.
by ponchi101 The news and reporters are really desperate for something shady coming up.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 An honest, thoughtful man! What a change!!!
by ti-amie‘REAL’ ATP RANKINGS: Who is benefitting from new rules and who is missing out?
Alexander ZverevAndrey RublevATP TourDaniil MedvedevDominic ThiemNovak DjokovicRafael NadalRoger FedererStefanos TsitsipasTennis News
March 18, 2021
By
Tennisbuzz Team
f there is one issue that appears to be causing divide in men’s tennis right now it is the ATP rankings and the temporary rules.
To deal with the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic, the ATP have brought in a temporary two year cycle to replace the traditional 52-weeks rolling system.
While it offers protection to players, it is also creating a somewhat warped view of where people are in terms of form, so with the help of YolitaTennis, we thought it was time to keep track of what tennis would, and arguably should, look like right now in normal circumstances.
‘Real’ ATP Rankings, based on rolling 52-week performance
1 Djokovic 5,830
2 Medvedev 5,495
3 Rublev 3,825
4 Thiem 3,535
5 Nadal 3,300
6 Zverev 3,115
7 Tsitsipas 2,795
8 Schwartzman 2,210
9 Raonic 1,505
10 Carreño Busta 1,500
Who is benefitting
Roger Federer is the biggest beneficiary by far. After over a year out of the game injured, Federer would have been pretty much wiped out in terms of points under the traditional system.
However, despite his absence not being anything connected with Covid, the Covid-protection applied to the rankings has seen him retain his top ten place.
Matteo Berrettini is also in the top ten pretty unnaturally right now. As good as he looked before injury at the Australian Open, he should be five positions lower in the rankings.
Meanwhile, both Rafael Nadal and Stefanos Tsitsipas are two places higher than their performances would merit in the old system.
Novak Djokovic, Daniil Medvedev, and Dominic Thiem are right where they should be.
Who is missing out?
Right now, it’s tough to not echo the frustrations on Andrey Rublev, and it’s interesting to note he is is actually doing himself a disservice.
“If we would have the normal system, I would be like number four in the world I think,” Rublev said.
He’s wrong, he would be number three.
Alexander Zverev has also expressed frustration, describing the current system as ‘absurd,’ but realistically he would only be one spot higher in the old system.
Milos Raonic should also be back to being a top ten player and should be counting himself very unfortunate that he is not.
You could also argue that Djokovic has missed out due to the effects on covid on the ATP rankings given he would have considerably more weeks at world number one by now (334) if they had not been suspended last year.
Current top ten (‘real’ ATP rankings in brackets)
1 Djokovic (1)
2 Medvedev (2)
3 Nadal (5)
4 Thiem (4)
5 Tsitsipas (7)
6 Federer (300-400)
7 Zverev (6)
8 Rublev (3)
9 Schwartzman (8)
10 Berrettini (15)
by JazzNU I'm waiting to see what happens after Miami and if the WTA's points start dropping off as planned. With the Federer and Olympics issues, it seems like the discontent will get louder not quietly go away. Give that up until now the ATP and the WTA had the same rankings approach during the pandemic, if the WTA doesn't adjust to the ATP's new rules, it will seem strange for the ATP I think. Now, that might happen, news coming out of Europe doesn't exactly make it seem like smooth sailing for the clay court season. But if the WTA is unfreezing with none of the special math, then why is the ATP? Seems like a fair question that is bound to be asked quite a bit if the WTA doesn't change course.
by ponchi101 Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 am
Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?
Talk about random. I looked for no clue and there he was.
by Omess
ti-amie wrote:I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".
Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.
Because it is simply not true. Others players are greatly benefiting too
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by Suliso Lorenzo Musetti has reached the top 100 to become only the 2nd teenager there and 9th Italian.
Countries with more than 1 top 100 player:
Spain - 11
France 11
USA - 10
Italy - 9
Serbia -5
Argentina - 5
Australia - 5
Russia - 4
Canada - 4
Germany - 3
UK - 3
Austria - 2
Switzerland - 2
Croatia - 2
Japan - 2
South Africa - 2
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 am
Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?
No. Olympics qualification is, I don't remember the exact number, so let's say it's the Top 64 singles ranked players. And then a few more outside of that Top 64 will qualify because no more than 4 athletes can come from a single country. If they did a full unfreezing of the points counting X number of events played in the last 52 weeks there's just no way. Reaction to the new rankings update announcement were loud about the ATP doing this all for Federer, which leads me to believe if they had stuck with the original unfreezing of the rankings, there's serious doubt that he'd have remained a higher ranking.
ti-amie wrote:I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".
Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.
Because it is simply not true. Others players are greatly benefiting too
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Other players are benefitting too? How? Please clarify what is and isn't true.
by Omess
JazzNU wrote:
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 am
Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?
No. Olympics qualification is, I don't remember the exact number, so let's say it's the Top 64 singles ranked players. And then a few more outside of that Top 64 will qualify because no more than 4 athletes can come from a single country. If they did a full unfreezing of the points counting X number of events played in the last 52 weeks there's just no way. Reaction to the new rankings update announcement were loud about the ATP doing this all for Federer, which leads me to believe if they had stuck with the original unfreezing of the rankings, there's serious doubt that he'd have remained a higher ranking.
If the ranking are 100% completely unfreeze, Federer will lose 2680 points assuming he doesn’t play until the grass season for 3695 points or currently 9 in the ranking.
Now even with the new adjustment he will still lose 1800 points for 4575 total points or 9 in the ranking .
In short, the latest adjustment doesn’t help him at all
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by JazzNU I'm not doing any of these calculations, but many have been done them to show Federer is benefiting from these freezes. I think it's possible you're doing the best of 2019 and 2020 way, which may not differ that much. Many are pointing out traditional ranking schedules I believe, within the last 52 weeks.
by Suliso
JazzNU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:09 pm
I'm not doing any of these calculations, but many have been done them to show Federer is benefiting from these freezes. I think it's possible you're doing the best of 2019 and 2020 way, which may not differ that much. Many are pointing out traditional ranking schedules I believe, within the last 52 weeks.
That wouldn't make sense with so little tournaments having been played last year. Both tours (also badminton tours in case anyone cares) have been using a two year ranking system since play resumed. I do agree though that starting from March 1st all 2019 points should be dropped on weekly basis as normal.
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:15 pm
That wouldn't make sense with so little tournaments having been played last year. Both tours (also badminton tours in case anyone cares) have been using a two year ranking system since play resumed. I do agree though that starting from March 1st all 2019 points should be dropped on weekly basis as normal.
I'm not saying it makes sense. I agree about how few tournaments have been played. But from the tweets and articles with calculation that @Ti, and I thought you, posted for the ATP when they are showing Rublev at #3 and #4 and for the WTA showing Osaka at #1 and Muguruza, Azarenka, and Swiatek in the Top 10. Those have all appeared to be based on the last 52 weeks. Maybe I'm not reading them closely enough, but that's been my impression of the how they did those calculations.
by ti-amie Omess posts are the only ones I've seen that don't show Federer tumbling out of the top 100. The comments of ATP players, and others who have taken time to work this out, make me think our friend here is starting from a different place to make his calculations.
by ti-amie Briggs post is behind a paywall but he snapped at someone for reacting to his tweet and not his article.
by Omess
ti-amie wrote:Omess posts are the only ones I've seen that don't show Federer tumbling out of the top 100. The comments of ATP players, and others who have taken time to work this out, make me think our friend here is starting from a different place to make his calculations.
The ATP/WTA announced temporary rules change in July 2020 in the middle of a global pandemic. Everyone agreed with them , as we saw a huge amount of no show at the USO and at others tournaments since then . Look at the huge withdrawals list for ATP Miami
So of course if you only look at the points earned in 2020/last 52 weeks, players like Federer or Andreescu will not be in the top 300
So I am not starting at different point but just following the temporary rule from July 2020
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by Omess
JazzNU wrote:I'm not doing any of these calculations, but many have been done them to show Federer is benefiting from these freezes. I think it's possible you're doing the best of 2019 and 2020 way, which may not differ that much. Many are pointing out traditional ranking schedules I believe, within the last 52 weeks.
They are doing within the last 52 weeks of course Federer or Andreescu will be nowhere near the top 100 as they have barely played.
Yes, they are consequences of this best of 2019/2020 rule. It is much harder to move up the ranking but the suggestion that it is all about Federer is just not true
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by Suliso
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:19 pm
Countries with more than 1 top 100 player:
Spain - 11
France 11
USA - 10
Italy - 9
Serbia -5
Argentina - 5
Australia - 5
Russia - 4
Canada - 4
Germany - 3
UK - 3
Austria - 2
Switzerland - 2
Croatia - 2
Japan - 2
South Africa - 2
And here is an identical analysis for WTA
USA - 18
Russia - 9
Czechia - 9
Spain - 4
Romania - 4
France - 4
Belarus - 3
Slovenia - 3
Switzerland - 3
Kazakhstan - 3
Ukraine - 3
Japan - 3
Belgium - 3
China - 3
Netherlands - 2
Canada - 2
Italy - 2
Australia - 2
UK - 2
Latvia - 2
Estonia - 2
Poland - 2
Croatia - 2
Germany - 2
by ti-amie
by Suliso Hard to imagine her losing against either of those two, isn't it?
by ponchi101 Svitolina can beat her. CAN, not "put your money on Elina" for that match.
by Suliso Also Isner's reign as #1 player in USA is over and it's very unlikely he'll be seeded at the next Slam.
by ponchi101 Correct me if I am wrong but: no American players in the top 30 of the ATP. Correct? Korda would have to win the tournament to squeak in.
by Suliso Taylor Fritz will be in the top 30 most likely next week.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:11 pm
Svitolina can beat her. CAN, not "put your money on Elina" for that match.
I think I'd pick Svitolina over Barty. I'm not good at analyzing matchups though - not sure if Ash's slice or coming in will pose a problem for Svitolina. But Svitolina is so steady and Ash hasn't played much lately, so that's why I'd pick Elina. Svitolina leads the H2H 5-1. Barty's one win came at the WTA championships in 2019 - guessing a fast court. Svitolina beat her in Miami in straights 3 years ago.
by Suliso All this is true, but how come Barty beat Azarenka and Sabalenka despite not playing that much?
by ti-amie
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pm
All this is true, but how come Barty beat Azarenka and Sabalenka despite not playing that much?
Sabalenka can self-destruct, so I wasn't sure if she had beaten herself in that match or not. And Vika, I'm not sure where her game is right now, so didn't know what to make of that result. Didn't see the match myself. But anyway, you were right... although Barty WON the match. She thoroughly outclassed Svitolina. Played very well.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Agassi had not won a slam yet, Sampras, Courier and Chang one each.
by JazzNU I've never heard of 7 of those players and one of the ones I do know, I'm not at all certain I would know of him if he wasn't a TV commentator.
by ponchi101 The good ol' days. Amongst them, David Wheaton, the kid everybody thought would be the great American champion. Later that year, at the World Championships played in Frankfurt, which was a new event offering at the time $2MM (largest purse ever), him and Brad Gilbert would nearly come to blows in their semi-final, and had to be separated by the chair umpire. Gilbert won the match (Sampras would crush him the next day) but, at the presser after the Wheaton match, when asked why they were about to fight Gilbert deadpanned "we are playing for a a lot of money".
Wheaton agreed.
(And yes, I know they were not the good ol' days, although they were for American men's tennis)
by Deuce They were the good ol' days for me...
I know the first name of every player on that list, and remember those days fondly.
Kevin Curren is South African - became a U/S. citizen sometime in the 1980s.
He and Steve Denton (from Texas) were a good doubles team in the '80s.
Richie Reneberg - like Wheaton - was also supposed to be 'the next great American'. As was Scott Davis.
Jay Berger's service motion was bizarre...
by Suliso
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:21 pm
Of course the other way around is not true, not everyone who starts very bright ends up winning Slams although chances are high. I already mentioned that Thiem is not really on the "right path" statistically, but is anyone younger than Dominic on it? Let's have a look...
Alexander Zverev 18.0 // 19.0 // 19.5
Stefanos Tsitsipas 19.2 // 19.7 // 20.0
Denis Shapovalov 18.4 // 18.6 // 20.0
Felix Auger Aliassime 18.5 // 18.6 // 19.0
Jannik Sinner 18.2 // 19.1 // 19.6 . Sinner is currently #34 and 19.5 years old, likely would be in the top 20 already if not for covid.
As you see these five fit the mold much better than Thiem. Will they all win Slams? Unlikely, but I'll be very surprised if there are not at least two Slam winners in this group.
Sinner has now officially joined the list of very likely future Slam winners. Lorenzo Musetti is the next feasible candidate, but he only has till the end of the season to join the top 20. Can't rule it out, but likely a bit early...
by dmforever
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:19 pm
I've never heard of 7 of those players and one of the ones I do know, I'm not at all certain I would know of him if he wasn't a TV commentator.
I feel very very old now.
Kevin
by ti-amie
by JazzNU Yeah, so I haven't heard of 8 of these players with an additional 2 that I may not have heard of but for their successful coaching and commentating careers. Gonna keep getting worse for me the further he goes back I think. Goes to show how seldom these players get talked about after their time has come and gone if they weren't great. I'd have thought the 80s were a safeish decade for me to recognize most names, but clearly not based on the last two posts like this.
by ponchi101 86 was a fantastic year. At the USO, the Czechs swept the finals: Lend D Mecir, Navs D Sukova. The TENNIS magazine review started "we have seen the future of tennis and it is NOT red, blue and white...", disregarding the fact that those are the same colors of the Czech flag; they got roasted because of that. Becker and Edberg defended their W and Aussie opens and we thought they were good for 7, 8 slams. We were close.
Martina looked vulnerable all year: she lost like 4 matches. Chrissie was about to depart. And that young girl from Germany with the weird forehand but no backhand... well, some people were saying she was for real but that slice backhand was going to always be a liability.
Average length of points on any surface other than clay must have been around 2.7 strokes. Thierry Tulasne, if I remember well, not only played serve and volley tennis, he played RETURN and volley tennis, chipping and charging on first and second serves. At times, he made Leconte look cautious
by Suliso It's all before my time. First tennis match I remember watching was Edberg vs Courier (91?). I still recognize 11 out of 18, but same as JazzNu some only because of their coaching careers.
Ivan
Mats
John
Boris
Jimmy
Stefan
Yannick
Joakim
Anders
Kevin
Brad
Andres
Thierry
Henri
Paul
Martin
Tim
Miloslav
Wonderful, wonderful memories...
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:16 pm
It's all before my time. First tennis match I remember watching was Edberg vs Courier (91?). I still recognize 11 out of 18, but same as JazzNu some only because of their coaching careers.
Edberg/Courier at the USO, indeed. The most incredible demonstration of volleying (my opinion, of course) in the open era. Courier must have hit 50 passing shots at Edberg's shoelaces and Edberg volleyed 40 for clean winners. That is how I recall that match.
if that was your first match ever, you picked a good one.
by mmmm8 I obviously don't remember most of them playing (I was 2 n '86) but there weren't any unfamiliar names on the list for me. Although of course, many I know better in latter days as coaches/commentators/TDs/references.
by meganfernandez Look at all those American, Swedish, and French flags...
Had never heard of Tulasne or Jaite. I was 12 then, living in the country without cable TV, and tennis was only on during Grand Slams - maybe even only the weekends, occasionally the afternoons. The only tennis news came from Tennis magazine and occasionally Sports Illustrated. I'd check out back issues from the school library and knew every SI issue in the local library's archives with a tennis story in it. I'd photocopy those stories and re-read them. It's a miracle I became a tennis fan in that environment. This is why I love to see examples of tennis courts in remote or unlikely places. It's everywhere. One of the things I love about the sport.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:05 pm
86 was a fantastic year. At the USO, the Czechs swept the finals: Lend D Mecir, Navs D Sukova. The TENNIS magazine review started "we have seen the future of tennis and it is NOT red, blue and white...", disregarding the fact that those are the same colors of the Czech flag; they got roasted because of that. Becker and Edberg defended their W and Aussie opens and we thought they were good for 7, 8 slams. We were close.
Martina looked vulnerable all year: she lost like 4 matches. Chrissie was about to depart. And that young girl from Germany with the weird forehand but no backhand... well, some people were saying she was for real but that slice backhand was going to always be a liability.
Average length of points on any surface other than clay must have been around 2.7 strokes. Thierry Tulasne, if I remember well, not only played serve and volley tennis, he played RETURN and volley tennis, chipping and charging on first and second serves. At times, he made Leconte look cautious
I can't believe you can remember the Tennis magazine story verbatim. That's one thing I love about TAT - the depth of memory, people who have watched tennis for 40, 50 years. I haven't.
Oh, wait, I remember Thierry Tulasne. Just forgot that was how his last name is spelled. So that leaves Jaite as the only unfamiliar name to me. Return-and-volley tennis! The original SABR?
by mmmm8
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 2:43 pm
Look at all those American, Swedish, and French flags...
Had never heard of Tulasne or Jaite. I was 12 then, living in the country without cable TV, and tennis was only on during Grand Slams - maybe even only the weekends, occasionally the afternoons. The only tennis news came from Tennis magazine and occasionally Sports Illustrated. I'd check out back issues from the school library and knew every SI issue in the local library's archives with a tennis story in it. I'd photocopy those stories and re-read them. It's a miracle I became a tennis fan in that environment. This is why I love to see examples of tennis courts in remote or unlikely places. It's everywhere. One of the things I love about the sport.
Even in the late 90s, I remember waiting for the newspaper to come to see the results from the previous week's smaller tournaments, none of which were televised!
Oh, wait, I remember Thierry Tulasne. Just forgot that was how his last name is spelled. So that leaves Jaite as the only unfamiliar name to me. Return-and-volley tennis! The original SABR?
He coached Nalbandian and was the Argentinian Davis Cup Captain
by ponchi101 At that time, TENNIS magazine was a real magazine and mandatory reading. They had some real journalists, most notably Bodo, who was very close to Borg, Gerulaitis, Mac and Connors. Plus, my opinion of course, he was a great WRITER, not just a tennis-writer. His style and prose were (are?) excellent.
Tulasne was not the sole "mad dash to the net" player. Tim Wilkinson was his American counterpart, and Paul Annacone did it too. On one occasion, and playing against McEnroe, Mac served and came to the net. Wilkinson, recklessly (it was his style), chipped and charged too. McEnroe's lunging volley floated and left him helplessly stumbling. As Wilkinson was also coming forward, he took a swipe at the ball, hitting a forceful swinging volley, that conked Mac on the temple. He laid on the ground, recovering, and Wilkinson went back to the baseline without even pretending to apologize. Mac got angry and went into his mad overdrive, producing tennis that could only be described as sadistic. He whopped him bad.
I know that Deuce will be the only one in agreement with me but it was a bit more dangerous in those days. Players had no problem going at you if you were helpless at the net. In Lendl's infamous quote: "I did not ask him to come to net".
Oh, wait, I remember Thierry Tulasne. Just forgot that was how his last name is spelled. So that leaves Jaite as the only unfamiliar name to me. Return-and-volley tennis! The original SABR?
He coached Nalbandian and was the Argentinian Davis Cup Captain
Good pull, as they say.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:38 pm
At that time, TENNIS magazine was a real magazine and mandatory reading. They had some real journalists, most notably Bodo, who was very close to Borg, Gerulaitis, Mac and Connors. Plus, my opinion of course, he was a great WRITER, not just a tennis-writer. His style and prose were (are?) excellent.
Tulasne was not the sole "mad dash to the net" player. Tim Wilkinson was his American counterpart, and Paul Annacone did it too. On one occasion, and playing against McEnroe, Mac served and came to the net. Wilkinson, recklessly (it was his style), chipped and charged too. McEnroe's lunging volley floated and left him helplessly stumbling. As Wilkinson was also coming forward, he took a swipe at the ball, hitting a forceful swinging volley, that conked Mac on the temple. He laid on the ground, recovering, and Wilkinson went back to the baseline without even pretending to apologize. Mac got angry and went into his mad overdrive, producing tennis that could only be described as sadistic. He whopped him bad.
I know that Deuce will be the only one in agreement with me but it was a bit more dangerous in those days. Players had no problem going at you if you were helpless at the net. In Lendl's infamous quote: "I did not ask him to come to net".
Love this anecdote about Mac and Wilkinson, and Lendl's quip. I guess you don't see many people getting tagged these days, with all the baselining. Maybe in dubs.
by ti-amie I remembered Jaite's name.
by mmmm8
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:56 pm
Love this anecdote about Mac and Wilkinson, and Lendl's quip. I guess you don't see many people getting tagged these days, with all the baselining. Maybe in dubs.
not even in dubs - the legacy of Liezel Huber
by meganfernandez
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:31 pm
dubs - the legacy of Liezel
haha! The throat, right? Terrible accident. Fantastically entertaining reaction, though.
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:31 pm
dubs - the legacy of Liezel
haha! The throat, right? Terrible accident. Fantastically entertaining reaction, though.
by ti-amie Talk about drama...
by Deuce
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:38 pm
At that time, TENNIS magazine was a real magazine and mandatory reading. They had some real journalists, most notably Bodo, who was very close to Borg, Gerulaitis, Mac and Connors. Plus, my opinion of course, he was a great WRITER, not just a tennis-writer. His style and prose were (are?) excellent.
Tulasne was not the sole "mad dash to the net" player. Tim Wilkinson was his American counterpart, and Paul Annacone did it too. On one occasion, and playing against McEnroe, Mac served and came to the net. Wilkinson, recklessly (it was his style), chipped and charged too. McEnroe's lunging volley floated and left him helplessly stumbling. As Wilkinson was also coming forward, he took a swipe at the ball, hitting a forceful swinging volley, that conked Mac on the temple. He laid on the ground, recovering, and Wilkinson went back to the baseline without even pretending to apologize. Mac got angry and went into his mad overdrive, producing tennis that could only be described as sadistic. He whopped him bad.
I know that Deuce will be the only one in agreement with me but it was a bit more dangerous in those days. Players had no problem going at you if you were helpless at the net. In Lendl's infamous quote: "I did not ask him to come to net".
It was more dangerous then not only because there was no invisible force field keeping people far away from the net like there has been for the past 20 years, but also (and perhaps even mostly) because the relationships between the players was not nearly as respectful and friendly as it is today. The 'cliques' back then were much more pronounced than they are today. And there was lots of animosity - even some locker room fights.
Today, with the possible exception of Kyrgios, pretty much no-one will ever deliberately smack a ball at the player at net with intention to hit him (or her).
As for Bodo - he went the sensationalism route several years ago, and I lost any respect I had for him at that point. When I see his name now, I simply bypass the article/story.
World Tennis magazine competed with Tennis magazine for a few years in the 1980s - a competition which Tennis magazine regularly won, as it was simply superior overall. But World Tennis had some good stuff, too - just not as consistently as tennis magazine.
God, I remember looking at the racquets and other equipment in the Holabird ads in the back of the magazines... and John McEnroe's Dunlop ad for the Max 200G, which showed him with a bodybuilder's muscular arm...
by Suliso Iga Swiatek will debut in the top 10 tomorrow.
I think at this stage of the season we're far enough to be interesting to look at the race rankings as well.
by JTContinental Swiatek replaces Kvitova in the top 10, Venus out of the top 100
by Suliso Osorio Serrano has reached the top 100 and is the 7th teenager ranked that high. Interestingly she and Fabiola Zuluaga come from the same midsize city. I wonder if that is a pure coincidence or is there a particularly good tennis academy there.
by ponchi101 Coincidence. Cucuta is a border town with Venezuela. Although they both come from there, they have trained a lot in Bogota.
Zuluaga helps with a summer camp at the place I train at. She is a very nice person. I am still gathering the courage (for this year) to ask her to hit some for an hour. I will pay for it, of course, but it would be nice to feel how heavy a WTA stroke is.
by JTContinental Anna Kournikova was a guest on some reality show where guys were challenged to hit with her, and not a single one of them could return one of her serves--a serve that was quite possibly the worst in the history of professional tennis.
by ponchi101 Kournikova's serve was definitely not one of the worst serves in WTA history. Demetieva, Errani and Federico Delbonis have worst serves than she did.
On the other hand... I will post pictures of my bruises if I can hit with Zuluaga one of these days.
by Deuce In a reality show that surely paid Kournikova a pretty penny, they weren't going to make her look like a hack by recruiting people who actually play tennis at a decent level to return her serve. Her singles career had a bad enough reputation without a TV show making her look like nothing special. More than likely, those facing her serve in the show had 'played tennis' about 3 times in their lives.
Giving them 5 minutes to get into the rhythm, I believe the majority of 4.5 level male players could return at least 60% - 70% of the first serves of most WTA players (including Kournikova).
by JTContinental double post
by JTContinental
Found the clip--it's just one douchey guy, and it's from The Apprentice, of course
by Deuce Anna comes off as being nice and affable. But then, so does McEnroe.
Not that it was staged that way or anything, of course .
That 4 minutes was the only 4 minutes I've ever watched of that show...
by JTContinental Gauff is the youngest WTA player to reach the top 25 since Nicole Vaidisova in 2005
by ti-amie Maybe they shouldn't make a comparison between Gauff and Vaidisova?
by Deuce Who is the youngest female player to make it into the top 10 - if only briefly?
Tracy Austin? Andrea Jaeger? Carling Bassett? Someone else whom I'm forgetting at the moment?
I don't think Kathy Rinaldi ever made it into the top 10, did she?
by Suliso It's got to be Jennifer Capriati.
by Deuce
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:00 am
It's got to be Jennifer Capriati.
I knew I was forgetting a well known player!
Capriati's 'Wikipedia' says she was the youngest player to reach the top 10 - at "14 years, 235 days in October of 1990".
I don't imagine anyone has entered the top 10 at a younger age since then, as there have been significantly fewer kids on tour since then.
Kathy Rinaldi was 14 when she came on the tour, and I believe she was said to be the youngest ever on the tour to that point. I just checked, and she did actually make it to #7 in the world - but she was an old lady of 19 at the time.
I believe Carling Bassett was the youngest at the time to reach a WTA Final in 1983 (Amelia Island, I think) at age 15 - vs. Chris Evert.
by atlpam Don't forget Tracy Austin who was just 16 when she won the US Open.
by mmmm8 Hingis was 15 when she won Wimbledon and just turned 16 when she got to the top 10, I believe
by Suliso
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:56 pmHingis was 15 when she won Wimbledon and just turned 16 when she got to the top 10, I believe
This is not true. She was 16 for her first 3 GS titles.
mmmm8 wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:56 pmHingis was 15 when she won Wimbledon and just turned 16 when she got to the top 10, I believe
This is not true. She was 16 for her first 3 GS titles.
Ooops, of course, too early in the morning for me. She was 15 when she won the doubles at Wimbledon, then was ranked in the top 10 after turning 16, THEN won the Australian at 16.
by JazzNU What happens with RG points from 2020? Are they getting replaced with 2021 points even though it hasn't been a year? Just replacement of the same tournament played or is there some acknowledgment that they typically work on a 52 week schedule and 2020 RG was within the last 52 weeks?
by 3mlm
JazzNU wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:37 pm
What happens with RG points from 2020? Are they getting replaced with 2021 points even though it hasn't been a year? Just replacement of the same tournament played or is there some acknowledgment that they typically work on a 52 week schedule and 2020 RG was within the last 52 weeks?
According to the WTA website, the following applies:
If the event was rescheduled outside of four weeks of the normal tournament date – Roland Garros, Rome, Istanbul and Strasbourg – the following applies:
- 2019 points will drop off after 104 weeks
- 2020 points will stay on for 52 weeks if the points earned are better than the 2021 results or the player does not compete at the event in 2021
- In the event that 2020 points are used, they will drop off after 52 weeks, being replaced by the 2021 points
by JTContinental Will we have a new #1 on the women's side now?
by Suliso
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:17 pm
Will we have a new #1 on the women's side now?
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:17 pm
Will we have a new #1 on the women's side now?
No. That's mathematically impossible.
by Suliso On the WTA side there are two teams (USA and Czechia) with more than 4 players in the top 65 eligible to go to Olympics.
For USA Kenin, Serena and Brady have clinched their spots. The last one is between Gauff and Pegula with the strong advantage to Coco. Jessica needs QF's and Gauff losing soon. However, it's entirely possible that Serena doesn't go and then the team is clear already unless Sloane wins the title.
For Czechia Pliskova, Kvitova and Muchova are in. The last spot will go to either Krejcikova or Vondrousova. Barbora is 400 points ahead and it will take a huge result at RG for Marketa to overtake her. Can't be ruled out though considering how the bottom half of the draw has collapsed.
by martini4me I had been assuming that there would be massive turnover in the rankings after the French Open, as points from the previous two editions would be dropping off. Then, looking at the live rankings site, it showed only 2019 points being dropped. I looked at the WTA site, and apparently the 2020 points will remain on the rankings system for 52 weeks. This is true for all tournaments that were shifted more than four weeks from their originally scheduled date.
I didn't check to see whether the same is true for ATP rankings, but in that case, there was only one player "defending" champion's points anyway.
by Suliso I was thinking earlier today how many more players of full or partial Asian descent there are on WTA tour in the top 100 compared to ATP. I wonder is that because height is less crucial for women or because ATP is more competitive in more countries?
Also there was a promising Korean player few years ago who has disappeared (injuries?). Can't recall his name now...
by dave g
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:13 pm
I was thinking earlier today how many more players of full or partial Asian descent there are on WTA tour in the top 100 compared to ATP. I wonder is that because height is less crucial for women or because ATP is more competitive in more countries?
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:13 pm
I was thinking earlier today how many more players of full or partial Asian descent there are on WTA tour in the top 100 compared to ATP. I wonder is that because height is less crucial for women or because ATP is more competitive in more countries?
Also there was a promising Korean player few years ago who has disappeared (injuries?). Can't recall his name now...
I think you are talking about LU Yen-Hsun. He lost his first round match to Schwartzman.
No, I remembered. It was Chung Hyeon who reached #19 in 2018, but is now ranked only #180
by ponchi101 Hyeon went through a lot of injuries. I remember he was looking very good. Gave Novak a tough match at the Aussie.
Remember Paradorn Schrichapan? He was rather tall, and was a joy to watch. But injuries also did him in.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:48 pm
Remember Paradorn Schrichapan? He was rather tall, and was a joy to watch. But injuries also did him in.
Of course, but that was some time ago. Right now no particularly bright prospects coming up.
by Deuce
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:13 pm
I was thinking earlier today how many more players of full or partial Asian descent there are on WTA tour in the top 100 compared to ATP. I wonder is that because height is less crucial for women or because ATP is more competitive in more countries?
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:48 pm
I knew about Leylah-Annie's parentage but not about Pegula.
Jessica's mother is Korean, but adopted as a child and grew up in USA.
Thank you.
by ponchi101 Let me see if I got this straight. Pegula's mother is NOT her current mother, as she is adopted?
So she was adopted by a billionaire?
Kind of making a crusade to find her natural mother and tell her "THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!".
(Again, if I understood well)
by ti-amie I thought Jessica's mother is ethnically Korean but was adopted by an American family from what I read.
by JazzNU Terry and Kim Pegula are Jessica Pegula's parents. They are billionaires (and awful) - they pretend their money is comes from owning sports teams but they actually made their billions in fracking.
Kim Pegula is Korean American. She was born in Korea and adopted as a young child by an American couple and raised in the US.
FYI, unlike many tennis parents, if you just Google her parents, your will easily find answers on them including pictures that will tell you quite obviously that Jessie's mom is Asian American.
by Suliso Sorry for not making it all crystal clear in the first place.
by Suliso Since I was looking at RG junior draws I decided also to have a look at the junior rankings. Here they are with some comments. In brackets birth year and ATP/WTA ranking if any.
Boys
1. Holger Vitus Nodskov Rune, DEN (2003, 291)
2. Shintaro Mochizuki, JPN (2003, 497)
3. Juncheng Shang, CHN (2005, -)
4. Martin Damm, USA (2003, 694)
5. Bruno Kuzuhara, USA (2004, -)
6. Pedro Boscardin Dias, BRA (2003, -)
7. Jack Pinnington Jones, GBR (2003, -)
8. Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard, FRA (2003, -)
9. Jerome Kym, SUI (2003, -)
10. Dali Blanch, USA (2003, -)
From these Holger Rune is areal deal, moving up the pro rankings very rapidly now. I think we'll see him in the Slams next year, or maybe even at USO later this year. From the others I'm intrigued by the Chinese guy. He's much younger than the others and the top seed at RG juniors. The rest are unclear. I think those born in 2003 who still don't have any ATP rankings are most likely well behind the elite.
Girls
1. Elsa Jacquemot, FRA (2003, 492)
2. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, AND (2005, 708)
3. Alexandra Eala, PHI (2005, 624)
4. Polina Kudermetova, RUS (2003, 608)
5. Diana Shnaider, RUS (2004, -)
6. Robin Montgomery, USA (2004, 350)
7. Oceane Babel, FRA (2004, -)
8. Kristina Dmitruk, BLR (2003, -)
9. Natalia Szabanin, HUN (2003, -)
10. Oksana Selekhmeteva, RUS (2003, 541)
I'm afraid I can't comment at all about the #1 player. Instead I would like to highlight three others - Jimenez Kasintseva, Eala and Montgomery. The first two are having impressive junior success at very young age and that usually is a good indicator. Montgomery is only slightly older and has the highest WTA ranking of them all.
by Deuce
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:54 pm
Since I was looking at RG junior draws I decided also to have a look at the junior rankings. Here they are with some comments. In brackets birth year and ATP/WTA ranking if any.
Girls
1. Elsa Jacquemot, FRA (2003, 492)
2. Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva, AND (2005, 708)
3. Alexandra Eala, PHI (2005, 624)
4. Polina Kudermetova, RUS (2003, 608)
5. Diana Shnaider, RUS (2004, -)
6. Robin Montgomery, USA (2004, 350)
7. Oceane Babel, FRA (2004, -)
8. Kristina Dmitruk, BLR (2003, -)
9. Natalia Szabanin, HUN (2003, -)
10. Oksana Selekhmeteva, RUS (2003, 541)
I'm afraid I can't comment at all about the #1 player. Instead I would like to highlight three others - Jimenez Kasintseva, Eala and Montgomery. The first two are having impressive junior success at very young age and that usually is a good indicator. Montgomery is only slightly older and has the highest WTA ranking of them all.
Jacquemot is a decent player, but I'd be very surprised if she spends any significant time within the top 20 on the pro circuit. I've seen her play live a couple of times in Juniors, and I didn't like her attitude - very 'stand-offish' and rather entitled. She was also rather vehemently accused of cheating in a non-officiated Junior doubles match in 2019 - I was near the court, and was drawn to it by the yelling and commotion coming from her opponents (several officials were also drawn to the court). I didn't see the alleged cheating - but the manner in which the objection was made by her opponents makes it hard to believe they were fabricating it. A roving umpire stayed on the court for the remainder of the match.
I preferred Carole Monnet (also from France). I felt she had a more solid, consistent game. And she had a healthy, respectful attitude, as well.
Monnet has 'aged out' of Juniors now, though.
by JazzNU
by Suliso Barbora Krejcikova goes back to #1 in doubles with her teammate Siniakova at #2. In singles she's at career high #15.
by Suliso Now half the season (2 Slams) is officially in the books therefore I decided to do a bit of rankings analysis. I'm concentrating on race rankings because of the general messed up state of a year long list.
ATP race top 20 with the current ranking and a career high ranking in parenthesis
For WTA the average age is 25.7 years (only 0.5 years less than ATP). The oldest on the list is Serena and the youngest Coco Gauff.
by Suliso There are currently six teenage players in WTA top 100 (Iga turned 20 two weeks ago)
#23 Coco Gauff USA (17.2)
#65 Marta Kostyuk UKR (18.9)
#66 Leylah Fernandez CAN (18.7)
#78 Amanda Anisimova USA (19.7)
#92 Clara Tauson DEN (18.4)
#93 Maria Camila Osorio Serrano COL (19.4)
In ATP top 100 there are only three
#23 Jannik Sinner ITA (19.8)
#57 Lorenzo Musetti ITA (19.2)
#75 Carlos Alcaraz ESP (18.1)
by Deuce
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:54 pm
There are currently six teenage players in WTA top 100 (Iga turned 20 two weeks ago)
#23 Coco Gauff USA (17.2)
#65 Marta Kostyuk UKR (18.9)
#66 Leylah Fernandez CAN (18.7)
#78 Amanda Anisimova USA (19.7)
#92 Clara Tauson DEN (18.4)
#93 Maria Camila Osorio Serrano COL (19.4)
In ATP top 100 there are only three
#23 Jannik Sinner ITA (19.8)
#57 Lorenzo Musetti ITA (19.2)
#75 Carlos Alcaraz ESP (18.1)
That 2 to 1 ratio is pretty much the way it's been for most of the past 40 years, I believe - at least in terms of top 20 or 30 or so... so I wouldn't figure it would be much different across the top 100.
You have an Arias, Agassi, or Chang come up every now and then, but not as often as an Austin, Bassett, Rinaldi, Seles, Graf, Capriati, etc.
by Suliso The three longest streaks in the WTA top 10 currently:
Simona Halep - 366 weeks
Karolina Pliskova - 229 (could end today)
Elina Svitolina - 193
Here is the all time top 10 (according to WTA site)
by ponchi101 I am not surprised one bit that Martina I is the leader and by that much, but I am surprised that Martina II is not even in the list.
Steffi: 625 weeks. And of those, 377 were as #1. I bet if you add weeks at # 2 it is easily over 500.
by the Moz Go Martina Sr! Epic
by the Moz
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:44 pm
I am not surprised one bit that Martina I is the leader and by that much, but I am surprised that Martina II is not even in the list.
Steffi: 625 weeks. And of those, 377 were as #1. I bet if you add weeks at # 2 it is easily over 500.
Martina Jr
by Liamvalid As someone who wasn’t watching tennis at the time, Pam Shriners name up there is a big surprise. I know about her doubles success but had no idea she was such a top ten singles mainstay
by the Moz Clearly consistent in singles, but unfortunately didn't win much from it.
by ponchi101 Shriver was a very consistent semi finalist at any tournament she went to. Then, of course, she bumped into either Martina or Chris, depending on her side of the draw.
One time, after losing to Martina, she voiced out that she was very frequently in Martina's half, and that she would like to land in Chris' half more often as "she would have a better chance". Chris heard it and she was furious. The next time they met she trashed Pam mercilessly.
Pam was one of those "unlucky" players. She spent her entire career trapped between the Martina/Chris/Mandlikova supremacy and then, being younger than the three, Steffi came up.
by the Moz
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 5:21 pm
Shriver was a very consistent semi finalist at any tournament she went to. Then, of course, she bumped into either Martina or Chris, depending on her side of the draw.
One time, after losing to Martina, she voiced out that she was very frequently in Martina's half, and that she would like to land in Chris' half more often as "she would have a better chance". Chris heard it and she was furious. The next time they met she trashed Pam mercilessly.
Pam was one of those "unlucky" players. She spent her entire career trapped between the Martina/Chris/Mandlikova supremacy and then, being younger than the three, Steffi came up.
Indeed. Shout out to her dubs though. She's a champ, because of her tennis and her partner.
by JazzNU
by Deuce Shriver and Sabatini were the main surprises for me. And maybe Conchita.
Sabatini because I didn't think she was that level of good for that long...
And Shriver because she easily had the ugliest, most awkward looking game of any female player in the history of the sport. It made Roddick's game appear smooth as silk in comparison. But, hey - it's not what it looks like that counts, it's the results. And her results were obviously good - surprising as it was.
by JazzNU
by 3mlm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:44 pm
I am not surprised one bit that Martina I is the leader and by that much, but I am surprised that Martina II is not even in the list.
Steffi: 625 weeks. And of those, 377 were as #1. I bet if you add weeks at # 2 it is easily over 500.
Martina II was in the top 10 from 10/07/96 to 10/14/02 which is 313 weeks, just missing the list.
by ponchi101
Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:02 am
Shriver and Sabatini were the main surprises for me. And maybe Conchita.
Sabatini because I didn't think she was that level of good for that long...
And Shriver because she easily had the ugliest, most awkward looking game of any female player in the history of the sport. It made Roddick's game appear smooth as silk in comparison. But, hey - it's not what it looks like that counts, it's the results. And her results were obviously good - surprising as it was.
I suspect that Conchita was there for that long because she played week in and week out. Different era, when taking a break meant, in the words of Henri Laconte, "not picking up a racquet for two days".
Grant you that Shriver's game was unorthodox, but her net game was solid. Her slice backhand was only second to Kathy Jordan's in term of weirdness (remember? Jordan used to hit her BH with a forehand western grip, basically impossible). But yes, point for artistry and beauty she never got.
Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:02 am
Shriver and Sabatini were the main surprises for me. And maybe Conchita.
Sabatini because I didn't think she was that level of good for that long...
And Shriver because she easily had the ugliest, most awkward looking game of any female player in the history of the sport. It made Roddick's game appear smooth as silk in comparison. But, hey - it's not what it looks like that counts, it's the results. And her results were obviously good - surprising as it was.
I suspect that Conchita was there for that long because she played week in and week out. Different era, when taking a break meant, in the words of Henri Laconte, "not picking up a racquet for two days".
Grant you that Shriver's game was unorthodox, but her net game was solid. Her slice backhand was only second to Kathy Jordan's in term of weirdness (remember? Jordan used to hit her BH with a forehand western grip, basically impossible). But yes, point for artistry and beauty she never got.
From the time Conchita first entered the top 10 (6/10/89) until the last week she was in the top 10 (5/21/01), she was in the top 10 for 493 weeks, equivalent to about 9.5 years out of about 12 years and more than half of her 18 year career, winning 33 titles, including a slam. I doubt that was just the result of playing "week in and week out". There was a year (2/1/99 to 2/31/00) she was out of the top 10, between 2 streaks of 52 weeks and 68 weeks in the top 10.
by JazzNU
by Suliso Pliskova held on a bit longer than I expected,
by JTContinental Svitolina also holding on longer than I thought she would
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:13 pm
Pliskova held on a bit longer than I expected,
Indeed. And was definitely gifted many additional weeks because of the pandemic and the adjusted rankings. We discussed before, but Pliskova was one of the biggest beneficiaries of those rankings rules.
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:13 pm
Pliskova held on a bit longer than I expected,
Indeed. And was definitely gifted many additional weeks because of the pandemic and the adjusted rankings. We discussed before, but Pliskova was one of the biggest beneficiaries of those rankings rules.
For sure, along with Barty and Kiki Bertens
by JazzNU Yes, though in regular times for Bertens, she could've just used the traditional protected ranking for an injury. One of the more stunning things about Pliskova's drop during this time is how many tournaments she played and still couldn't regain ground, she didn't miss a thing starting with Cincy.
by Suliso
JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:46 pm
Yes, though in regular times for Bertens, she could've just used the traditional protected ranking for an injury. One of the more stunning things about Pliskova's drop during this time is how many tournaments she played and still couldn't regain ground, she didn't miss a thing starting with Cincy.
Right, but I can't remember when she last beat a really good player. Perhaps that one win over Gauff earlier this year counts.
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:13 pm
Pliskova held on a bit longer than I expected,
JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:29 pm
Svitolina also holding on longer than I thought she would
Svitolina's chances for a huge career passed 2-3 years ago in my opinion. That was when she looked to be on the brink of winning at least one Slam.
What is wrong with Pliskova though? It's as if she's not exactly lost interest but even with her limited movement and all she still used to fight. I don't see that anymore.
Maybe Giorgi, post pandemic, is more interested in tennis now? She's always had the potential.
by JazzNU I'm not writing off Svitolina. Not yet, check back with me in 2 years. She's someone who I never thought would win a GS and then end of 2018 and in 2019 I saw how much her game had improved, how she'd improved her serve and was more offensive. 2019 sounds so long ago, but I think of it as the last season we really had of tennis. Svitolina played great at Indian Wells and then made the semis at Wimbledon and the US Open. While I'm not high on her chances on winning a GS, I feel like I regularly pick her opponent to win late in bigger tournaments, I'm not completely bailing on her chances either. I feel like they are about where they were before.
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:13 pm
Pliskova held on a bit longer than I expected,
Indeed. And was definitely gifted many additional weeks because of the pandemic and the adjusted rankings. We discussed before, but Pliskova was one of the biggest beneficiaries of those rankings rules.
For sure, along with Barty and Kiki Bertens
Although Barty did benefit, if there was no pandemic, she would have been playing more and likely still maintained a spot in the top 10 or even top 5.
Indeed. And was definitely gifted many additional weeks because of the pandemic and the adjusted rankings. We discussed before, but Pliskova was one of the biggest beneficiaries of those rankings rules.
For sure, along with Barty and Kiki Bertens
Although Barty did benefit, if there was no pandemic, she would have been playing more and likely still maintained a spot in the top 10 or even top 5.
Agreed--I don't expect her ranking to slide into oblivion--she's a great player, just not the best one. It's beyond ridiculous that a player holding 2 grand slam titles would be number 2 behind a player holding none. She basically got a free year of padded stats (meanwhile Venus has a grand total of 11 weeks at #1, but I'm not at all bitter about it ).
by Suliso WTA top 20 with Wimbledon points substracted.
Halep might lose her currently longest streak in the top 10, but most likely will hold on. Barty is safe unless she loses early and Sabalenka takes the title.
by Omess Yeah I think Halep stays in the top 10
Sabalenka needs to win and Barty loses before the semi . I don’t see both happening
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by JazzNU
by ti-amie
Seriously when will these rankings be made right?
by ponchi101 Yes. Time to simply say: last 52 weeks. There have been enough tournaments already.
by Suliso Long since time, but in this particular case the fall is coming very soon indeed.
by Omess
ti-amie wrote:
Seriously when will these rankings be made right?
In this case 10 weeks which is not long
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by Suliso We have lots of players in the top 10 who are wildly overranked - Andreescu, Svitolina, Kenin, Bencic. I'm giving a pass to Halep due to injury, but Sabalenka joins this group if she fails to reach at least SF's at Wimbledon.
by patrick Disagree on Sabalenka as she does well outside Slams
by Suliso
patrick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:30 pm
Disagree on Sabalenka as she does well outside Slams
Yes, but this game is all about winning Slams and going far in them.
by JazzNU Sabalenka isn't wildly overranked by any stretch no matter what she does at Wimbledon and doesn't belong with that group. That's truly discounting her regular WTA Tour success.
If you're talking about the perception of her because of her inability to go deep in a slam, that's another story. But she's not overranked as that has never just been about performance at GS.
Interestingly enough, I don't remember anywhere near this kind of doubt thrown at Pliskova who couldn't do a damn thing at a Slam and still remained in everyone's like Top 3 to win every slam that came up that wasn't RG.
by ponchi101 But that was when she was coming up. In the last couple of years, we haven't talked much about her because she is also fading away.
Nobody has taken her in the SP. I wonder if it is for the same reason I am staying away: she can blow somebody off the court, or can be blown of the court by anybody.
I like her personality, but she is no longer in a conversation for Slam winner. Much less #1.
by Suliso Note that when I say Sabalenka is over ranked I mean that appropriate would be in 6-10 range.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:59 pm
But that was when she was coming up. In the last couple of years, we haven't talked much about her because she is also fading away.
Nobody has taken her in the SP. I wonder if it is for the same reason I am staying away: she can blow somebody off the court, or can be blown of the court by anybody.
I like her personality, but she is no longer in a conversation for Slam winner. Much less #1.
That's my point. Aryna isn't old, she's the same age as Naomi. At this point with Pliskova, hope was very high. Most people weren't posting at the start of a slam that her being considered one of the favorites was a joke and she's never gonna win the title the way that has happened multiple times with Sabalenka now.
by Suliso Raducanu has improved her ranking already by 163 spots (#175 live) and could add another 40 if she beats Ajla Tomljanovic in R16. Doesn't sound impossible.
by Suliso Barty will be #1 regardless of further results. Sabalenka will be #2 if she reaches the final, #3 if she does not. Pliskova is back in the top 10 at #8 if she doesn't win any further matches. Spot in the finals would allow her to rise to #7 (past Iga) and the title would make her #4. Kerber currently #22, #18 as a finalist and #10 as a champion. Unless Kerber wins the title Muguruza goes back to the top 10. Simona Halep's loss of 2000 points will result in her slipping to #9.
by Deuce That's rather disappointing, as, with the crazy ranking system currently employed, I expected Andreescu to capture the #1 spot, given her 1st round exits at Wimbledon and Roland Garros...
by the Moz With all the rankings craziness, it's a good thing Ash Barty is the deserved no1 ATM.
by ponchi101 WTA rankings =
ATP rankings =
by ponchi101
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:59 pm
(Talking about Pliskova)
I like her personality, but she is no longer in a conversation for Slam winner. Much less #1.
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:17 pm
Note that when I say Sabalenka is over ranked I mean that appropriate would be in 6-10 range.
Posts by Suliso and myself, a week ago, aging gracefully
by JTContinental
the Moz wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:20 pm
With all the rankings craziness, it's a good thing Ash Barty is the deserved no1 ATM.
the Moz wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:20 pm
With all the rankings craziness, it's a good thing Ash Barty is the deserved no1 ATM.
Osaka should be #1, IMO
Well at least both are deserved of the top 10, unlike others...
by ponchi101 After this:
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:59 pm
But that was when she was coming up. In the last couple of years, we haven't talked much about her because she is also fading away.
Nobody has taken her in the SP. I wonder if it is for the same reason I am staying away: she can blow somebody off the court, or can be blown of the court by anybody.
I like her personality, but she is no longer in a conversation for Slam winner. Much less #1.
For sale.
Tennis Website. Almost brand new. Loyal membership, lots of fun and lovely people, small but charming not-for-profit location.
Reason: members deserve better management, especially somebody that actually knows about the sport.
Opinionated people please abstain.
by the Moz Where does Fed end up Monday morning? Out of top 10 for sure, but does he stay in top 15/20?
by nelslus
the Moz wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:36 pm
Where does Fed end up Monday morning? Out of top 10 for sure, but does he stay in top 15/20?
by JazzNU He'll stay in the top 10. The WTA is starting to get much closer to reality with their rankings, but ATP's approach means we've got more time with certain propped up rankings. Federer's strong 2019 will keep him afloat for a while. Keeping 50% of that IW Finals, Miami Win, and Wimbledon Finals I think are the most significant ones and I don't think they come off anytime in 2021 so he'll only fall so far right now.
He'd have gotten a protected ranking in a regular year anyway, so this probably isn't as far off as it seems in terms of getting seeded.
by varactor Career Slam stats for the Big 3 after Wimbledon:
Just for fun, if we calculate total points earned in each player's top 50 Slams, we get this:
Federer: 65,440
Djokovic: 63,160
Nadal: 58,960
Makes me wonder - has anyone tried putting together a list of career rankings based on points?
You can start by adding the 36,000 points both Nole and Rafa have from MS1000's, and 28,000 points for Roger.
But the rest of the points would be a major labor of love.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by mick1303
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:17 pm
Problem is that the method for calculating ranking points change from time to time...
What I did for weighted ranking calculation (viewtopic.php?f=17&t=483&p=23102#p23102) - I was using Grand Slam points as a measuring stick. And of course considered them as a constant throughout. All other tournaments have point distribution related to the slams. This way you can at least seamlessly compare pre-2009 time with modern (after 2008 point distribution doubled, but I left it as it was - 1000 points for slam win, 600 point for runner-up and further down with 60% deprecation each round). With 70s and 80s it becomes increasingly tricky...
by Jeff from TX When do WTA rankings change again? Andrescu never seems to budge - what results are keeping her in the top ten? I should be able to look this up but I'm sure some of y'all can provide the answer quicker and more succinctly. Thanks!
by skatingfan
Jeff from TX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 5:14 am
When do WTA rankings change again? Andrescu never seems to budge - what results are keeping her in the top ten? I should be able to look this up but I'm sure some of y'all can provide the answer quicker and more succinctly. Thanks!
Jeff from TX wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 5:14 am
When do WTA rankings change again? Andrescu never seems to budge - what results are keeping her in the top ten? I should be able to look this up but I'm sure some of y'all can provide the answer quicker and more succinctly. Thanks!
The 2019 US Open & 2019 Indian Wells.
Those points will be replaced with the points from the 2021 US Open and 2021 Indian Wells (scheduled for October).
by ti-amie The WTA has fixed its site and you can now see rankings. "Technical difficulties" prevented this earlier in the week.
by ti-amie
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:52 pm
The WTA has fixed its site and you can now see rankings. "Technical difficulties" prevented this earlier in the week.
And I was only partly right. They've posted the pre Canadian Open rankings. I found a site with live rankings that is said to be more accurate. I would make sure all of my virus and ad blocking software is up to date though.
by ti-amie The Boiled Egg is reporting that the woman who did the rankings work for the WTA, Grace Dowling, isn't working for them anymore. Remember when they decided not to reup with TennisTV because they were going to provide their own streaming platform and the s**tshow that followed?
by the Moz The WTA site has been disgraceful for quite some time.
by ponchi101 I've gotten used to it, and I believe that the TOURNAMENTS tab is well done. You can go and check scores and draws easily.
But, yes, maybe a bit of a time to improve it.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie This is the question I wanted to ask re ranking points:
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Suliso As I understand ATP is keeping some craziness, but WTA will indeed soon resemble the actual situation. Below is the top 10 in the race before the last two significant tournaments of the year.
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:27 pm
As I understand ATP is keeping some craziness, but WTA will indeed soon resemble the actual situation. Below is the top 10 in the race before the last two significant tournaments of the year.
I was all ready to write 'Hallelujah' and 'Amen' and 'Finally' at Andreescu #35... but then I saw you wrote 'the race'. I checked the regular rankings, and Andreescu is still at #7.
I guess we'll have to wait until after Indian Wells this year for her to get a truly accurate ranking, when she finally loses her 2019 U.S. Open and Indian Wells points.
The way she's going this year, she might not even be in the top 50 - unless she gets a 'protected ranking' from supposedly being injured for ALL of 2020...
by joshil Hello everyone, recently i bought a new site https://www.wtafans.com/ and will publish all the female tennis player's related news and personal details. If you guys have any suggestions, please PM me..
by Suliso There will be some wild swings in the rankings when the next version is released.
by Suliso Azarenka out and no higher than #30 the next time rankings are updated.
Thiem wins the 2020 U.S. Open, doesn't play it a year later, and hasn't played for a while... and he only falls 2 places. Injured or not, he should fall further.
Gauff loses in the 2nd round and gains 4 places. Odd... She lost in the 1st round in 2020, and lost in the 3rd round in 2019....
Andreescu finally begins her long-awaited free-fall, despite reaching the 4th round this year. Her points from the U.S. Open win 2 years ago are finally gone. She'll likely lose most of her Indian Wells victory points from 2019, as well, soon, and her ranking will finally be a fairly accurate reflection of her results.
I believe Leylah was 73, not the 67 indicated, going into the U.S. Open. She hadn't done anything in the weeks leading up to the U.S. Open (lost in 1st round of Montreal and Cincinnati), so I don't see how she could have jumped from 73 to 67. Will be inside the top 30... and poised to overtake Andreescu, which I said 2 years ago would happen within 3 years.
by Suliso There are a lot of points being lost this week as well on WTA side with most not even playing.
Notably: Kenin 6 --> 7; Osaka 5 --> 8; Halep 11 --> 14. Few others can still fix because they're playing this week.
by Suliso Both Krejcikova (#5) and Swiatek (#6) will reach career high rankings.
by ponchi101 Fernandez reached 3R at Cincy.
And it is not difficult to see that some people went up (Krejcikova and Swiatek) because other people simply went down.
by Suliso Since there will be WTA finals after all worth looking at the race rankings as of today. Players in bold are officially qualified.
JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:21 pm
Raducanu up to 23 in the rankings without having played a tour level match yet
Not true. She played Silicon Valley Classic.
Also Nottingham before Wimbledon. She hasn't won a match at a WTA tour-level event yet, but seems moot since she has won matches at Slams.
by ponchi101 Can somebody remind me of the rules for entry for the WTA finals? Emma at #23 does not qualify, but not having HER (which is a separate issue from THE US OPEN CHAMP) in the finals would be the most disastrous marketing ploy ever. The guys in Mexico would be without the brightest recent star (and specially if Naomi and Barty, the Aussie and Wimby champions, indeed do not show up).
by Suliso There are no WC's for this tournament. Maybe not great for guys in Mexico, but I think for Emma herself it's better to take it slowly. Play maybe one more tournament this year and then call it a season.
JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:21 pm
Raducanu up to 23 in the rankings without having played a tour level match yet
Not true. She played Silicon Valley Classic.
Hmmm...I read that on ESPN--they must have meant winning
by ti-amie She will need to win on the main tour full stop.
by Suliso Tough crowd. Give her a bit of time and I'm sure she'll be perfectly fine on the regular tour too. The game is certainly there.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:58 pm
Can somebody remind me of the rules for entry for the WTA finals? Emma at #23 does not qualify, but not having HER (which is a separate issue from THE US OPEN CHAMP) in the finals would be the most disastrous marketing ploy ever. The guys in Mexico would be without the brightest recent star (and specially if Naomi and Barty, the Aussie and Wimby champions, indeed do not show up).
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
by ponchi101 "Dear Emma:
Here is the deal. You will NEVER win a match in the main tour. You will win ALL your matches in Grand Slams, and will win plenty.
Sign in blood.
Your truly,
The Genie"
Emma: Where is my freaking Swiss Army Knife?
(joking)
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:41 pm
Tough crowd. Give her a bit of time and I'm sure she'll be perfectly fine on the regular tour too. The game is certainly there.
Yeah, of course she should. It's not like she has been playing Tour events and losing R1. She just hasn't played any until this summer. She did well in ITFs and then just leaped over the next stage. I'd expect her to be competitive in WTA events.
Smart of her to not play Montreal and Cincinnati, and play smaller events instead for more match play and confidence.
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
That is the ATP. That one I am clear. If you are a Slam winner, but ARE NOT in the top 8, you get the spot. The player ranked #8 gets bumped out.
by Suliso
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:13 pm
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
I believe it's ATP not WTA and Tennis Podcast is wrong. I'm only 90% sure, though.
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:13 pm
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
I believe it's ATP not WTA and Tennis Podcast is wrong. I'm only 90% sure, though.
I could be misquoting Tennis Podcast. I usually only half-listen. I finally caught on to the Tennis Podcast. I tried it a while back and just never latched on. Now I love it.
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
That is the ATP. That one I am clear. If you are a Slam winner, but ARE NOT in the top 8, you get the spot. The player ranked #8 gets bumped out.
Okay, then I think the WTA doesn't do that, like suliso said. The podcast was saying the tours treat this differently.
by Omess WTA gave itself some discretion to use a WC for 8th place until 2018 but they changed that rule now it is the top 8
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
by skatingfan
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:13 pm
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
WTA slam winners don't make the final unless they qualify normally, and the ATP has one spot for a slam winner that is ranked in the top 20.
^ No. She had to play qualies, and won her 2 matches there (vs. Begu and Ruse). Then she lost 1st round of main draw to Riske.
I was watching her matches, and she did not look good in her loss to Riske.
She lost 1st round in Montreal, as well, to qualifier Dart, after getting a WildCard into the main draw. The Olympics didn't go well, either.
But her dad took her home after Cincinnati, got her back to playing her more creative game of variety, and then the magic happened in N.Y.
I think WTA slam winners make the Finals automatically, but not ATP. Or vice versa. But I think the Tennis Podcast said it's the former, that she will get in based on her US Open win.
That is the ATP. That one I am clear. If you are a Slam winner, but ARE NOT in the top 8, you get the spot. The player ranked #8 gets bumped out.
I think there is a condition though that Slam winner shall be inside top 20 to qualify. At least it used to be.
by mick1303
joshil wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:56 pm
Hello everyone, recently i bought a new site https://www.wtafans.com/ and will publish all the female tennis player's related news and personal details. If you guys have any suggestions, please PM me..
Will you publish date of birth or like ITF - hide it and only show an age in years? Are you planning to have players database and results database?
by Suliso Here are junior year end rankings top 10 for both boys and girls 2016-2018 with those who have reached pro top 100 bolded.
Girls
2016
Anastasia Potapova (RUS)
Olesya Pervushina (RUS)
Kayla Day (USA)
Rebeka Masarova (ESP) Amanda Anisimova (USA) Kaja Juvan (SLO)
Amina Anshba (RUS) Dayana Yastremska (UKR) Claire Liu (USA)
Taylor Johnson (USA)
2017
Whitney Osuigwe (USA) Marta Kostyuk (UKR) Elena Rybakinka (KAZ)
Xinyu Wang (CHN) Olga Danilovic (SRB)
En Shuo Liang (TPE)
Emiliana Arango (COL) Maria Camila Osorio Serrano (COL)
Simona Waltert (CAN)
Carson Branstine (CAN)
2018
Clara Burel (FRA) Coco Gauff (USA)
Xiyu Wang (CHN) Clara Tauson (DEN) Maria Camila Osorio Serrano (COL)
En Shuo Liang (TPE)
Xinyu Wang (CHN)
Caty McNally (USA)
Qinwen Zheng (CHN)
Eleonora Molinaro (LUX)
Boys
2016
Miomir Kecmanovic (SRB) Stefanos Tsitsipas (GRE)
Yosuke Watanuki (JPN) Felix Auger-Aliassime (CAN)
Ulises Blanch (USA)
Yibing Wu (CHN)
Geoffrey Blancaneaux (FRA)
Jurabek Karimov (UZB)
Benjamin Sigouin (CAN)
Nicola Kuhn (ESP)
2017
Axel Geller (ARG)
Yibing Wu (CHN) Alexei Popyrin (AUS)
Timofei Skatov (KAZ) Emil Ruusuvuori (FIN)
Zsombor Piros (HUN)
Marko Miladinovic (SRB)
Jurij Radionov (AUT)
Yuta Shimizu (JPN)
Uisung Park (KOR)
2018
Chun Hsin Tseng (TPE)
Hugo Gaston (FRE)
Sebastian Baez (ARG)
Adrian Andreev (BUL) Brandon Nakashima (USA)
Facundo Diaz Acosta (ARG)
Nicolas Meija (COL) Lorenzo Musetti (ITA) Sebastian Korda (USA)
Gilbert Klier Junior (BRA)
by ponchi101 A bit of a good example that making it to a top 10 in juniors carries little guarantee of professional success. It is interesting for the class of 2016/Boys, from which only 3 have made it to the top 100.
Txs
by Deuce Leylah got to #1 in Juniors in 2019 after she reached the Final of the Junior Aussie Open (lost to Tauson), and then won the Junior Roland Garros, which was her last Junior tournament.
In 2018, Leylah lost in the Semis of Roland Garros to Cori Gauff, and I believe she (Leylah) was in the top 10 at some point during 2018.
by Suliso Wasn't it Tauson who got it to #1 after junior AO and Fernandez replaced her after RG? At least that's how I remember it..
by Deuce I guess... I don't know when exactly Tauson reached #1 - but I know that Leylah got to #1 toward the middle of the year.
What I meant was that the Junior Aussie Open Final and winning the Junior Roland Garros helped get Leylah to #1.
I believe that Tauson didn't play the Junior Roland Garros that year (2018), because she was injured - is that right?
by Suliso First of all 2019 not 2018. Not sure about injury, but I think 2019 AO junior title was her very last junior tournament.
The weird part is that neither is found in 2019 year end rankings. Understandable for Tauson, but Fernandez should have been in still. I guess I just don't know how junior rankings work in detail...
by Deuce Indeed 2019 - sorry.
I think Leylah officially 'turned pro' in the late summer/fall of 2019 - so maybe once that occurs, the player is removed altogether from the Junior rankings? That might explain Leylah not being in the year-end rankings that year.
I don't know if Tauson also officially turned pro around that same time.
by Suliso That indeed might be the correct explanation.
by Suliso Noticed in the context of Laver cup that the entire ATP top 10 is European there as for women it's only 7/10. It could realistically end as 9/10 by the end of the year, though.
by ponchi101 It is the problem with the cup. The original idea was alright, but the balance of power is too extreme in favor of Europe. South America is not producing any top players (Diego is NOT a top player), Africa's sole representative is Harris, who is good but not great, and there is nobody from Asia (NIshikori remains the sole good player from there) and the USA is definitely down. Canada, with FAA and Shapo is doing well, but still a peg or two below the European standard. Australia is also not producing.
A good idea in a bad era. It is too skewed.
by Suliso Sure, but it needn't stay that way forever. Once upon time US and Australia dominated Davis Cup. It will take some time, though. From the immediate upcoming generation only FAA and Shapovalov are not from Europe.
If they did make Navratilova cup or equivalent it would be far more equally balanced.
by Suliso Maria Sakkari will be making her top 10 debut Monday. Deservedly so I say.
by ti-amie
by Deuce It's true that Lenin hasn't been active for a long time...
But his influence remains.
by Suliso Osaka out of the top ten in a week (no higher than #12) and will be replaced by Bencic regardless of this week's results.
by ti-amie
Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:44 am
It's true that Lenin hasn't been active for a long time...
But his influence remains.
Twitter doesn't allow editing of Tweets but I laughed at that too.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:48 pm
Twitter doesn't allow editing of Tweets but I laughed at that too.
People have been begging for edits since the beginning of time, have come up with great ideas that stay true to the brand while letting small things like that get corrected, but Twitter continues to ignore any and all suggestions as they roll out unwanted updates in favor of the most requested feature in their history.
by Suliso Q: How many players ranked 101-200 have been in the top 100 before.
A: WTA 45, ATP 46
by Suliso Hubert Hurkacz will make his top 10 debut next Monday.
by ponchi101 Jabeur too. Good for her.
by the Moz I understand Roger will be exiting the Top 10 Monday
by Deuce I'm hearing that Indian Wells 2019 points will FINALLY be removed 2 or 3 weeks after this year's tournament ends.
That 2019 U.S. Open and 2019 Toronto points were removed before 2019 Indian Wells points, even though the U. S. Open and Toronto were played AFTER Indian Wells in 2019, is rather absurd.
I hope Andreescu will be wearing a parachute when her 2019 Indian Wells points finally vanish in a couple of weeks.
by ti-amie
Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 1:34 am
I'm hearing that Indian Wells 2019 points will FINALLY be removed 2 or 3 weeks after this year's tournament ends.
That 2019 U.S. Open and 2019 Toronto points were removed before 2019 Indian Wells points, even though the U. S. Open and Toronto were played AFTER Indian Wells in 2019, is rather absurd.
I hope Andreescu will be wearing a parachute when her 2019 Indian Wells points finally vanish in a couple of weeks.
This idiocy did nothing for either tour. The gymnastics the ATP went through though were worse that what the WTA did though.
Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 1:34 am
I'm hearing that Indian Wells 2019 points will FINALLY be removed 2 or 3 weeks after this year's tournament ends.
That 2019 U.S. Open and 2019 Toronto points were removed before 2019 Indian Wells points, even though the U. S. Open and Toronto were played AFTER Indian Wells in 2019, is rather absurd.
I hope Andreescu will be wearing a parachute when her 2019 Indian Wells points finally vanish in a couple of weeks.
This idiocy did nothing for either tour. The gymnastics the ATP went through though were worse that what the WTA did though.
Granted... But the main beneficiary of the manipulated rankings in the ATP has been a legend of the game who has had a phenomenal 20 year career.
The main beneficiary of the manipulated rankings in the WTA has been a player who had a good 6 months 2 years ago, and who has done nothing of note since then.
That doesn't justify what the ATP has done - but it does highlight a significant difference.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:25 pm
This idiocy did nothing for either tour. The gymnastics the ATP went through though were worse that what the WTA did though.
Much worse to me. And for their troubles they got a no show at the Olympics.
by ti-amie
by JazzNU Don't care. Maybe don't throw out gay slurs at your opponent and more people will find some sympathy for you, huh?
by ti-amie
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:37 pm
Don't care. Maybe don't throw out gay slurs at your opponent and more people will find some sympathy for you, huh?
Wait what? When did this happen?
by Suliso I have no idea about such an incident either, but regardless he's of course right. I'm looking forward with some interest to emergence of both Danish junior #1 players.
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:44 pm
Wait what? When did this happen?
Earlier this year at a tournament, I think challenger tour. ATP players stay disappointing.
ETA: I posted a link to this story in the Tennis Random thread.
by mick1303 One more time I see a confirmation that WTA website is utterly disorganized and useless. They call all former Tier I tournaments now "WTA1000". But the points for Montreal and Indian Wells are not the same (900 and 1000 respectively). How can you claim that they are the same category? They should've stay with "Mandatory" definition. At least the distinction could be seen this way...
by ponchi101 I had not noticed, but certainly one more looney factor from these pandemic years. I don't recall that being the case in the past. Maybe somebody can clarify that.
by meganfernandez FWIW, I'm fine with the WTA website. I usually find what I'm looking for very easily. I know it has a terrible reputation, but I always speak up in its defense. I've just never had much of an issue with it, and I use it quite a bit - mostly for player info and news, not tournament info.
by Suliso Djokovic, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Rublev and Berrettini have qualified for ATP finals. The last two spots will be played out between Ruud, Hurkacz, Sinner and Norrie. That is unless someone immediately below wins Paris masters.
by Suliso Jannik Sinner will reach the top 10 for the first time if he beats Ruud today.
by Suliso Lots of strange things happening in WTA rankings this week. 2019 YEC championship points are coming off finally, but 2019 IW points stay another week (90% sure). Here is the list of major changes this Monday:
- Career high rankings for Krejcikova (3), Sakkari (6), Jabeur (7), Kontaveit (8), Badosa (11)
- Svitolina's four year uninterrupted stay in the top 10 is over (down to #14). Barty now has the longest active streak at ca 2 years
- Angelique Kerber rejoins the top 10 for the last week this year and possibly ever (#16 in the race)
- Bencic (18) and Osaka (13) also out of the top 10
- Donna Vekic gains 30 spots to #67
Badosa missed out on joining the top 10 because of Kontaveit's win today, but should be getting there anyway a week later (replacing Kerber).
by Suliso ATP rankings are even more difficult to understand. For example, Medvedev is losing 2490 points this week. Not sure what those are, but obviously several weeks worth of points. Tsitsipas was the 2nd biggest loser at 1300, but still could overtake Medvedev at #2 by winning Paris Masters.
Here are all the mathematically possible contenders for the remaining two YEC spots before the last two tournaments (Paris and Stockholm). Assuming no withdrawals of course.
by Suliso TOP 10 MOST CAREER WEEKS AT NO. 1 IN WTA RANKINGS HISTORY
377: Steffi Graf
332: Martina Navratilova
319: Serena Williams
260: Chris Evert
209: Martina Hingis
178: Monica Seles
117: Justine Henin
100: Ashleigh Barty (excluding frozen rankings weeks in 2020)
98: Lindsay Davenport
71: Caroline Wozniacki
by ponchi101 Good to see that the figure for Barty excludes the ranking weeks of 2020. That tells a more realistic picture. So, 100 weeks as number one is a great achievement.
by JazzNU
by atlpam
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:31 pm
TOP 10 MOST CAREER WEEKS AT NO. 1 IN WTA RANKINGS HISTORY
377: Steffi Graf
332: Martina Navratilova
319: Serena Williams
260: Chris Evert
209: Martina Hingis
178: Monica Seles
117: Justine Henin
100: Ashleigh Barty (excluding frozen rankings weeks in 2020)
98: Lindsay Davenport
71: Caroline Wozniacki
I’m actually surprised Serena is that high on the list with her hit or miss tournament scheduling.
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 12:31 pm
TOP 10 MOST CAREER WEEKS AT NO. 1 IN WTA RANKINGS HISTORY
377: Steffi Graf
332: Martina Navratilova
319: Serena Williams
260: Chris Evert
209: Martina Hingis
178: Monica Seles
117: Justine Henin
100: Ashleigh Barty (excluding frozen rankings weeks in 2020)
98: Lindsay Davenport
71: Caroline Wozniacki
I’m actually surprised Serena is that high on the list with her hit or miss tournament scheduling.
Agree - shows how dominant she has been when she is playing fully engaged and committed. Also a function of longevity. More than half of her weeks at #1 were between ages 31 and 35.
by Deuce Here are the current top 51 players on the WTA tour.
Some surprises, some players out of place...
Nice to see Leylah inside the top 25.
Also good to see Kostyuk and Tauson inside the top 50.
... And the #46 player is finally right where she belongs (I predicted 2 years ago that Leylah would be ranked higher than her in 3 years from then - it happened faster than I thought).
by Suliso Do note that by strictly this year's results Muguruza will remain behind both Czechs and could be overtaken by Sakkari or Kontaveit as well.
by ponchi101 How about if Badosa wins?
Never mind. just saw she lost. Happy for Garbie.
by ti-amie
by Suliso If Djokovic is thrown out of Australia as looks possible right now Medvedev will need QF's at AO to rise to #1. If he fails Zverev can do it as well by winning the title.
by ponchi101 Medvedev to the qualies looks very possible. Specially after last nights plastering of Felix. He looked on.
by Suliso Just for fun I looked up which countries are represented in the rankings (top 1000) with only 1 or 2 players.
WTA
Algeria (1), Andorra (1), Burundi (1), Bolivia (1), Cyprus (1), Ecuador (2), Finland (2), Indonesia (2), Lithuania (2), Luxembourg (2), Macedonia (1), Malta (1), Montenegro (2), Oman (1), Peru (1), Philippines (1), Papua New Guinea (1), Tunisia (2), Venezuela (2), Zimbabwe (1)
There are two top 100 players on this list (Jabeur and Kovinic) and two promising juniors (Jimenez Kasintseva and Eala).
by Suliso WTA is finally back to standard 52 week rankings. ATP not yet...
by Suliso Here are some interesting changes for WTA involving players no longer in the tournament
- Muguruza down at least 3 spots to #6, but could realistically be overtaken also by Sakkari and Swiatek
- Alison Riske down at least 9 spots to #55
- Karolina Muchova down at least 34 spots to #65
- Marie Bouzkova up as much as 13 to #73
- Kristina Kucova up as much as 17 to #79
- Xinyu Wang up 15 to #85 (younger generation Chinese, 20 years old)
- Martina Trevisan up 19 and back in the top 100 at #92
- Qinwen Zhang up 15 to #93 making her top 100 debut (she's 19)
- Sofia Kenin down 81 spots to #94
- Donna Vekic tumbles out of the top 100 by losing 28 positions to #107
- Jennifer Brady with an impressive 83 spot drop to #111
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote:Here are some interesting changes for WTA involving players no longer in the tournament
- Jennifer Brady with an impressive 83 spot drop to #111
Suliso wrote:Here are some interesting changes for WTA involving players no longer in the tournament
- Jennifer Brady with an impressive 83 spot drop to #111
Is Brady hurt?
Foot injury. Hasn't played since Cincinnati last August.
by ponchi101 Kenin's drop is also impressive, in the bad sense. But of course, she has also been very much out of the conversation.
By now, I gather that calling her a 1 Slam wonder is not too farfetched (1 slam wonder with an asterisk, as she made a second slam final).
by JTContinental I think Kenin will be back up soon--she looked good against Keys, who is on fire right now
by mick1303 I'm wondering if ever such pronounced "change of guard" happened when 6 out of top 10 are reached this ranking for the first time. This is in reference to 2021 WTA year-end ranking.
by meganfernandez
mick1303 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:56 pm
I'm wondering if ever such pronounced "change of guard" happened when 6 out of top 10 are reached this ranking for the first time. This is in reference to 2021 WTA year-end ranking.
I don't think anyone framed it that way because the WTA hasn't had much of a guard. A lot of the Top 10 fixtures, like Pliskova and Svitolina, weren't dominating at Slams.
by JazzNU
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:25 pm
I think Kenin will be back up soon--she looked good against Keys, who is on fire right now
Agreed that I think she'll be climbing again soon. Sonya would've been a considerable number of players given her form against Madison, it was just a terrible 1st round draw for her, since at least to me, at both of their best, Madison wins that battle, and she showed it in that match. She couldn't overcome a serving day like the one Madison had.
Also, she is a GS winner. The climb back up will be considerably easier with the wild cards she can get, it's just a matter of her playing, which she did very little of last season.
mick1303 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:56 pm
I'm wondering if ever such pronounced "change of guard" happened when 6 out of top 10 are reached this ranking for the first time. This is in reference to 2021 WTA year-end ranking.
I don't think anyone framed it that way because the WTA hasn't had much of a guard. A lot of the Top 10 fixtures, like Pliskova and Svitolina, weren't dominating at Slams.
Which is why I put it in quotes ))
by Suliso Now official that Naomi goes down to #84 (unless Kanepi goes very far). Of course she'll rise again, but it will take some time.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:39 am
Now official that Naomi goes down to #84 (unless Kanepi goes very far). Of course she'll rise again, but it will take some time.
Yikes, she might need wild cards to some WTA events. No byes and she could face top seeds in the first round.
by ponchi101 She can show up at the gates of any tournament and say she wants to play after the draw has been set, and they will bump some other player out. She is still a huge draw.
Amazing how this has happened. But sure, if she is mentally back, she will be top 20 by the end of the year. Basically, no points to defend for the entire season.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:She can show up at the gates of any tournament and say she wants to play after the draw has been set, and they will bump some other player out. She is still a huge draw.
Amazing how this has happened. But sure, if she is mentally back, she will be top 20 by the end of the year. Basically, no points to defend for the entire season.
Oh she’ll get in to any event. But might draw a top seed in the first round.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101 Indeed she can. It makes it for a bad situation for everybody. Not only her, as she draws a high opponent, but for the opponent and for the tournament, as they might lose a top star.
I hope she climbs up fast enough.
by JazzNU I think drawing a high seed is a problem for her opponents, not her. Her record against top ranked players is very, very good. It'll be a temporary issue. But most tournaments aren't going to care that they lose, I don't know like Krejcikova or Mertens early if they get to have Naomi making a deep run.
by ponchi101 You explained it better than I did.
by Suliso
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:26 am
Here are some interesting changes for WTA involving players no longer in the tournament
- Muguruza down at least 3 spots to #6, but could realistically be overtaken also by Sakkari and Swiatek
- Alison Riske down at least 9 spots to #55
- Karolina Muchova down at least 34 spots to #65
- Marie Bouzkova up as much as 13 to #73
- Kristina Kucova up as much as 17 to #79
- Xinyu Wang up 15 to #85 (younger generation Chinese, 20 years old)
- Martina Trevisan up 19 and back in the top 100 at #92
- Qinwen Zhang up 15 to #93 making her top 100 debut (she's 19)
- Sofia Kenin down 81 spots to #94
- Donna Vekic tumbles out of the top 100 by losing 28 positions to #107
- Jennifer Brady with an impressive 83 spot drop to #111
And now the rest with the tournament almost over
- Swiatek up 5 to career high #4
- Collins up 20 to career high #10 (win or lose the final)
- Career high positions for Raducanu (#14) and Pegula (#16)
- Azarenka rejoins the top 20 (up 6 to #19)
- Same for Kasatkina (up 6 to #17)
- Halep down 8 to #23
- Keys up 23 to #28
- Cornet up 24 to #37
- Anisimova up 18 to #42
- Kanepi up 53 to #63
- Osaka down 71 spots to #85
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:26 am
Here are some interesting changes for WTA involving players no longer in the tournament
- Muguruza down at least 3 spots to #6, but could realistically be overtaken also by Sakkari and Swiatek
- Alison Riske down at least 9 spots to #55
- Karolina Muchova down at least 34 spots to #65
- Marie Bouzkova up as much as 13 to #73
- Kristina Kucova up as much as 17 to #79
- Xinyu Wang up 15 to #85 (younger generation Chinese, 20 years old)
- Martina Trevisan up 19 and back in the top 100 at #92
- Qinwen Zhang up 15 to #93 making her top 100 debut (she's 19)
- Sofia Kenin down 81 spots to #94
- Donna Vekic tumbles out of the top 100 by losing 28 positions to #107
- Jennifer Brady with an impressive 83 spot drop to #111
And now the rest with the tournament almost over
- Swiatek up 5 to career high #4
- Collins up 20 to career high #10 (win or lose the final)
- Career high positions for Raducanu (#14) and Pegula (#16)
- Azarenka rejoins the top 20 (up 6 to #19)
- Same for Kasatkina (up 6 to #17)
- Halep down 8 to #23
- Keys up 23 to #28
- Cornet up 24 to #37
- Anisimova up 18 to #42
- Kanepi up 53 to #63
- Osaka down 71 spots to #85
Leylah rises 2 spots to a career high #22 - despite losing in the 1st round at the Aussie Open and losing in the 2nd round in Adelaide. Go figure.
Strange how the rankings go - sometimes you get 'rewarded' even if you lose. It depends on what the other players near you in the rankings have done over the past 52 weeks.
Tauson up to a career high #34, as well... At least she did it by winning .
by mick1303 If Medvedev loses the final, then he defended his 2021 points, while Djokovic will have his 2000 points from 2021 to drop completely. But this will happen on Feb 21. What are the scenarios? Could Medvedev overtake him for #1 without winning AO? Also they both lose ATP Cup points from last year - Medvedev - 500, Djokovic - 140. It looks like if nothing will happen, Medvedev will be 350 ahead. But why they say that Medvedev needs to win AO to get #1? What am I missing?
by meganfernandez
mick1303 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:59 pm
If Medvedev loses the final, then he defended his 2021 points, while Djokovic will have his 2000 points from 2021 to drop completely. But this will happen on Feb 21. What are the scenarios? Could Medvedev overtake him for #1 without winning AO? Also they both lose ATP Cup points from last year - Medvedev - 500, Djokovic - 140. It looks like if nothing will happen, Medvedev will be 350 ahead. But why they say that Medvedev needs to win AO to get #1? What am I missing?
Why does it take till Feb 21 for ranking points to drop? Shouldn't it be Monday, Jan. 30?
by mick1303 Because last year AO was in February.
by meganfernandez
mick1303 wrote:Because last year AO was in February.
Totally forgot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by JazzNU
by JazzNU
by JazzNU
by Suliso That's a huge event on ATP tour. Meanwhile among women Krejcikova will rise to career high #2.
For women here is the current live top 10 in the race:
Agree. It has been so long.
Novax ends his reign with a current total of 361 weeks at #1 (right?). No man is even close to that number, and he sits behind only Graf, who held the spot for 377 weeks.
by JazzNU Yes, 361 weeks. He should get his shoes redone.
Although, and this is nothing against him specifically, I think the same for Barty. I think it's complete BS that they are counting weeks during the hiatus.
by ponchi101 Problem would be: define how long was the hiatus. From the point of view of the accounting, it would be very difficult.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 7:58 pm
Problem would be: define how long was the hiatus. From the point of view of the accounting, it would be very difficult.
I wouldn't use their actual involvement in a tournament, but the Tours calendars themselves. Time between last staged tournament to the first one once they resumed for each tour. Djokovic can gets weeks counted after AO in 2020 no problem even if he didn't play the rest of that winter (don't remember if that's the case) and then start again with the first tournament back in August 2020. And Barty can get all the weeks in 2020 when WTA resumed but she couldn't leave Australia. Just like it would've counted regularly had they say, been injured and couldn't participate but had enough points to stay at #1.
They messed enough with the rankings as is, this historical marker is one that feels particularly unnecessary alter in this manner.
by Suliso
JazzNU wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 7:54 pm
Yes, 361 weeks. He should get his shoes redone.
Although, and this is nothing against him specifically, I think the same for Barty. I think it's complete BS that they are counting weeks during the hiatus.
They are not.
by ponchi101 They are not BS or they are not counting them?
by JazzNU Yeah, I'm not sure. The weeks they kept releasing for Barty included the hiatus weeks, it made people mad every time it was posted by the official WTA accounts. Maybe they adjusted and substracted the hiatus? Which would be fantastic to hear.
by Suliso Official count excludes the period rankings were frozen. I think till summer 2021.
by Suliso Whoever wins Doha will be #2 in the race. In the rankings Kontaveit and Sakkari would rise to #3, Swiatek to #4 and Ostapenko to #9.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 That was a MM? Sorry, I am lost.
So, what do we do? She gets the points but she has not won a tournament so we demote her to: which place in the ranking?
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:That was a MM? Sorry, I am lost.
So, what do we do? She gets the points but she has not won a tournament so we demote her to: which place in the ranking?
Nah the rankings are right. People just don’t have a lot of respect for anything but a title. Consistency is just less flash. We are very reductive about sports. Close doesn’t count for much. (For most people, it counts to me.)
I don’t know what MM is either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by 3mlm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:46 pm
That was a MM? Sorry, I am lost.
So, what do we do? She gets the points but she has not won a tournament so we demote her to: which place in the ranking?
I don't know what MM means. It was a WTA250 in Rabat, Morocco.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 9:46 pm
That was a MM? Sorry, I am lost.
So, what do we do? She gets the points but she has not won a tournament so we demote her to: which place in the ranking?
I don't know what MM means.
^ It's a brand of chocolate candy, I believe.
Though I have no idea what that has to do with tennis.
(I, too, do not know what MM refers to in a tennis context.)
Most people would have no problem with Raducanu and Leylah being #3 - because they were in the Final of a high profile tournament, with one of them winning it. And they continue to get a lot of media attention. The fact that Raducanu has done nothing since the U.S. Open doesn't matter to these people.
And they criticize Sakkari being #3 due to consistent results.
These people understand Hollywood - they don't understand tennis.
.
by Suliso MM = Mickey Mouse. Weak and unimportant tournament.
by Liamvalid Really? I always think of Mickey Mouse as THE iconic cartoon character! Find it odd that people would use him as a comparison for something unimportant;)
by the Moz
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:02 am
Really? I always think of Mickey Mouse as THE iconic cartoon character! Find it odd that people would use him as a comparison for something unimportant;)
Not so much unimportant but more like 'lacking depth'.
by the Moz If the Sakk had a better SF record (5-15) they might have hit no1 by now
by meganfernandez
the Moz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:42 pm
If the Sakk had a better SF record (5-15) they might have hit no1 by now
At least she would probably have one or two more titles. Reaching #3 in the world with one title, three years ago, can't be normal. But she earned with consistency, so hopefully she can take the next step.
by meganfernandez Swiatek chasing Barty during the clay season could be fun. I don't think she can catch her before the French, but I think she can put #1 in play at the French is she continues to win a lot before then.
The gap right now is 2,204. Barty is defending 2,410 points before RG and Swiatek is defending 1,085. Barty loses 1,000 points for not defending her Miami title. If Iga wins Miami, the gap will be 1,135.
They are both defending a lot on clay before the French: Barty 1,410 and Swiatek 1,020.
Will be interesting to see Swiatek's schedule for clay events. She played two last year and did well. Will she play a third, or save herself for the French? I think she only plays two again. Barty played four last year, including Charleston. She won't do that again, so that's less pressure on Swiatek to play more herself. I think she will focus on defending her points and be fresh for the French.
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:02 am
Really? I always think of Mickey Mouse as THE iconic cartoon character! Find it odd that people would use him as a comparison for something unimportant;)
Not so much unimportant but more like 'lacking depth'.
Thanks to Suliso for the MM clarification.
In S. America, the "MM" moniker as a sign of "weak" came not from the cartoons, but from the Mickey Mouse WATCHES. Remember those? They had a MM and the hands were his. They were mostly for kids and obviously were cheaply made.
I always "like" when people talk about MM tournaments. Go ahead, win one. The number of very good players that retire with 3-4 total tournaments is not small. And there is something to be said about making the SF's a lot of tournaments. it means you have won a lot of matches.
So, I disagree with the poster of that tweet.
Move on to MIA.
by ponchi101
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:58 pm
Swiatek chasing Barty during the clay season could be fun. I don't think she can catch her before the French, but I think she can put #1 in play at the French is she continues to win a lot before then.
The gap right now is 2,204. Barty is defending 2,410 points before RG and Swiatek is defending 1,085. Barty loses 1,000 points for not defending her Miami title. If Iga wins Miami, the gap will be 1,135.
They are both defending a lot on clay before the French: Barty 1,410 and Swiatek 1,020.
Will be interesting to see Swiatek's schedule for clay events. She played two last year and did well. Will she play a third, or save herself for the French? I think she only plays two again. Barty played four last year, including Charleston. She won't do that again, so that's less pressure on Swiatek to play more herself. I think she will focus on defending her points and be fresh for the French.
Thanks for the breakdown. I say that, if Iga knows these numbers, she will go for it. You have to admit, #1 is important, especially if she were to clinch it with a RG title. So a good SF run at MIA (I don't see her winning three straight MS1000's), plus good showings at Rome, Madrid and RG could do it. And she would be Poland's first ever #1. That would count for a lot.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:58 pm
Swiatek chasing Barty during the clay season could be fun. I don't think she can catch her before the French, but I think she can put #1 in play at the French is she continues to win a lot before then.
The gap right now is 2,204. Barty is defending 2,410 points before RG and Swiatek is defending 1,085. Barty loses 1,000 points for not defending her Miami title. If Iga wins Miami, the gap will be 1,135.
They are both defending a lot on clay before the French: Barty 1,410 and Swiatek 1,020.
Will be interesting to see Swiatek's schedule for clay events. She played two last year and did well. Will she play a third, or save herself for the French? I think she only plays two again. Barty played four last year, including Charleston. She won't do that again, so that's less pressure on Swiatek to play more herself. I think she will focus on defending her points and be fresh for the French.
Thanks for the breakdown. I say that, if Iga knows these numbers, she will go for it. You have to admit, #1 is important, especially if she were to clinch it with a RG title. So a good SF run at MIA (I don't see her winning three straight MS1000's), plus good showings at Rome, Madrid and RG could do it. And she would be Poland's first ever #1. That would count for a lot.
Very interesting, first Polish #1. Question is, does that create more pressure at RG, to play for the title and #1 and Polish history? Would she want to avoid all that? She’s young and has plenty of time. I bet she will be #1 at some point. Honestly I think she shouldn’t go for all that this spring. Prioritize RG.
But she knows what brings out her best tennis. Maybe it’s playing a lot and exactly these kind of goals.
Would love to see her play Barty in Rome or Madrid. Barty would slice to Iga’s BH all day. Waiting for Ashkor’s court-speed evaluation on the matchup, now.
by ponchi101 Her performance in finals tells me she really is not hindered by pressure. I think she is affected way more by losses; remember the photos of her after she lost in Tokyo? She was very sad about that. I think that when she is facing pressure she does what Evert used to do: imagine her opponent winning and shaking hands at the net. That fuels her.
Anyway, RG will have at least 20 contenders. Basically the entire top ten (I would exclude Badosa, Anett and Aryna) and my favorite OTHER, which includes like 25 more players. It will be wide open.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:30 pm
Her performance in finals tells me she really is not hindered by pressure. I think she is affected way more by losses; remember the photos of her after she lost in Tokyo? She was very sad about that. I think that when she is facing pressure she does what Evert used to do: imagine her opponent winning and shaking hands at the net. That fuels her.
Anyway, RG will have at least 20 contenders. Basically the entire top ten (I would exclude Badosa, Anett and Aryna) and my favorite OTHER, which includes like 25 more players. It will be wide open.
You might be right about pressure, in which case Swiatek is extremely lucky (or if it's the work of the sport psychologist, I'm hiring one). I think if Swiatek and Barty have good clay seasons, they will separate themselves from the pack as the two heavy favorites. They will be the story, #1 and #2 seeds playing for the #1 ranking possibly. Although you're right, there still could be some contenders since it's B3 but I don't think your OTHER will be in the mix. I'd go with Badosa, Fernandez, Halep, maaaaybe Muguruza, Keys (she loves clay), Anisimova if she can shake off IW. Whither Krejcikova? The picture will change considerably if Barty and Swiatek each win a title on clay.
Muchova returns in Miami, I think.
by ponchi101 It is the one tournament where OTHER is the favorite:
Starting in 2016, it has been FIRST TIME WINNER AND FIRST SLAM WON all over: Garbie, Alona, Halep, Ashley, Iga, Barbora. Add to that champions like Schiavone, Ivanovic, Miskyna and Majoli, and it is the historically most open Slam.
I am expecting a Camila Osorio/Whomeverina Someonekurtova final.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 3:46 pm
It is the one tournament where OTHER is the favorite:
Starting in 2016, it has been FIRST TIME WINNER AND FIRST SLAM WON all over: Garbie, Alona, Halep, Ashley, Iga, Barbora. Add to that champions like Schiavone, Ivanovic, Miskyna and Majoli, and it is the historically most open Slam.
I am expecting a Camila Osorio/Whomeverina Someonekurtova final.
True, it seems like more lower seeds go far and there's a surprise winner more often. But it might not continue. It could, but it will be harder against two recent champs, #1 and #2, who have separated themselves from the pack.
Regarding the theory, there are a few more wrinkles. I think you have to look at who made the semis and finals, not just who won. Halep, of course, doesn't fit the theory - she was No. 1 and the favorite and beat the No. 3 seed in the semis. Neither does Ivanovic - she was in the previous year's French Open final and also coming off the Australian Open final, so she was probably on the short list of contenders. Mugu beat Serena, Ostapenko beat Halep (and the #2 seed was also in the semis), Iga beat a reigning Slam champ. The point is, usually one or two big dogs are alive at the end.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Time for the WC's, but there has got to be something more to her inactivity. Time to start doubting any return, ever?
by Deuce I doubted her return a while ago.
Between a questionable motivation and having a body that obviously cannot withstand the rigours of the pro tennis tour, I say there's a very, very good chance that we'll never see her in the top 30 again, and a decent chance that, after a failed comeback attempt or two, she'll ride off into the sunset.
First Genie Bouchard, then Andreescu... a good part of one year, and then nothing.
Leylah had better not follow in the footsteps of her fellow canucks...
by meganfernandez
Deuce wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:19 am
I doubted her return a while ago.
Between a questionable motivation and having a body that obviously cannot withstand the rigours of the pro tennis tour, I say there's a very, very good chance that we'll never see her in the top 30 again, and a decent chance that, after a failed comeback attempt or two, she'll ride off into the sunset.
First Genie Bouchard, then Andreescu... a good part of one year, and then nothing.
Leylah had better not follow in the footsteps of her fellow canucks...
It must be really disappointing for Canadian fans with those two not living up to the expectations and excitement. I'm not as convinced that Andreescu is done contending for Slams or No. 1, but it has certainly been bleak since 2019. At least Andreescu's "good part of a year" was the bulk of it - IW through US Open. Can't remember about Bouchard, but seems like she had a couple years of steady ascent, culminating in the Wimbledon final in 2014. I don't think Leylah is the same animal, do you?
by ponchi101 Bouchard was, to me, the most puzzling. It was SF, SF, F, and QF at the four slams that year, and there were no health issues or injuries. It was as if she really forgot how to play.
Bianca, on the other hand, gets injured while brushing her teeth. I know it is not polite to point out at this aspect, but I think she is carrying some extra weight and that is no good if your knees are not solid. I remember how Rafa had to drop some weight himself because that little extra was working against him.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:57 pm
Bouchard was, to me, the most puzzling. It was SF, SF, F, and QF at the four slams that year, and there were no health issues or injuries. It was as if she really forgot how to play.
Bianca, on the other hand, gets injured while brushing her teeth. I know it is not polite to point out at this aspect, but I think she is carrying some extra weight and that is no good if your knees are not solid. I remember how Rafa had to drop some weight himself because that little extra was working against him.
Weight with athletes - especially women, who carry weight differently than men, and more fat by design - is a tricky one. I know you aren't being insulting or judgmental or talking about her looks. It's a reality for joint health and overall fitness and many other things. It's just hard to tell exactly how a given amount affects a given individual. I wish it wasn't such a taboo topic, but also wish we respect how individual it is. (Not that you didn't.) And you could be right if she has knee issues. But she is so young, too...
Shelby Rodgers got leaner and meaner during the off-season... Will see if it turns into results.
Deuce wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:19 am
I doubted her return a while ago.
Between a questionable motivation and having a body that obviously cannot withstand the rigours of the pro tennis tour, I say there's a very, very good chance that we'll never see her in the top 30 again, and a decent chance that, after a failed comeback attempt or two, she'll ride off into the sunset.
First Genie Bouchard, then Andreescu... a good part of one year, and then nothing.
Leylah had better not follow in the footsteps of her fellow canucks...
It must be really disappointing for Canadian fans with those two not living up to the expectations and excitement. I'm not as convinced that Andreescu is done contending for Slams or No. 1, but it has certainly been bleak since 2019. At least Andreescu's "good part of a year" was the bulk of it - IW through US Open. Can't remember about Bouchard, but seems like she had a couple years of steady ascent, culminating in the Wimbledon final in 2014. I don't think Leylah is the same animal, do you?
^ No... of course Leylah is made of different stuff than the other two.
I remember a couple of years ago after Genie and Andreescu played each other at the Toronto tournament, Genie posted a photo of the two of them at the net, and captioned it something like "Our asses look really good".
I watched Genie as a Junior, and no-one was more surprised than me when she had that good year at the pro level in 2014. I never saw anything special about her game, and I knew that she could not endure at her 2014 level in the pros - because the other players would figure her out quickly. And they did. Seeing this, Genie decided to become a full-time 'pinup girl'...
I didn't really see Andreescu as a Junior. I was initially happy when she won Indian Wells in 2019. But by the time she won Toronto, she had already become too arrogant and obnoxious for my liking. Then the U.S. Open, with her and her parents using her little dog as a fashion accessory...
She, like Genie, had got caught up in the attention, and it looked to me like 'being famous' was more important to her than dedicating herself to tennis was. Add in her perpetually injured state, and this is what you have - a player who had a good 6 months 3 years ago, and who has pretty much dropped off the radar since then. Even that good 6 months was not a consecutive 6 months, as she didn't play for several months between Indian Wells and Toronto due to injury, of course.
Less than a month after her U.S. Open win, I told Louis Borfiga (the person most responsible for the pro level Canadian 'tennis boom' in recent years) that I see nothing special in Andreescu's game, and that Leylah will be ranked ahead of her in 3 years. I remember that conversation vividly. He said Andreescu would be "#1 or #2" in 3 years, and that Leylah would be "around #50" in 3 years. Here we are exactly 2 1/2 years after that conversation, and Leylah is just outside the top 20, while Andreescu will be out of the top 100 after Miami.
And Borfiga has retired and gone home to France rather than admit that I was right and he was wrong! (Of course, I don't think that's why he retired - he likely doesn't even remember that conversation - though I kind of hope he does.)
Leylah has a focus, determination, motivation, and drive that Andreescu and Genie don't have. I don't think Genie ever had it, while Andreescu may have had it and lost it when 'being famous' became more important to her than tennis.
Leylah also absolutely loves the act of hitting a tennis ball.
I can't say whether Leylah will disappear like the other two or not - but if she does, it won't be due to a lack of motivation or effort, or because she got caught up in the 'fame' of it all.
(But I do think that the main reason she bombed out of the Aussie Open in the first round was likely due to her doing too many endorsements leading up to that tournament, and, as a result, had lost a degree of focus on tennis - which she seems to have since regained.)
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:21 pm
Shelby Rodgers got leaner and meaner during the off-season... Will see if it turns into results.
^ Yes - Shelby has become noticeably slimmer and more fit. As you say - we'll see if it translates into a climb up the rankings ladder.
by ti-amie
by Suliso Congrats to Iga.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Personally, I am getting a bit tired of all the talk about the "unworthy" #1's.
They did not go to the supermarket and bought the points. They play for this. And you can't make the Slams worth 4,000 points more than anything else.
by JTContinental I have the opposite viewpoint. If you can't win the top tournaments in your sport, then you are not the best player. The slamless #1's (Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki the first time) were all rewarded simply because they don't ever take a break like the rest of the top players do.
by Deuce But you have the other extreme, as well... like Raducanu. Her ranking is significantly higher than her relative ability level as compared to other players - simply because she won the U.S. Open and is riding those points.
Take away her U.S. Open points, and where is she? The only other points of note she has are from last year's Wimbledon. The rest are early round losses.
So I'd say that Badosa, Wozniacki, etc. at #1 is a more accurate representation of their work/results than is Emma's #12 ranking - because when the points are calculated over a greater number of tournaments, it gives a more accurate reflection of reality than when one's points are more concentrated from just one tournament, no matter how big that tournament is.
I'd say the same about Leylah, who is around #20 now... The bulk of her points, of course, come from the U.S. Open Final. But at least she is not always losing early in other tournaments like Emma... she won the Monterrey 250 for the second consecutive year, won a few rounds at Indian Wells...
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:Personally, I am getting a bit tired of all the talk about the "unworthy" #1's.
They did not go to the supermarket and bought the points. They play for this. And you can't make the Slams worth 4,000 points more than anything else.
Amen
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by meganfernandez
JTContinental wrote:I have the opposite viewpoint. If you can't win the top tournaments in your sport, then you are not the best player. The slamless #1's (Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki the first time) were all rewarded simply because they don't ever take a break like the rest of the top players do.
were rewarded or earned enough points? They had to do well at Slams to get to #, even if they didn’t win them. They were all Slam finalists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by JTContinental Sure, they earned both those points and the #1 ranking based on how it is calculated. By "rewarded" I'm more meaning that I think the ranking system gives more weight to showing up every week than it does winning the elite tournaments. If Serena, Kim, Justine, Venus, Capriati, Sharapova, Mauresmo, et al were also playing 30 tournaments a year, would Jankovic ever have reached #1?
by ponchi101 Nothing stopped them from doing so (playing 30 tournaments)
Sure, it feels wrong at times. I remember how Lendl was much maligned because he reached #1 with no slams. Yet, he had made slam finals and what the ranking really said was that he would become the great player he was.
We had decades of tournament directors deciding who was seeded. The same time for having some ranking at the end of the year, which was totally based on the opinions of experts. Now we have a quantitative system and sometimes it gives odd signals.
Numerically: I checked the rankings. Badosa has indeed played 31 tournaments to Swiatek's 16, almost double. I say: she has worked hard for her points.
by JTContinental And I say take a vacation now and then. How can we miss you if you won’t go away?
I do want specify that this is my opinion only, and I was not consulted when the rankings system was designed.
by Suliso We'll get Swiatek for a while and I don't think there will be many who finds anyone else more worthy right now.
by Fastbackss I am sensitive to this, as many moons ago in my other hobby I had 2 seasons where the "points structure came into play."
One year I participated in one more event than the gentleman who finished 2nd. He absolutely had a better statistical season.
Some even argued that as such he should have gotten the result.
The thing is - the points structure was known before start of season. Nothing changed. I "played the system better." So should it change going forward? Possibly. We can argue that here.
(The older time was one where there was a "one event gets dropped" rule. Mid-way through the season they tried to change it. But I had screen shot of it - and even had a text from the organiser. I threatened holy hell if they changed it during the season. They recanted (thankfully because I like that trophy!))
by meganfernandez
JTContinental wrote:Sure, they earned both those points and the #1 ranking based on how it is calculated. By "rewarded" I'm more meaning that I think the ranking system gives more weight to showing up every week than it does winning the elite tournaments. If Serena, Kim, Justine, Venus, Capriati, Sharapova, Mauresmo, et al were also playing 30 tournaments a year, would Jankovic ever have reached #1?
It’s true, the ranking system isn’t set up to reward just WINNING a Slam. (But the rest of tennis is… that makes you a star, whatever your ranking is.) it might be because it would devalue the tour, which is their primary product. They have to make the tour events worth playing.
The ranking system does respect doing well in Slams - you can’t get to No. 1 without making a few deep runs.
by ponchi101 It reminds me of Keke Rosberg's 1982 F1 championship. He won it after Villeneuve got killed in a crash, and Didier Pironi could not race the final four races due to another crash. Rosberg won 1 race in the entire championship, but came in second in I don't know how many. He won the title by 5 points, an absurd low margin.
And yes, a lot of people, and I do mean a lot, said it was wrong for him to win it that way.
by ti-amie Sometimes a player isn't cut out to win a Slam. I still think Rios was a valid #1. I have been known to criticize WTA players who have played nonstop to get the #1 ranking. Iga has won a Slam. I think that at this point, with the current situation in the WTA she is deserving.
by ponchi101 Rios reached #1 in a most legit form. He simply whopped Agassi in that Miami final to get there. It was just a case of the most wasted talent in the history of the sport (looking at his results).
by 3mlm
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:19 am
Sometimes a player isn't cut out to win a Slam. I still think Rios was a valid #1. I have been known to criticize WTA players who have played nonstop to get the #1 ranking. Iga has won a Slam. I think that at this point, with the current situation in the WTA she is deserving.
Playing "nonstop" won't garner enough points to get the #1 ranking unless the player is going deep in tournaments that are eligible for inclusion in her ranking points. Only 16 tournaments, or 17 if she plays in the WTA finals, can be included in a player's ranking points. Those tournaments must include 4 slams, 4 mandatory WTA1000 tournaments and 2 nonmandatory WTA1000 tournaments, subject to rules allowing other tournaments to substitute for those.
Sviatek never reached #1 while her slam winner points were included in her ranking points. She is currently a #1 who has no slam winner or finalist points in her ranking points and only has played 16 tournaments in the last 52 weeks (per ponchi) so she isn't a player who plays "nonstop", but one who goes deep in most tournaments she plays.
Badosa may have played 31 tournaments to Swiatek's 16, but only 17 are included in her ranking.
by Suliso All hail our new WTA #1! I think her reign will be long.
Here is top 10 WTA race after Miami
1. Iga Swiatek 3920
2. Maria Sakkari 1610
3. Danielle Collins 1516
4. Paula Badosa 1422
5. Anett Kontaveit 1385
6. Madison Keys 1317
7. Jelena Ostapenko 1156
8. Simona Halep 1096
9. Jessica Pegula 992
10. Veronika Kudermetova 952
by ponchi101 A lot of big names missing. This is not a revolution, this is downright anarchy
by 3mlm Swiatek has close to half as many points as Barty had at the end of 2021 and the clay court season hasn't started. I wouldn't be surprised if she clinched her spot in the WTA Finals by Wimbledon.
by JTContinental Lots of career-high rankings this week on the WTA:
1 Iga Swiatek
3 Paula Badosa
8 Danielle Collins
13 Jessica Pegula
15 Coco Gauff
42 Anhelina Kalinina
Naomi Osaka back up to 35, Sofia Kenin down to 148
Daria Saville started the year ranked 610 and is back up to 129
by ponchi101 I am surprised by Badosa. I did not know she had climbed that high and I thought that not defending IW would drop her.
Good for her.
by Liamvalid
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 7:39 pm
I am surprised by Badosa. I did not know she had climbed that high and I thought that not defending IW would drop her.
Good for her.
Same with Cam Norrie. Didn’t defend his Indian Wells title but has climbed into the top ten this week!
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 7:39 pm
I am surprised by Badosa. I did not know she had climbed that high and I thought that not defending IW would drop her.
Good for her.
I think Badosa still has her IW points from winning last year because it was in October. She had 4500 points before IW this year and has 4970 now. Same with Norrie.
by ti-amie
I thought you got a PR if you were coming back from injury but I guess I thought wrong.
I thought you got a PR if you were coming back from injury but I guess I thought wrong.
Is one still eligible for a protected ranking if one is in a perpetual state of injury?
I would think that part of the definition of 'injured' would include some derivative of the word 'temporary'....
Perhaps various injuries to various body parts can fall under the definition of 'temporary'... but when included as a whole, it seems that this particular player can accurately be defined as perpetually - or permanently - injured.
Again - I'll believe that she's playing a tournament when I actually see her participating in a tournament match. And even if that occurs, history strongly suggests that the participation would not endure very long.
by 3mlm Andreescu played in 13 tournaments in 2021 finishing with a 17-13 record and ranking of #22. The last tournament she played was Indian Wells in October 2021. By the last week of April she would be coming back from injury after being out-of-competition for at least 26 weeks so would qualify for Special Ranking under WTA rules, assuming she hasn't participated in any unallowed tennis exhibitions (or any other organized sports competition) during her out-of-competition period and has filed all required paperwork. She would have to meet all other entry requirements including timely application for entry or wildcard.
by Deuce
3mlm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:01 am
Andreescu played in 13 tournaments in 2021 finishing with a 17-13 record and ranking of #22...
We must remember that that ranking largely included important portions of her good 6 months from 2019, due to the COVID-related very messed up ranking system.
In reality in 2021, aside from making the Final of Miami (where, losing 3-6, 0-4 to Barty, she twisted her ankle and retired from the match, injured), and making it to the Semis of what was essentially the Aussie Open consolation tournament, she did nothing of note, losing in the 2nd round of the Aussie Open, and was out in the 1st round at Wimbledon and Roland Garros.
Had the very controversial messed up ranking system not been put in place, she would not be getting this protected ranking under the regular ranking system.
3mlm wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:01 am
Andreescu played in 13 tournaments in 2021 finishing with a 17-13 record and ranking of #22...
We must remember that that ranking largely included important portions of her good 6 months from 2019, due to the COVID-related very messed up ranking system.
In reality in 2021, aside from making the Final of Miami (where, losing 3-6, 0-4 to Barty, she twisted her ankle and retired from the match, injured), and making it to the Semis of what was essentially the Aussie Open consolation tournament, she did nothing of note, losing in the 2nd round of the Aussie Open, and was out in the 1st round at Wimbledon and Roland Garros.
Had the very controversial messed up ranking system not been put in place, she would not be getting this protected ranking under the regular ranking system.
Agreed her protected ranking wouldn't be #22 without the special Covid rankings but her protected ranking based solely on 2021 points earned (1378) would still likely be top 40 which would gain entry into most tournaments. Players currently ranked in the top 40 (singles not race) have as few as 1211 points (Golubic and Alexandrova).
.
by JazzNU
by JazzNU
by ponchi101 That is quite the coincidence.
Now. He is on his way. WHEN does he break into the top 5? I would say he is the favorite at Barcelona now.
I say after RG.
by ti-amie I'm okay with that. It's Badosa, who I like, being ranked #2 next week that drives me up the wall.
by Deuce I'm fine with Badosa as #2.
Sabalenka at #2 bothered me - because no player beats her/him self more than she does.
I also think it's questionable that Raducanu's ranking is RISING, though she's not done anything to contribute toward that - it's simply that a few players above her have lost points.
In the end, though, all players are ranked where they should be, I suppose, and are deserving of the ranking they have, based on the current system.
by ti-amie I saw this list of Paula's accomplishments on another board.
Indian Wells W1000 *2021 Sydney W500
*WTA Finals SF
Roland Garros QF
Madrid SF
Indian Wells SF
Miami QF Belgrade W250
2 further slam second weeks
I high lighted her three titles.
by ponchi101 Those are several solid months.
by Suliso Let's compare that to Iga's results from the last 52 weeks:
Madrid R16 (L Barty) Rome W Roland Garros QF (L Sakkari)
Eastbourne R16 (L Kasatkina) Wimbledon R16 (L Jabeur)
Olympics R32 (L Badosa)
Cincinnati R32 (L Jabeur) US Open R16 (L Bencic)
Ostrava SF (L Sakkari)
IW 2021 R16 (L Ostapenko)
WTA finals RR (L Sakkari, Sabalenka)
Adelaide SF (L Barty) Australia open SF (L Collins)
Dubai R16 (L Ostapenko) Qatar W IW 2022 W Miami W
Stuttgart SF+
Overall record (including this week) 55-14
by Suliso And now Iga's record vs all current top 10 players + everyone she has lost to in the last 52 weeks
Overall against the top 10: 12-11. Relatively few matches, though.
Bencic 1-1
Ostapenko 0-3
Kasatkina 3-1
0-3 Ostapenko.... so power is her kryptonite?
by ponchi101 If you can apply the power first...
But it would like like that, although she has losses to Kasatkina (no power there) and Bencic (medium power). I say her greatest asset is her speed and mobility. She flows on court.
by JazzNU I didn't realize they were counting two Indian Wells. It makes sense, just didn't occur to me. It'll be interesting to see how Paula does from here on out. I believe it's the first time in her career where she'll start defending major points. To me, she's been showing a bit more frustration on court these days then she did previously.
I like Paula a good deal. But I definitely don't think of her as a top 3 player right now. I think her results on paper probably come off much better if I hadn't watched most of the matches. I have a feeling if she wasn't winning so many of her more impressive wins in 3rd set tiebreaks, she'd feel different to me. Some of those are okay, but it's rarely a comprehensive win over someone more impressive for her. I can point to other player's having matches like that easier than I can for her. With Paula, it was basically IW last year where that happened, but almost nowhere else and still she won the title in a 3rd set tiebreak. There's probably a few too matches as well that I think she should've lost to younger players that didn't know how to close out a match, along with being surprised when she doesn't go in and get a straight set win over X player. Doesn't leave me thinking of her as a Top 3 player. That might come eventually.
It obviously didn't happen, but beating Aryna in straight sets today, even if it was a battle, but getting it done in straights, is the kind of thing that would likely start to change how I look at her in terms of ranking and as a threat.
by Suliso It's difficult to make a strong argument for anyone at #2 right now. Maybe Krejcikova, but really only on the strength of her RG result...
by ponchi101 Which also works the other way. You can make an argument for #2 for almost 5 different players. It is that close right now.
by Suliso Some interesting factoids regarding WTA rankings
Weeks at #1
Steffi Graf 377
Martina Navratilova 332 Serena Williams 319
Chris Evert 260
Martina Hingis 209
Monica Seles 178
Ashleigh Barty 121 (not including the frozen period!)
Justine Henin 117
Lindsay Davenport 98
Caroline Wozniacki 71 Simona Halep 64
Victoria Azarenka 51
Amelie Mauresmo 39 Angelique Kerber 34
Dinara Safina 26 Naomi Osaka 25
Tracy Austin 21
Maria Sharapova 21
Kim Clijsters 20
Jelena Jankovic 18
Jennifer Capriati 17
Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 12
Ana Ivanovic 12 Venus Williams 11
Karolina Pliskova 8
Garbine Muguruza 4 Iga Swiatek 2
Evonne Goolagong Cawley 2
by SulisoTop 10 consecutive streaks at #1
Steffi Graf 186
Serena Williams 186
Martina Navratilova 156
Ashleigh Barty 114
Chris Evert 113
Steffi Graf 94
Monica Seles 91
Martina Navratilova 90
Steffi Graf 87
Martina Hingis 80
There have been 28 WTA #1 players including 21 (!!!) in the 21st century (including Hingis and Davenport who straddle the boundary)
by Liamvalid That Venus is so far down the list often makes me not care too much about the “weeks at number one” records. Especially when you look at who is above her
by Suliso Some more statistics albeit not directly about rankings.
Most WTA finals per season with GS titles in parenthesis
2000: Martina Hingis 9 (0)
2001: Lindsay Davenport 7 (0)
2002: Serena Williams 8 (3)
2003: Kim Clijsters 9 (0)
2004: Lindsay Davenport 7 (0)
2005: Kim Clijsters 9 (1)
2006: Justine Henin 6 (1)
2007: Justine Henin 10 (2)
2008: Serena Williams 4 (1), Dinara Safina 4 (0), Jelena Jankovic 4 (0)
2009: Victoria Azarenka 3 (x), Elena Dementieva 3 (0), Svetlana Kuznetsova 3 (1), Dinara Safina 3 (0), Serena Williams 3 (2), Caroline Wozniacki 3 (0)
2010: Caroline Wozniacki 6 (0)
2011: Caroline Wozniacki 6 (0), Petra Kvitova 6 (1)
2012: Serena Williams 7 (2)
2013: Serena Williams 11 (2)
2014: Serena Williams 7 (1)
2015: Serena Williams 5 (3)
2016: Dominika Cibulkova 4 (0)
2017: Elina Svitolina 5 (0)
2018: Petra Kvitova 5 (0)
2019: Ashleigh Barty 4 (1), Karolina Pliskova 4 (0)
2020: Simona Halep 3 (0), Ashleigh Barty 3 (0)
2021: Ashleigh Barty 5 (1)
2022: ???
by ponchi101 So, for the 20th century, we are on pace for one new #1 per year., especially if you count the century as beginning in the year 2001.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:05 pm
So, for the 20th century, we are on pace for one new #1 per year., especially if you count the century as beginning in the year 2001.
Yes, approximately. 11 new ones in the first decade and 10 in the second. So far only two in the third, but still plenty of time for a bunch of 2-10 week position holders.
by Suliso I wonder if there has ever been a Slam winner of either gender who never reach the top 10. Seems like Raducanu will get in before Wimbledon even if only very briefly.
by ponchi101 Remember that we had those lean years at the Aussie. Mark Edmonson won it ranked 212. So even with that Aussie open, his highest ranking was 15.
Chris O'Neill (1978) reached a high of 80. Barbara Jordan (1979) had a career high of 55.
But those are certainly anomalies.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote:I wonder if there has ever been a Slam winner of either gender who never reach the top 10. Seems like Raducanu will get in before Wimbledon even if only very briefly.
Thought maybe Gaudio but even he got to #5.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101 Also remember than in the past the Slams gave a much smaller amount of points, vis a vis regular tournaments, than the 2,000 points of today. So you have to look at those Aussie winners.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:Also remember than in the past the Slams gave a much smaller amount of points, vis a vis regular tournaments, than the 2,000 points of today. So you have to look at those Aussie winners.
Exactly, would be hard to stay out of the top 10 with 2000 points, which alone is enough for #21 in the WTA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by mick1303 What makes me mad about WTA management is that they have a good example in how ATP tour is organized and managed and nonetheless making a mess out of their tour. Take ranking system. ATP has 1000/500/250 series – everything is as clear as it gets. The designation of the series means that winner gets the amount of points – 1000/500/250 respectively. And this is true for all tournaments of the series. Now on the surface WTA took this as an example and have WTA1000, WTA500, WTA250. But WHY ON GREEN EARTH some WTA 1000 give 1000 points, while others – 900? I know this is because the former were Premier Mandatory. But so what? Did you introduce a new system or not?
by ponchi101
mick1303 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 6:02 am
What makes me mad about WTA management is that they have a good example in how ATP tour is organized and managed and nonetheless making a mess out of their tour. Take ranking system. ATP has 1000/500/250 series – everything is as clear as it gets. The designation of the series means that winner gets the amount of points – 1000/500/250 respectively. And this is true for all tournaments of the series. Now on the surface WTA took this as an example and have WTA1000, WTA500, WTA250. But WHY ON GREEN EARTH some WTA 1000 give 1000 points, while others – 900? I know this is because the former were Premier Mandatory. But so what? Did you introduce a new system or not?
I didn't know that. Indeed, it makes no sense.
by meganfernandez
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101 The smaller tournaments will not be able to follow the lack of points. Wimbledon can. Wimbledon is bigger than the ATP or the WTA. The only people that have the power are the players, and only via boycott.
by JTContinental I feel reasonably certain this will be sorted out before Wimbledon in favor of the tours if they really intend on not awarding points.
by meganfernandez
JTContinental wrote:I feel reasonably certain this will be sorted out before Wimbledon in favor of the tours if they really intend on not awarding points.
I wonder why they can’t award points but freeze last year’s points for any banned player. Not recognizing any points seems like a swipe at Wimbledon, but it just hurts more players.
JTContinental wrote:I feel reasonably certain this will be sorted out before Wimbledon in favor of the tours if they really intend on not awarding points.
I wonder why they can’t award points but freeze last year’s points for any banned player. Not recognizing any points seems like a swipe at Wimbledon, but it just hurts more players.
And I'm wondering why Wimbledon doesn't simply comply with common sense and fairness and allow all eligible players to play, rather than discriminate against certain players who are not responsible for bombing any city, or for shooting or injuring any human being - in Ukraine or anywhere else.
Not awarding points at Wimbledon and at lead-up events in the U.K. is a kind of 'back door' way to deliberately provoke at least a partial boycott. I would think that a bunch of players would skip those tournaments if there is no points benefit.
by Suliso Is it ultimately Wimbledon's decision or more of a stance of UK government? If government refuses to give visas those players can't come.
by 3mlm
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 7:10 am
Is it ultimately Wimbledon's decision or more of a stance of UK government? If government refuses to give visas those players can't come.
Like Djokovic and the Australia Open?
by ponchi101 The visa route would be even more complicated. Do you ban "Russian/Belarusian ATHLETES" or do you ban the entire population from both countries to come in? That would be insane.
Not handing out points makes it more complicated. Do you go to those tournaments for the prize money? It would make the entry list for other tournaments even more packed: imagine the list of players trying to go to Halle as opposed to Queens, if Queens does not give points.
When will somebody point out the simplest fact: Russian and Belarusian athletes CANNOT speak out against this war because they don't live in a democracy. If any other athletes voice an opinion against the war, there are no consequences. If a Russian says anything, they can pay a very heavy price.
by JazzNU Is the point to try to make the the tournaments take a financial hit and possibly a public one because of their decision and since points means a very lackluster field most likely outside of Wimbledon? Because a qualifier level field at the grass court tournaments would be highly unusual. The nature of the short grass season makes the majority of the fields for the tournaments look like Stuttgart and Barcelona, pseudo Masters fields. LTA is used to and expects to have the best of the best compete and attracts crowds based on the names being there from what I can tell.
Otherwise it seems like they could just allow Russian and Belarusian players to maintain their points from last year for this year for the purposes of seeding and ranking, but not the Race. Just do it like they did during the pandemic with tournaments that occurred before a full year had passed, like RG 2020 still being counted after RG 2021 taking place. Allow players that do well this year to be rewarded for their efforts, but also not truly penalize the Russian and Belarusian players that can't participate.
by Owendonovan I find it odd how easily people are willing to ban teams from Russia and Belarus because they're teams from Russia or Belarus yet banning individuals from those countries is some kind of horrific idea. They've all been subsidized by their countries in one way or another, but it's only the teams that are being punished. Doesn't sit well with me. A Russian gymnast thought it fine to place a big Z on his chest at a competition where Ukranians were competing. Gymnastics is an individual sport like tennis, they are now banned from international competitions for good reason.
by ptmcmahon I don't find it odd at all. For the team sports they are specifically a team picked by the country to represent the country at the competition.
For individuals they are coming just to represent themselves. Their country didn't select one player to go represent them at Wimbledon for example. If each country got to pick one individual for the competition, then it wouldn't be much different.
Ex "Russia selects Medvedev as their individual entrant for Wimbledon" - if that was the case I'd see no difference. But that's not what's happening here.
by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 1:03 pm
I find it odd how easily people are willing to ban teams from Russia and Belarus because they're teams from Russia or Belarus yet banning individuals from those countries is some kind of horrific idea. They've all been subsidized by their countries in one way or another, but it's only the teams that are being punished. Doesn't sit well with me. A Russian gymnast thought it fine to place a big Z on his chest at a competition where Ukranians were competing. Gymnastics is an individual sport like tennis, they are now banned from international competitions for good reason.
I don't think we are saying it is a horrific idea, just that it is unfair. An athlete could chose to represent or not his country. The Russian players could decide NOT to plat a teams' competition. But they cannot stop being from a country, just like that.
And I still fall back on my position. There is no way that a tennis player from Russia can really speak out AGAINST this invasion without facing severe repercussions. This is not the USA invading Iraq; any American athlete speaking out against that would have suffered no consequences. Do that as a Russian, and you can even be dead in some time.
And Belarus is an even more brutal regime, as Lukashenko does not even pretend NOT to be a dictator. Sabalenka/Azarenka speak out, and they will not come out of Belarus next time they go there.
by JazzNU How is gymnastics the same as tennis? If there was a pro tour or something, then that would be different, but there's not. Tennis is like golf, NBA, NFL, NHL. To my knowledge, no Russians or Belarusians are banned from playing pro sports where they enter into a contract as individuals with a team or play at a tournament for a prize as a professional athlete.
Are gymnasts suddenly getting major prize money from the meets they compete in similar to the pro figure skating tour in the 90s that was completely removed from the international federations? Is that prize money being paid from a commercial sponsors directly to the athlete? Or is it still that they win or place and get paid for their placement by their federations? Because the former is the only way it would be at all similar to tennis and other pro sports. It's not just about competing at an event on as an individual, it's also about the structure and nature of the event and competition as well. Ice hockey is a team sport and most of those have been banned. But NHL continues on with many Russian players starting in the playoffs right now. It is the Ice Hockey World Championships where those players and their teams would not be welcome.
The lines between amateur and pro sports have been blurred mightily in recent years, especially in the US. But if you think of it traditionally, it's the amateurs from Russia and Belarus whether they compete as a individual or as a team that are banned from playing as they represent their countries in competitions not just themselves, not the professional athletes.
by Owendonovan
JazzNU wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 7:52 pm
How is gymnastics the same as tennis? If there was a pro tour or something, then that would be different, but there's not. Tennis is like golf, NBA, NFL, NHL. To my knowledge, no Russians or Belarusians are banned from playing pro sports where they enter into a contract as individuals with a team or play at a tournament for a prize as a professional athlete.
Are gymnasts suddenly getting major prize money from the meets they compete in similar to the pro figure skating tour in the 90s that was completely removed from the international federations? Is that prize money being paid from a commercial sponsors directly to the athlete? Or is it still that they win or place and get paid for their placement by their federations? Because the former is the only way it would be at all similar to tennis and other pro sports. It's not just about competing at an event on as an individual, it's also about the structure and nature of the event and competition as well. Ice hockey is a team sport and most of those have been banned. But NHL continues on with many Russian players starting in the playoffs right now. It is the Ice Hockey World Championships where those players and their teams would not be welcome.
The lines between amateur and pro sports have been blurred mightily in recent years, especially in the US. But if you think of it traditionally, it's the amateurs from Russia and Belarus whether they compete as a individual or as a team that are banned from playing as they represent their countries in competitions not just themselves, not the professional athletes.
They're both individual sports requiring an extraordinary amount of time and practice to master. You're either banning ATHLETES from countries based on a moral/conciousness decision or you're not. Banning athletes only because of team association does not remove what the athlete had to do to become an elite athlete. I think banning some is half-assed. I could give a crap about the monetary considerations in moral decisions.
by ptmcmahon I think for most of us it's not an "EITHER we're banning atheltes OR we're not" like it is for you. The real world isn't all black and white. There's a lot of grey as well, such as in this situation.
by Owendonovan I see the gray, I just don't feel it applies here. That's all.
by ptmcmahon If you can see the grey (whether or not you think it applies) then why would it be odd that a lot of us think it's not fair to ban individuals in individual sports? Even if you don't think it applies it should be easy to see why most of us at least think it does.
by ponchi101 If I may say this.
This is a dichotomy decision. Either your ban athletes from a given country (in this case Russia and Belarus) from TEAM and INDIVIDUAL events, or you ban them only from TEAM events but not the INDIVIDUAL events.
The third option, not banning them from anything, is not being discussed.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 3:21 pm
If I may say this.
This is a dichotomy decision. Either your ban athletes from a given country (in this case Russia and Belarus) from TEAM and INDIVIDUAL events, or you ban them only from TEAM events but not the INDIVIDUAL events.
The third option, not banning them from anything, is not being discussed.
Traditional Olympic sports that put forth country strongly and where the country is heavily funding the training program is where the bans are though. And it's across team and individual events, not one or the other. Swimming, skiing, and diving have the same bans as water polo and volleyball. Pro sports, team and individual, has not widely imposed the same bans. This is getting so much attention because Wimbledon's decision is very much an outlier in the world of professional sports. And it's a decision that is different than has been taken in the past when bans were in place, during Apartheid for instance.
by ti-amie What's this about Sakkari being ranked #2 in time for RG?
by Owendonovan
ptmcmahon wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 2:37 pm
If you can see the grey (whether or not you think it applies) then why would it be odd that a lot of us think it's not fair to ban individuals in individual sports? Even if you don't think it applies it should be easy to see why most of us at least think it does.
I think the oddness I find is there seems to be such a hard no on teams and such a hard yes on individuals, they're both playing sports that most likely took the same amount of training, commitment, sacrifice to get to the elite level. Taking away a flag icon next to a Russian/Belorussian players name doesn't make them any less from those countries, it's rather silly. My thinking is if there's enough Russian/Belorussian "stars" complaining to their governments, maybe that needle starts to move in the right direction, they can't jail everyone. There's been a mass exodus of creative/artistic/cultural types who've left Russia, denouncing the country on the way out. I'd like to see that happen with sports.
ptmcmahon wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 2:37 pm
If you can see the grey (whether or not you think it applies) then why would it be odd that a lot of us think it's not fair to ban individuals in individual sports? Even if you don't think it applies it should be easy to see why most of us at least think it does.
I think the oddness I find is there seems to be such a hard no on teams and such a hard yes on individuals, they're both playing sports that most likely took the same amount of training, commitment, sacrifice to get to the elite level. Taking away a flag icon next to a Russian/Belorussian players name doesn't make them any less from those countries, it's rather silly. My thinking is if there's enough Russian/Belorussian "stars" complaining to their governments, maybe that needle starts to move in the right direction, they can't jail everyone. There's been a mass exodus of creative/artistic/cultural types who've left Russia, denouncing the country on the way out. I'd like to see that happen with sports.
All I will add is about the bold section. They don't need to jail everyone. They just need to jail a few or, more macabre, have something done to them. Then, everybody that is not jailed simply knows that it is a lottery, with everybody having many tickets.
That is how dictatorships work. They don't jail everyone, they work through intimidation. And I can't speak for Russia, but in Venezuela, that is how they crushed the opposition, especially the young kids. After the stories about the brutality in places with names such as "the grave", the kids simply got crushed in spirit. And some other were crushed in more graphic ways.
by Deuce As has been said... Tennis players are not representing their country in regular tournaments. Only in Davis Cup, Fed Cup, and the newfangled 'ATP Cup' type of things is country pitted against country.
In Rome yesterday, it wasn't Poland vs. Canada, it was Swiatek vs. Andreescu, etc.
In team international competitions, almost all the time, it IS country vs. country - and therefore the team is representing the country.
I agree that removing the flag next to the Russian and Belarusian players is completely silly - it's a 'solution' I figure a 5 year old child would think of - that's how shallow it is.
Lastly... this is an odd thread to have this discussion in. I know that it began as a discussion about not awarding points for Wimbledon and other U.K. tournaments... but there have been no comments about points or rankings (the actual topic of this thread) for at least the last 15 posts.
It seems that this discussion has now evolved to be one more suited for the 'Tennis Related - Off Court Serious Issues' topic, which is where some discussion on this subject has already been had.
by the Moz Is there no requirement to represent a country's tennis Federation to play on the respective tours and earn ranking points? Are the flags on websites and on scoreboards at matches a random anomaly? Why are they there?
by Suliso Is there? Can any federation suspend a player from a tour, revoke their licence or similar?
by Deuce
the Moz wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 1:05 pm
Is there no requirement to represent a country's tennis Federation to play on the respective tours and earn ranking points? Are the flags on websites and on scoreboards at matches a random anomaly? Why are they there?
The flags are there to identify the country the player is from as a courtesy for those who wish to have that information. Similar to one's family name being there to identify the family the person is from.
There is a significant difference between showing a 'flag' simply for identification purposes and playing for (or to represent) your country.
As I mentioned - it's Jabeur vs. Kasatkina - that's how the matches are identified, not Tunisia vs. Russia. I therefore see no valid reason to not allow Russian and Belarusian players to play any given tournament simply based on where they were born and/or raised.
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:47 pm
Is there? Can any federation suspend a player from a tour, revoke their licence or similar?
I don't think so and think if that was possible, then Su-Wei Hsieh wouldn't have been able to play for a very long time. It's why she has no sponsors, been on the Taiwanese Tennis Federation's (expletive) for years now.
I've always thought the flags were there as an identifying marker. It's very useful to me, but it's never led me to think I'm watching Davis Cup and they are there to representing their countries.
This is definitely a bizarre thread for this conversation to be had in. Even with ranking points at stake, doesn't feel like it makes sense for much of this to be in here.
by mick1303 I'm wondering where ATP and I differ in the Novak Djokovic win count. I had him at 989 wins before Rome. They say that Novak got his 1000th win after Rome semis (that is 4 wins). Therefore they had him at 996 before Rome started.
I suspect that they maybe count some early stages of Davis Cup (like zonal ties) towards his wins. I count World Group, Group I,II and playoffs. They obviously do not count challengers, so do I. Novak has 28 wins in Challengers.
They can't count wins by walkover, he has 13 of those, therefore it would've been 1002 on my count and 1009 on their count (including wins by walkover).
In my database I have the following breakdown for Novak wins:
Grand Slams - 323
YEC (WTF) - 41
MS 1000 (2009 and after) - 321
TM Series (before 2009) - 56.
This is also odd, because ATP shows total for MS = 376 - which is one less than 56+321.
International (IS 400, IS 600, 800, 1000, Inc Gold, before 2009) - 57
500 Series - 94
250 Series - 46
Davis Cup - 30
ATP Cup - 8
Olympics - 13
Total - 989
For the number of loss they have him at 203, while I'm - at 201.
Unfortunately Davis Cup site currently does not allow to show players records, all drop-lists for countries are empty ((
Could it be that they count qualification rounds? But I imagine the difference should've been larger?
But tennis abstract has him with 202 loss/ career record including rome 1000 wins-202 loss
Edit : ATP has 203 losses because they also count Laver Cup in the official record. He is 0-1(2018)
For some reason Davis cup website doesn't work but if you search the players from Tennis abstract you can get the davis cup profile link https://www.tennisabstract.com/
by ponchi101 You have been very meticulous with your counts, but I don't know if the ATP would be wrong. They can't count qualies, because those are not official wins, and at all other levels, they do not count those either.
Very odd, indeed.
by mick1303 Yes, the situation is more or less clear. The difference in 7 wins is (8-1). These 8 are from early round (zonal) Davis Cup ties. That "1" is the discrepancy in MS wins. This is the portion that is "less clear" ))
by mick1303 I found the source of discrepancy... Unfortunately this means that I will have to perform additional validation of my database. There was a glitch in the code, which I discovered 3 years ago. It resulted in the "score" field randomly displaced for each pair of winner/loser in the resulting table of the processed tournament. I thought that I weeded out all the consequences back then and corrected the data, but apparently not all... In the Madrid tournament in 2019 the scores for each match were incorrect (random score from another match of the same tournament), and Djokovic instead of walkover against Cilic had another score shown in the database. Therefore his count of wins increased by one. In reality he has 23 wins in Masters in 2019, but I was counting 24...
by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:10 am
What's this about Sakkari being ranked #2 in time for RG?
Both Barbora and Paula won titles heading into RG last year. Paula also didn't defend points well in Madrid or make up for that in Rome. Those points will fall off allowing Maria to rise to #2. If Maria doesn't repeat her RG results, she won't hang onto #2 afterwards. Anett is the most likely candidate to overtake #2 without the others doing very, very well at RG. Ons also has a good change to reach #2.
by ponchi101 It is starting to sound like the WTA of the 90's. "Who can reach #2?"
#1 is certain, at the moment.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:11 pm
It is starting to sound like the WTA of the 90's. "Who can reach #2?"
#1 is certain, at the moment.
Not sure if this was intentional or not, but yes, similar to the 90s as a question of #2 instead of #1, but for a very different reason unfortunately. I will continue to view that time with an asterisk.
by ponchi101 I am only mentioning the similarities Seles' attack will always be part of the narrative of those years, but the 90's were a certainty. Not even the 80's were such, as at least Chrissie was a worthy opponent to Martina.
And also, as much as Iga has been impressive, it has been just a few months. I believe she has what it takes to remain on top for a while, considering the quality behind her, but the WTA changes very quickly nowadays.
by Liamvalid When Steffi was dominant in the 90s, she was already a multi slam winning HoFer, Iga still has one slam to her name. I feel she is still much closer than her peers than Steffi was to hers. This hot streak is impressive, but still a little early for me to to be comparing her to people. I do like her though, more than I like most of the rest of the top ten
by ponchi101 Yes. I said "it is starting". Iga is already 20, as opposed to Steffi when she won her first RG and then, in 1988, became the dominant player she was.
But any run of 28 straight matches, losing only one set (I think), is pretty impressive.
I say that at a minimum, she gets to 32.
She may be on a path more like Sampras. That first slam, then a couple of years hovering (for Iga, last year only) and then entering her best phase. I would not mind; I like her.
by Liamvalid
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:04 pm
Yes. I said "it is starting". Iga is already 20, as opposed to Steffi when she won her first RG and then, in 1988, became the dominant player she was.
But any run of 28 straight matches, losing only one set (I think), is pretty impressive.
I say that at a minimum, she gets to 32.
She may be on a path more like Sampras. That first slam, then a couple of years hovering (for Iga, last year only) and then entering her best phase. I would not mind; I like her.
Could we compare her to early Federer maybe? When he first won a slam and start to assert his dominance, the HoFers from that era were all waning and about to retire, and a lot of his peers just had the one slam in them, if that
by meganfernandez
Liamvalid wrote:When Steffi was dominant in the 90s, she was already a multi slam winning HoFer, Iga still has one slam to her name. I feel she is still much closer than her peers than Steffi was to hers. This hot streak is impressive, but still a little early for me to to be comparing her to people. I do like her though, more than I like most of the rest of the top ten
Yeah of course. People are comparing her to Steffi? I’m not caught up on the thread. That’s insane. She’s having a great run. Maybe it will continue but she has a lot to prove before she earns that comparison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101 When Fed began his dominance, Sampras had already retired (the year before). The current great one that has not retired (officially) is Serena, but she has really not played.
Also, Fed won his first W in 2003, and then did not look back. 2004 he won 3 (you know all this), while Iga won her first RG in 2020 and last year went blank.
You said it further up. This comparison is unfair, as this last few months is a small sample. We are forgetting that Iga lost handily at the Aussie. Of course, for all great ones there is one moment in which everything clicks. We don't know if this is it for Iga, but it has certain tones.
---0---
I AM NOT COMPARING her to Steffi. That is too much. All I am saying is that currently, it feels like the early 90's, when it was very clear who was #1 and the sole question was who would be #2. Seles answered that question quickly and then became #1.
And in the early 90's (91-93) the dominant player was Seles, not Steffi Seles was very dominant everywhere, except W.
Liamvalid wrote:When Steffi was dominant in the 90s, she was already a multi slam winning HoFer, Iga still has one slam to her name. I feel she is still much closer than her peers than Steffi was to hers. This hot streak is impressive, but still a little early for me to to be comparing her to people. I do like her though, more than I like most of the rest of the top ten
Yeah of course. People are comparing her to Steffi? I’m not caught up on the thread. That’s insane. She’s having a great run. Maybe it will continue but she has a lot to prove before she earns that comparison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not necessarily comparing her to Steffi, just trying to figure her position out really. It’s unusual to have someone this young have such a dominant spell, in such an open era, so what does this mean going forward (if anything!)
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:38 pm
I AM NOT COMPARING her to Steffi. That is too much. All I am saying is that currently, it feels like the early 90's, when it was very clear who was #1 and the sole question was who would be #2. Seles answered that question quickly and then became #1.
And in the early 90's (91-93) the dominant player was Seles, not Steffi Seles was very dominant everywhere, except W.
Which seems to have been forgotten, which is a damn shame.
by Suliso Seems like Sakkari becoming #2 just before RG won't happen. She'll only rise to #3 with Krejcikova keeping #2 for few more weeks. Very likely she won't even play RG and if so bye bye top 10.
by ponchi101 Some interesting moves, according to the WTA site. Bianca back into the 70's, Simona into the 20's, Ons at a career high #6.
by JTContinental Jabeur seems to be playing like the true #2 at the moment
by ponchi101
JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 8:10 pm
Jabeur seems to be playing like the true #2 at the moment
#1 player you DON'T want to draw? Iga, certainly. But # 2 has got to be Ons, which makes your point.
I just hope she is not in the same side of the draw as Swiatek.
JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 8:10 pm
Jabeur seems to be playing like the true #2 at the moment
#1 player you DON'T want to draw? Iga, certainly. But # 2 has got to be Ons, which makes your point.
I just hope she is not in the same side of the draw as Swiatek.
It'd be interesting to poll the players on this one. I can believe this to be the case on clay, but not on hard courts. And even on clay, I have a feeling Ons wouldn't poll at #2.
by ponchi101 Oh, sure. I meant just for RG next week. We have to wait for Iga to come off clay, although she did win a Wimby Jr. (if I remember well) so she is not uncomfortable on it.
But of course, all players would come up with the infamous "I don't care who I play, I don't look at the draw". They would not answer such a poll.
by Suliso Ons is #2 in the race. Whether she can stay there past Wimbledon is very uncertain. I'd certainly not bet any money on it.
by Suliso WTA top 10 with RG points removed
Iga Swiatek 6641
Anett Kontaveit 4326
Ons Jabeur 4150
Paula Badosa 4125
Maria Sakkari 3956
Aryna Sabalenka 3846
Karolina Pliskova 3618
Danielle Collins 3195
Garbine Muguruza 3060
Emma Raducan 2915
----
Jessica Pegula 2835
Barbora Krejcikova 2642
by Suliso For the purposes of rankings there are only three Slams this year. So performance at RG becomes even more crucial.
by ponchi101 Was Anett already #2? By now it is hard to remember, as that seat is the rotating one.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:53 pm
Was Anett already #2? By now it is hard to remember, as that seat is the rotating one.
No, #5 is her career high. She won't become #2 before USO if ever. Her clay game is rather weak (no outdoor clay finals).
by Liamvalid Only ONE slam title between the worlds top 8. That’s just nuts
by Suliso
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:33 pm
Only ONE slam title between the worlds top 8. That’s just nuts
I wouldn't say that. Krejcikova is still there and with her removed it's a high chance the new RG winner will replace her.
by JazzNU I'm not seeing how we're getting to one. It's two. It's also not all that nuts when the statement becomes 5 slam titles among the top 8.
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:33 pm
Only ONE slam title between the worlds top 8. That’s just nuts
I wouldn't say that. Krejcikova is still there and with her removed it's a high chance the new RG winner will replace her.
Proof of how hard it is to even remember Krajcikova. I started counting and indeed skipped her.
by Deuce Speaking of difficult to remember...
How about a couple of Roland Garros semi-finalists from the past two years - Zidansek and Podoroska...
In 2 years from now, if you ask who was in the women's semis in 2021 and 2020, most tennis fans wouldn't be able to name those two.
I wonder how many would be able to name them even now.
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:33 pm
Only ONE slam title between the worlds top 8. That’s just nuts
I wouldn't say that. Krejcikova is still there and with her removed it's a high chance the new RG winner will replace her.
Proof of how hard it is to even remember Krajcikova. I started counting and indeed skipped her.
I didn’t forget Krejcikova, I was going off the list that Suliso posted of the rankings after RG points came off, which is a little misleading I guess as there could still be potentially 3 or 4 slam titles within the official top ten after RG finishes. But to me that is still staggeringly low. I have been googling random top tens in the open era and can’t find anything close to being that low. Even if you add in Barty’s 3, it would still be well under average, but she isn’t even in the rankings now.
I’m not saying this is a bad reflection on the WTA, I love how open things are, but I stand by my initial statement
by meganfernandez
Deuce wrote:Speaking of difficult to remember...
How about a couple of Roland Garros semi-finalists from the past two years - Zidansek and Podoroska...
In 2 years from now, if you ask who was in the women's semis in 2021 and 2020, most tennis fans wouldn't be able to name those two.
I wonder how many would be able to name them even now.
Can you remember the other losing semifinalist from 2020? No googling.
I Will remember Podoroska (and Trevisan from the quarters that year) because I believe she beat Svitolina, and it was a golden opportunity for Svitolina to get to a Slam final. Will remember Zidansek because I loved that run. I forget who she beat on the way, though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 3:55 pm
... Can you remember the other losing semifinalist from 2020? No googling.
I Will remember Podoroska (and Trevisan from the quarters that year) because I believe she beat Svitolina, and it was a golden opportunity for Svitolina to get to a Slam final. Will remember Zidansek because I loved that run. I forget who she beat on the way, though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Had to google it because you are right, I could not remember.
ESPN L. America had a huge promotion, day in and day out, of watching WTA tennis, featuring Podoroska. "Watch Nadia Podoroska and the other stars from the WTA..." Slowly it must have dawned on them that the sole way to watch Podoroska was to show her first round match, usually a losing one. She has really dropped off. Currently at 143.
I wouldn't say that. Krejcikova is still there and with her removed it's a high chance the new RG winner will replace her.
Proof of how hard it is to even remember Krajcikova. I started counting and indeed skipped her.
I didn’t forget Krejcikova, I was going off the list that Suliso posted of the rankings after RG points came off, which is a little misleading I guess as there could still be potentially 3 or 4 slam titles within the official top ten after RG finishes. But to me that is still staggeringly low. I have been googling random top tens in the open era and can’t find anything close to being that low. Even if you add in Barty’s 3, it would still be well under average, but she isn’t even in the rankings now.
I’m not saying this is a bad reflection on the WTA, I love how open things are, but I stand by my initial statement
You changed your criteria from top 8 to top 10, which is not necessarily an insignificant difference at any given time given who might be #9 or #10, especially Serena or Venus. I'm not sure why you were using Top 8 originally, but I thought potentially you were going for WTA Finals participants. By that measure, I'd say, stop looking at random years and start looking at recent ones. The current title total is not staggeringly low when going by that measurement. There were a total of 4 GS titles amongst the WTA Finals participants just last season, or 6 if you count Barty, who didn't compete there. And that's not the only year recently where the titles are in the single digits amongst the WTA Finalists.
Proof of how hard it is to even remember Krajcikova. I started counting and indeed skipped her.
I didn’t forget Krejcikova, I was going off the list that Suliso posted of the rankings after RG points came off, which is a little misleading I guess as there could still be potentially 3 or 4 slam titles within the official top ten after RG finishes. But to me that is still staggeringly low. I have been googling random top tens in the open era and can’t find anything close to being that low. Even if you add in Barty’s 3, it would still be well under average, but she isn’t even in the rankings now.
I’m not saying this is a bad reflection on the WTA, I love how open things are, but I stand by my initial statement
You changed your criteria from top 8 to top 10, which is not necessarily an insignificant difference at any given time given who might be #9 or #10, especially Serena or Venus. I'm not sure why you were using Top 8 originally, but I thought potentially you were going for WTA Finals participants. By that measure, I'd say, stop looking at random years and start looking at recent ones. The current title total is not staggeringly low when going by that measurement. There were a total of 4 GS titles amongst the WTA Finals participants just last season, or 6 if you count Barty, who didn't compete there. And that's not the only year recently where the titles are in the single digits amongst the WTA Finalists.
It was a simple observation in a quiet week before a slam. The first 8 players in Suliso’s list jumped out at me for only having one slam title amongst them. I changed my criteria to top ten because I was curious as to how this situation measures up to the top ten of previous eras. Maybe you’re right that this is more common in the last couple of years, but it’s not something that I have noticed much-until I saw Suliso’s list and investigated.
by Suliso
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:39 pm
Ons is #2 in the race. Whether she can stay there past Wimbledon is very uncertain. I'd certainly not bet any money on it.
Good thing I didn't. Although she has 600 point advantage over #3-#5. If Iga wins RG and those three don't reach SF's she might still be there.
by Suliso It took Swiatek ca 16 months from her first WTA level title (2020 RG) to #1 ranking. I wonder if anyone has done it even faster than that on either tour. Not easy to find out...
I don't recall a lot of hype before 2020 RG about her being a future dominant player.
by ponchi101 Neither do I. But we did say she would not be a "one slam" wonder. That I recall was discussed and dismissed.
Looking solely at Graf. She won her 1st tournament at Hilton Island on April 13, 1986. She reached #1 after beating Evert at Los Angeles on August 17, 1987. So, it took her... 16 months too. Bit of a coincidence, I guess
by JazzNU
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 7:19 pm
It took Swiatek ca 16 months from her first WTA level title (2020 RG) to #1 ranking. I wonder if anyone has done it even faster than that on either tour. Not easy to find out...
I don't recall a lot of hype before 2020 RG about her being a future dominant player.
Don't think you can compare hers to others. With the way the rankings were skewed for that period, from keeping the points on and from not having as many tournaments and travel being hindered, it's never going to be apples to apples with other periods. Even that being a Fall French Open with no preceding clay court season is just a strange data point for comparison. Would she have been in the same form 5 months earlier? Would her first title have come in the typical 2020 clay court season in the Spring altering the timeline entirely?
All that being said, I would think that Martina Hingis has both Swiatek and Graf beat on the first title to #1 timeline.
by Suliso Of course, it's just a fun factoid. Doesn't mean anything in particular, but her rise has still been very fast.
by Suliso
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 7:53 pm
All that being said, I would think that Martina Hingis has both Swiatek and Graf beat on the first title to #1 timeline.
Right, it took her only 5 months to do that. Not likely to be beaten anytime soon.
JazzNU wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 7:53 pm
All that being said, I would think that Martina Hingis has both Swiatek and Graf beat on the first title to #1 timeline.
Right, it took her only 5 months to do that. Not likely to be beaten anytime soon.
I had to look it up. Oct '96, first title, March 97 first #1 ranking.
Yep, that looks here to stay.
by Suliso Best winning percentages on both tours this year (live, 20 matches min)
ATP
Alcaraz 0.903
Nadal 0.889
Rublev 0.781
Tsitsipas 0.769
Djokovic 0.765
- Isner and Opelka have won the most tiebreaks on ATP tour with 15 each
- Marcos Giron has lost the most matches on tour this year (8-15), but Benoit Paire is approaching fast (3-14)
- Iga Swiatek has doled out 11 bagel sets while suffering none. The next best is 4 (Kudermetova and Gracheva)
- Madison Brengle has lost six sets at love
- Paula Badosa is the best tiebreak player on WTA tour (8-2). Tereza Martincova is the worst (1-6)
Current holder in live rankings is Anett Konteveit (4325), but already out. So who could overtake her? Let's also assume that Swiatek wins the tournament. That rules out lots of people who would need to win the title as well as Pliskova for whom QF would not be enough. Remaining candidates are:
Paula Badosa: min result needed R16 and Sakkari not going further than her. Even if she reaches SF's it's not in her hands as Sakkari could be RU
Maria Sakkari: the only player who has it in her own hands. Minimum result to overtake Kontaveit is QF's. If that's how far she goes could be still overtaken by Badosa or Sabalenka SF
Aryna Sabalenka: min result needed SF and Sakkari not in the final.
In my opinion the most likely outcome is Badosa as #2. She only needs a few wins and the draw is favorable. Sabalenka maybe the 2nd favorite followed by Kontaveit rising up despite the first round loss. In my mind Sakkari is least likely as I expect her to lose to Anisimova. If that doesn't happen the path to the final is almost free.
by Suliso Sakkari didn't even reach the match with Anisimova. She'll be ranked no higher than #5 after RG.
by JazzNU It didn't seem like Krejcikova was fully healthy and wouldn't have attempted it if she wasn't the defending champion in both. I wonder how much the players know about the rankings and why it can be a benefit to stay out if you're not really ready to play. There've definitely been stories before about players losing substantial ranking points not knowing that trying to play injured and having poor results can be worse than actually sitting out and letting the time for the protected ranking to kick in pass. So I wonder if Barbora did herself more harm than good playing RG.
by ashkor87 so net net, after Wimbledon, Medvedev will be #1 in the world! The tennis gods must be laughing, I know I am..(though not a tennis god, haha)
by ponchi101 To the tune of Alanis Morrisette's IRONIC. "We will punish them by not letting them play, and their best player becomes #1 in the world".
I guess somebody did not think the whole thing through.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 1:04 pm
To the tune of Alanis Morrisette's IRONIC. "We will punish them by not letting them play, and their best player becomes #1 in the world".
I guess somebody did not think the whole thing through.
I'm sure someone knew, but this is the lesser of evils. They didn't want a photo of their trophy lifted by a Bela/Russian player or one of their royals in such a photo. But yes, it is ironic.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 1:04 pm
To the tune of Alanis Morrisette's IRONIC. "We will punish them by not letting them play, and their best player becomes #1 in the world".
I guess somebody did not think the whole thing through.
I'm sure someone knew, but this is the lesser of evils. They didn't want a photo of their trophy lifted by a Bela/Russian player or one of their royals in such a photo. But yes, it is ironic.
Don't cha think?
I'll see myself out.
by Suliso So the race to #2 is over. Anett Kontaveit has won and most likely will be #2 seed at Wimbledon.
by Suliso Also Pegula 95% certain to reach the top 10.
by ponchi101 Where she will have a better chance than here (Kontaveit at WImbledon. You posted while I wrote).
It is still insane, though. A player that lost in 1R at RG, climbs to #2 in the rankings. Now the thing will how large will the gap be between #1 and #2. Could be almost 4,000 points, right?
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:51 pm
Could be almost 4,000 points, right?
4306 points gap if Swiatek wins the title. In fact it would probably secure year end #1 title for her. Her advantage in the race (to Jabeur) would be ca 4700 points.
Of course she might lose to Zheng in few days and then it's a different story.
by patrick
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:47 pm
So the race to #2 is over. Anett Kontaveit has won and most likely will be #2 seed at Wimbledon.
If I read correctly, Pegula can be number 2 if she wins next Saturday.
by Suliso Yes, but I was disregarding such small probabilities.
by JTContinental A lot larger probability now that she's the #2 ranked player in the draw
by Suliso Trevisan up to #26 in the live rankings. Could be overtaken by Stephens but no one else.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:51 pm
Where she will have a better chance than here (Kontaveit at WImbledon. You posted while I wrote).
It is still insane, though. A player that lost in 1R at RG, climbs to #2 in the rankings. Now the thing will how large will the gap be between #1 and #2. Could be almost 4,000 points, right?
I am glad..really highlights how useless rankings are,! Which I have always believed..
by ashkor87 On the same note I imagine RG lost a lot of money from the Djokovic-Nadal match happening too soon..will anyone come to see a Nadal-Ruud final? They could have used their discretion in seeding- my understanding is, they can (not sure, though, does anyone know?)
by 3mlm
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:40 am
On the same note I imagine RG lost a lot of money from the Djokovic-Nadal match happening too soon..will anyone come to see a Nadal-Ruud final? They could have used their discretion in seeding- my understanding is, they can (not sure, though, does anyone know?)
The 2022 Grand Slam Rule Book (Section 2.f.) has this to say:
f. Seeds
Players who are given preferential positions in the draw.
I. Seeds Required.
ii. All Grand Slam Tournaments will have a seeded draw. There shall be only one seeding list.
iii. Selection of Seeds
The ranking list dated approximately seven (7) days prior to the tournament shall be the basis for such selection.
The Grand Slam Tournaments used to have discretion in seeding but, at least in recent times, usually only Wimbledon used discretion and only for the men's draw. Now the slams all use the ATP/WTA rankings for seeding.
by ashkor87 thanks! so not much discretion then.. well, let them lose money then..
by Suliso
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:40 am
On the same note I imagine RG lost a lot of money from the Djokovic-Nadal match happening too soon..will anyone come to see a Nadal-Ruud final? They could have used their discretion in seeding- my understanding is, they can (not sure, though, does anyone know?)
They can't do that. Anyway I don't get this whining whenever the commercially most desired final doesn't happen. Nadal-Ruud will be just fine and stands will be full as usual.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:40 am
On the same note I imagine RG lost a lot of money from the Djokovic-Nadal match happening too soon..will anyone come to see a Nadal-Ruud final? They could have used their discretion in seeding- my understanding is, they can (not sure, though, does anyone know?)
They can't do that. Anyway I don't get this whining whenever the commercially most desired final doesn't happen. Nadal-Ruud will be just fine and stands will be full as usual.
We all know that is not where the money is- what TV and streaming audience do you suppose the Tuesday match got? What will the finals get?
by Suliso So what? You don't always get what you want. Nadal could have lost to FAA and then we'd not be talking about this at all.
by ashkor87 Funny that tournaments think they cannot reshuffle the seedings but think they can ban players outright!
by Suliso Reshuffling would be very unfair to lower ranked players.
by ponchi101 Remember that the rankings were also set up to avoid preferential treatments.
Suppose we don't even get Nadal-Ruud. Suppose we get Zverev-Rublev. Well, that is the sport. If it were up to he NBA (just an example), the Knicks would be in the finals way more often than The Jazz, or the Spurs. Last year, they got the Suns and the Bucks, two small markets, which did not draw for great ratings. This year, they get the Celtics and the Warriors. Sometimes you kick, sometimes you get kicked.
You don't change the system because every once in a while you don't get the final you want. Otherwise, Roger and Rafa would get byes into the final all the time.
by Suliso WTA race top 10 before RG SF's
Swiatek 6070 (F 6590, W 7290)
Jabeur 2520
Pegula 2232
Badosa 2007
Sakkari 1936 Kasatkina 1911 (F 2431, W 3131)
Collins 1756
Keys 1623
Kudermetova 1573 Gauff 1557 (F 2077, W 2777)
---
17 Trevisan 1226 (F 1746, W 2446)
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:07 am
Reshuffling would be very unfair to lower ranked players.
Yes, but what has fairness got to do with it? It is a business, a very big one! Sounds a bit cynical, I know, but that is the reality, isn't it?
by ponchi101 No, you are correct. It is a business, something that we, and all people, don't remember all the time. The whole purpose of the ATP and the WTA is to generate as much profit for the tournaments, owners and players.
But it is very hard to run a successful business if your employees are disgruntled. If the players were to become unhappy with the seeding structure, which impacts in some cases their earnings ("oh, BTW, you are an unpopular player so we will have you play Rafa in the 1st round if Roland Garros, ok?"), some weird, Novak like parallel tour could gain traction.
by patrick
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:14 am
WTA race top 10 before RG SF's
Swiatek 6070 (F 6590, W 7290)
Jabeur 2520
Pegula 2232
Badosa 2007
Sakkari 1936 Kasatkina 1911 (F 2431, W 3131)
Collins 1756
Keys 1623
Kudermetova 1573 Gauff 1557 (F 2077, W 2777)
---
17 Trevisan 1226 (F 1746, W 2446)
Can the WTA ship the number 1 trophy to Swiatek's home on Sunday if she wins Saturday?
by ponchi101 BTW. How come Novak will not lose the #1 ranking after RG? He was defending 2000 points, and now loses 1640. The people at ESPN say that he will retain the position.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:22 pm
BTW. How come Novak will not lose the #1 ranking after RG? He was defending 2000 points, and now loses 1640. The people at ESPN say that he will retain the position.
Seems like there is a one week delay. He'll lose it for sure, but one week later.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:21 pm
No, you are correct. It is a business, something that we, and all people, don't remember all the time. The whole purpose of the ATP and the WTA is to generate as much profit for the tournaments, owners and players.
But it is very hard to run a successful business if your employees are disgruntled. If the players were to become unhappy with the seeding structure, which impacts in some cases their earnings ("oh, BTW, you are an unpopular player so we will have you play Rafa in the 1st round if Roland Garros, ok?"), some weird, Novak like parallel tour could gain traction.
Yes ..but not easy to take on the entire tour, is it?
by Suliso You need to keep most of your top 50 players reasonably happy as well. Some of them will be your top draws later on.
by 3mlm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:22 pm
BTW. How come Novak will not lose the #1 ranking after RG? He was defending 2000 points, and now loses 1640. The people at ESPN say that he will retain the position.
Last year Roland Garros was played a week later than this year because of the pandemic so the points don't come off until the next week.
Projected rankings for Djokovic, Medvedev and Zverev depending on Zverev’s results:
JUNE 6
Zverev loses in SF
1 Djokovic 8770
2 Medvedev 8160
3 Zverev 7795
Zverev loses in F
1 Djokovic 8770
2 Zverev 8275
3 Medvedev 8160
Zverev wins Title
1 Zverev 9075
2 Djokovic 8770
3 Medvedev 8160
JUNE 13
Zverev loses in SF
1 Medvedev 7800
2 Zverev 7075
3 Djokovic 6770
Zverev loses in F
1 Medvedev 7800
2 Zverev 7555
3 Djokovic 6770
Zverev wins Title
1 Zverev 8355
2 Medvedev 7800
3 Djokovic 6770
by ashkor87 Apropos nothing, I remembered an incident- Wimbledon had exercised its discretion and seeded Mandlikova above Navratilova..which made Navratilova furious, she vented on and on. then Hana beat her..the headline in the paper said it best 'Wimbledon seeding committee shows it knows a thing or two about tennis'..!
by ponchi101 I had forgotten that one. Martina seeded 4th, Hana 2nd, and indeed, Hana beat her 6-1 in the third.
On the other side of why this could not be a good idea: remember the 1996 USO fiasco, trying to seed Agassi 4th so CBS could show the potential Agassi/Sampas SF. It became a total mess in a hurry.
by JazzNU
3mlm wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:18 pm
Last year Roland Garros was played a week later than this year because of the pandemic so the points don't come off until the next week.
Yup. We really shouldn't forget how many unilateral decisions RG was making during the pandemic that pissed off the rest of the Grand Slams and both tours. Last year's change of dates came very late and it torched the mixed s-Hertogenbosch event (which had already been canceled in 2020) and shrunk the time between RG and Wimbledon back to 2 weeks.
by ti-amie
by ashkor87 i dont know how we can take these rankings seriously.. Kontaveit #2? In what universe is she the second-best player in the world?!
I can accept Jabeur, even Sakkari - but really, the second-best player right now is Osaka, followed by Leylah and Anisimova... then Sakkari, Jabeur, then Gauff and Collins certainly not Badosa, as I have often said, she is a bit over-rated.
by Deuce Come on, Ashkor... We can change who is the 'second, third, fourth best', etc. after every match, and we'd have different players each time. But that's obviously not the best way to determining the hierarchy of player talents.
Rankings are not based on the one or two or three latest matches, or even on the most recent tournament. They are based on the past 52 weeks - and as such, they are almost always an accurate reflection.
Just because a player loses in the 1st or 2nd round does not mean that he/she is not worthy of his/her ranking. Conversely, just because a player makes the quarters or semis does not mean that their ranking should suddenly jump 10 spots.
The only ranking I have somewhat of a problem with right now is Raducanu at #11. Obviously, the bulk of her points are from last year's U.S. Open - which was 9 months ago. She also has some points from last year's Wimbledon, which was almost a year ago. She has done nothing noteworthy since then. If last year's Wimbledon and U.S. Open are removed from her points, would she be in the top 50, even?
Other players' points are more widely spread out over several tournaments, not just 2. As such, if there is any ranking to complain about, it's Raducanu's - because it includes such a small sample.
by ashkor87
Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 6:41 am
Come on, Ashkor... We can change who is the 'second, third, fourth best', etc. after every match, and we'd have different players each time. But that's obviously not the best way to determining the hierarchy of player talents.
Rankings are not based on the one or two or three latest matches, or even on the most recent tournament. They are based on the past 52 weeks - and as such, they are almost always an accurate reflection.
Just because a player loses in the 1st or 2nd round does not mean that he/she is not worthy of his/her ranking. Conversely, just because a player makes the quarters or semis does not mean that their ranking should suddenly jump 10 spots.
The only ranking I have somewhat of a problem with right now is Raducanu at #11. Obviously, the bulk of her points are from last year's U.S. Open - which was 9 months ago. She also has some points from last year's Wimbledon, which was almost a year ago. She has done nothing noteworthy since then. If last year's Wimbledon and U.S. Open are removed from her points, would she be in the top 50, even?
Other players' points are more widely spread out over several tournaments, not just 2. As such, if there is any ranking to complain about, it's Raducanu's - because it includes such a small sample.
frankly, if all we are going to do is count points, why are we needed? why is there even a forum to discuss it? There will always be, and should be, some subjectivity to questions like this, else we can leave it to the accountants, tennis fans not required!
by Deuce But you're saying that the second best player right now is Osaka. Her results over the past 6 months - including recently - don't demonstrate that at all. And so I ask what is your criteria for appointing her as the 'second best player right now'?
Same thing with Leylah. She had a good Roland Garros... but in the tournaments prior to Roland Gaarros, she lost early.
Same with Anisimova...
It seems to me that you are assessing and ranking players based primarily on what you feel is their potential - and/or on how good you feel they should be playing, and not basing it on their results.
But results are the only thing that matters.
If rankings were based on what different people feel is the potential of each player and/or how they did in their most recent tournament, we'd have 100 different #1 players, 100 different #2 players, 100 different #3 players, etc., etc..
by Suliso Indeed, Osaka as #2 right now based on what???
by meganfernandez I’m reminded of the thing I tell myself as a player - my potential is not my level. On potential or peak level, yes, Osaka is 1 or 2. But not on current level. She hasn’t played like that (consistently) in a long time. And she skipped half of last season.
Rankings reflect a year’s worth of results. For a tighter snapshot, there’s the race. Everyone knows that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ashkor87 4 slams!
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote:4 slams!
By this logic, Serena and Venus would be 1 and 2.
Osaka is not playing like a top 10 player and hasn’t for a while. She has the potential but the rankings don’t reflect potential. You know that.
Osaka is not playing like a top 10 player and hasn’t for a while. She has the potential but the rankings don’t reflect potential. You know that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Didn't Miami impress you at all?
by ashkor87 Osaka is close to her best now..she isn't a clay-courter so I discount the clay swing..at her best, she is the #2 player. I go by sheer quality at their best, assuming they are or will be back there soon..hence not Serena! But Andreescu yes, Bencic too...
by ashkor87 Muguruza remains a puzzle to me .not sure she can ever be back to her best level...
A way to quantify this way of assessing quality is to look at peak Elo and then ask- can he/she play at that level again,? I see no reason why Osaka and Andreescu and Bencic cannot..as for Leylah, I am going by my assessment of how good she is, and how well she can perform..I certainly think she will be better than Coco, for instance..all this is subjective, but that is what makes it a discussion..else yes, rankings tell you the average performance over the year, can't argue with that.
by ashkor87 appling that logic, then
Peak Elo
1. Vika 2325 (unlikely to get back to that level)
2. Swiatek 2263
3. Osaka 2199 (likely to be back there sooner or later)
4. Halep 2178 (ok, fair enough but her best is behind her)
5. Kvitova 2174 (definitely not gettign back there, ever)
6. Andreescu 2158 (no reason why she cannot get back)
7. Bencic 2121 (fair enough)
8. Kontaveit 2106 ( good solid player, dont expect her to get back there again)
9 Coco 2044 (fair enough)
and so on...
I quite believe this..
Osaka is not playing like a top 10 player and hasn’t for a while. She has the potential but the rankings don’t reflect potential. You know that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Didn't Miami impress you at all?
Miami is why I added "(consistently)." Because she had a good run then. She's obviously one of the best in the world when she's playing her best, but that's the whole trick - playing your best throughout a season or for the big events. Don't let the rankings drive you crazy. They have a very specific meaning/value.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 1:07 pm
Muguruza remains a puzzle to me .not sure she can ever be back to her best level...
Same, as a big Muguruza fan (she was my most-recent true favorite player). Good reminder that every player is unique. All wired and built differently, all with different life circumstances, priorities, ambitions, values. We might never know what shaped her career like this. On one hand, certainly seems like she is leaving some big titles on the table. On the other, two Slams, two more finals, No. 1 - most players with the same potential never get close to that. I think the rest of her career will be more of the same - maybe some peaks and great runs, but not an extended time playing her best.
by ashkor87 please note - peak ELO is not potential, it is what they have actually done. Question is, are they close to that now or will they get there?
by Suliso ELO comes from chess and it's much more appropriate there, but even in that game it changes over time and strength of players is not evaluated by their peak ELO's.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 2:50 pm
ELO comes from chess and it's much more appropriate there, but even in that game it changes over time and strength of players is not evaluated by their peak ELO's.
and where do you think ranking comes from?
by ponchi101 Swiatek, right now, is the anomaly, not the norm. She is the sole consistent player in the tour and, therefore, all other players are tightly packed. Look at the rankings: the separation between Kontaveit and Muguruza (#2 and #10) is about 1,300 points. Minimal. Therefore, we have all this bunch of players reaching high rankings, and then dipping again, in just a few weeks.
And this is very odd. Remember the 80's: Martina was #1, Chrissie #2. But then you also had a bunch of stable #3 through #10. Mandlikova and Shriver were fixtures there, Sukova too. And they did not lose to the #78 player in the world, a week after reaching the Rome final, two weeks after winning Madrid.
The rankings are there to solve a technical problem: how to seed players. If they do not exist, then Mugu and Badosa get seeded #1 and #2 in Madrid because they are the local players, and Trevisan gets seeded #16 in Rome, again because of favoritism.
And about Anett. Sure, if not her, then who? Osaka's last slam was the Aussie 2021, so that was a long time ago (in tennis ranking terms). We have to accept that this is the best system, so far. And we know that the WTA has tampered with this for decades.
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 2:44 pm
please note - peak ELO is not potential, it is what they have actually done. Question is, are they close to that now or will they get there?
Yes, have done at some point, but it's not their current performance level, which ebbs and flows.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 2:44 pm
please note - peak ELO is not potential, it is what they have actually done. Question is, are they close to that now or will they get there?
Yes, have done at some point, but it's not their current performance level, which ebbs and flows.
True enough, but ranking doesn't tell you current performance either, for that you need your eyes, and understanding of tennis...
Yes, have done at some point, but it's not their current performance level, which ebbs and flows.
True enough, but ranking doesn't tell you current performance either, for that you need your eyes, and understanding of tennis...
Ok. So how would you run it? For example, would you agree that your ranking allows you for entry in a tournament, but then seeding is left up to the tournament director? Because that road is pretty tricky.
What would you propose?
by Deuce And how would 'current performance' be defined?
A player's last match? Last 2 matches? Last tournament? Last 2 tournaments? Last 2 months?
Last 4 matches divided by their 'potential'?...
by ashkor87
Deuce wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:08 am
And how would 'current performance' be defined?
A player's last match? Last 2 matches? Last tournament? Last 2 tournaments? Last 2 months?
Last 4 matches divided by their 'potential'?...
Well, clearly my definition would be a subjective assesment..eg you and I disagree about Andrescu, not because we disagree about her past, but because we disagree about where she is now , which can only be based on how we see her playing now, and her future, which depends on whether we think there is anything fundamentally wrong with her game which she cannot fix. These are necessarily subjective..
Yes, have done at some point, but it's not their current performance level, which ebbs and flows.
True enough, but ranking doesn't tell you current performance either, for that you need your eyes, and understanding of tennis...
Ok. So how would you run it? For example, would you agree that your ranking allows you for entry in a tournament, but then seeding is left up to the tournament director? Because that road is pretty tricky.
What would you propose?
I agree it is tricky .all I am pleading for is for tournaments to apply some common-sense, not throw out rankings wholesale..if there is a clay court event, Nadal cannot be seeded 5, he has to be 1 or ,2..!
by ponchi101 Ok. One more iteration. So, you are basically saying that the rankings should take into consideration the entire HISTORY of the player. Nadal, the 13 time champion, cannot be seeded below anybody, perhaps with the exception of Novak, a two time champion and defending it, at the time.
Would extending the rankings to span 2 years work better? Sure, great if you had a very good year two years ago, but now moving up into the rankings becomes harder for the lower players because the top ones keep retaining points from a longer period.
Rankings will always be tricky. You remember during Martina's domination (the 80's). At the time, the ranking was an average, but Martina's average was so high that if she were to play in a smaller tournament AND win it, she would lose points because her average was more than the total points of the tournament. So, she was guaranteed her total, if she won, but then the other players complained about it because it made it even more difficult to catch up with her.
And we must remember, Rafa was seeded 5 because he was unable to play for almost half of last year. Had he been able to do so, he would have been most likely a top 3 seed. And we would not be having fun talking about this
It is being used very much at club level, at least here in Colombia. But remember a key point: the matches are weighted according to an EXPECTED result. Quote:
Same UTR: The algorithm would project that you win the same number of games as your opponent. If you win more games, then your rating will go up.
Lower UTR: If the system expects you to win 6-2, 6-2 but you end up winning 6-1, 6-1, then your rating would go up.
Higher UTR: If you are expected to lose 6-3, 6-3 but you lose 6-4, 6-4, your rating will go up. Your UTR will go up or down based on how you perform vs. expectation.
END Quote
S0, at pro level, that will not fly. Novak could lose points if he is pushed into a 5 setter, even though he might win, because he was expected to win in three. Somebody would have to set up the expectation BEFORE the match; this is part of the algorithm, but I wonder how would pros feel if they won a match and yet their ranking went down. Or stayed the same.
by ponchi101 On other news.
For the first time since 2003, NONE of the big three is in the top two players in the ranking. The last time it happened, it was Roddick/Ferrero and then Federer at #3.
One week later Roger would climb to #2 and that led to a stretch of 19 years. Incredible.
by ashkor87 At the moment, UTR ranks Nadal 1, Alcaraz 2, Djokovic 3, sounds fair to me!
Ruud was not supposed to be in the final. It was supposed to be Tsitsipas on that side of the draw.
RG simply cannot foresee what a final will be.
by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm
For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.
Problem is that Oracle owns JAVA. And JAVA is truly everywhere.
by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm
For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.
I had no idea he'd set up a fiefdom on the Hawaiian island he bought until I heard what he's done there on a podcast. Definitely "stained".
by ashkor87
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm
For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.
Indian Wells, do you boycott it then?
by Owendonovan Personally, yes.
by Suliso One more win for Gauff to join the top 10.
by ponchi101 Totally a contender for Wimby, this year.
by Suliso I don't quite get the prevailing scepticism about her GS chances around here. Not for this particular Wimbledon necessarily, but medium term.
by ponchi101 Lot's of people in the forum have been saying that her progress has been "slow" and "methodical", in the good sense.
My opinion is that if she just made her first Slam final, and is now playing well on the surface for the next slam, she is a contender now. If she loses, so will 127 players in those two weeks. But I give her a good chance at W.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:48 pm
Lot's of people in the forum have been saying that her progress has been "slow" and "methodical", in the good sense.
My opinion is that if she just made her first Slam final, and is now playing well on the surface for the next slam, she is a contender now. If she loses, so will 127 players in those two weeks. But I give her a good chance at W.
I'd consider her a contender for sure. Why not? She's playing great, evidently likes the surface. But it's not like anything less is a disappointment.
by ti-amie Joining the chorus re Cori. I thought she was another two years away from being a Slam contender but she has put in the work, she's stopped growing, and the results speak for themselves. With the right draw she can make the second week.
by meganfernandez
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:22 pm
Joining the chorus re Cori. I thought she was another two years away from being a Slam contender but she has put in the work, she's stopped growing, and the results speak for themselves. With the right draw she can make the second week.
I'll be honest, part of the expectation is the dearth of other Slam contenders other than Iga. I'm looking at her, Gauff, Jabeur, Halep, Pliskova, and Kerber as favorites, in that order. I keep looking past Sakkari, as always.
by ti-amie I wish we didn't have to look past Sakkari. She takes herself out of so many matches. It's sad to watch.
by ashkor87 Coco is certainly playing well but I am not so sure she has improved..her forehand weakness persists...at RG, she had a very good draw,- the moment I saw the draw I said Coco is going to the semis ..we will soon know..she is playing Jabeur next..if she has really improved, she should beat Jabeur..somehow, I am not so sure. She beat Pliskova but she would have beaten her even last year, had they met at W..the next benchmark for her is players like Halep, Sakkari,Jabeur..when she beats them, she would have improved to the next level ..
by ponchi101 What would be a "bad draw" nowadays? Apart from landing on Iga's side, on clay, who would be fearsome players on your side? Any of the top 10 (Sabalenka, Badosa, Kontaveit, etc) are, by definition, tough players, but nobody in that group is unbeatable. Drawing the current USO champ is nothing impossible, and any player below the top 10 is around the same.
Again, other than Iga on clay (and we will see soon if that spills over to grass or hards) I think there currently is no such a thing as a "bad draw". Or, the opposite: all draws are bad. It is called the WTA, right now.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:15 am
What would be a "bad draw" nowadays? Apart from landing on Iga's side, on clay, who would be fearsome players on your side? Any of the top 10 (Sabalenka, Badosa, Kontaveit, etc) are, by definition, tough players, but nobody in that group is unbeatable. Drawing the current USO champ is nothing impossible, and any player below the top 10 is around the same.
Again, other than Iga on clay (and we will see soon if that spills over to grass or hards) I think there currently is no such a thing as a "bad draw". Or, the opposite: all draws are bad. It is called the WTA, right now.
Depends on the player..for Coco, a bad draw would be Kerber, Bencic, jabeur, Sakkari, Halep, even Leylah and Raducanu..on grass
by ponchi101 Raducanu is, right now, not a bad draw for anybody. She is not playing well.
Leylah, I don't know, because her last match was a close one, with an injury. A crafty lefty on grass has always been tricky.
Sakkari. Uhm. As athletic as anybody else, and then she can't close it. I doubt anybody goes into a match with Sakkari with the remotest apprehension.
Jabeur. Maybe. Tricky shots, and deceptive good movement. But, on grass, we will know tomorrow.
Kerber. Nope, past her prime.
Bencic: another veteran that by now has proven where her ceiling is.
Not sure, Ashkor. With the exception of jabeur and Sakkari, all the others are ranked below Coco. I would flip it. She would be a bad draw for the rest.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:What would be a "bad draw" nowadays? Apart from landing on Iga's side, on clay, who would be fearsome players on your side? Any of the top 10 (Sabalenka, Badosa, Kontaveit, etc) are, by definition, tough players, but nobody in that group is unbeatable. Drawing the current USO champ is nothing impossible, and any player below the top 10 is around the same.
Again, other than Iga on clay (and we will see soon if that spills over to grass or hards) I think there currently is no such a thing as a "bad draw". Or, the opposite: all draws are bad. It is called the WTA, right now.
Any big server could be a tough out on grass. Just not an easy match. Kanepi, if she is healthy - don’t know why she lost 0 and 0 to Pliskova last week. And evidently Magda Linette and Diana Parry are bad draws.
Osaka would be a bad draw (oops, she's not playing). Even though Gauff beat Pliskova today, it wasn’t routine. These would still be tough matches that could go the other way next time.
by mick1303
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 1:04 pm
To the tune of Alanis Morrisette's IRONIC. "We will punish them by not letting them play, and their best player becomes #1 in the world".
I guess somebody did not think the whole thing through.
I suspect they didn't foresee that ATP will have a spine to remove ranking points.
by Suliso WTA top 15 rankings after Wimbledon accounting for players still active this week
by Suliso By the way notice the change of generations. There won't be 30+ year olds in the top 10. The oldest are Collins, Muguruza and Pegula at 28.
by ponchi101 And three teenagers lurking, at 10-12.
by SulisoWTA Top 10 race before (and after) Wimbledon
1. Iga Swiatek 7290
2. Ons Jabeur 2990
3. Coco Gauff 2262
4. Jessica Pegula 2232
5. Maria Sakkari 2182
6. Daria Kasatkina 2071
7. Paula Badosa 2008
8. Belinda Bencic 1816
9. Veronika Kudermetova 1783
10. Danielle Collins 1756
Notables: Halep #12 or #13, Kontaveit #16, Sabalenka #14, Fernandez #23 or #24, Osaka #24 or #25, Muguruza #47, Raducanu #64, Pliskova #69.
by ponchi101 Wow. Huge tumbles for Mugu, Raducanu and Pliskova, and Kontaveit dropping to #16 just a few weeks after reaching #2 is also huge.
Says a lot about what one big tournament can do for your ranking.
And Emma has to start winning or she will be out of the top 100 after the USO. Right?
by Suliso Actually these are race points not ranking points after Wimbledon. In rankings Kontaveit stays safely #2. Lots of points for her to defend on the indoor circuit after USO.
by Suliso Interesting that only 8 women have been named player of the year more than once.
by ponchi101 Player of the year not being the same as #1 for the year? I guess?
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:44 pm
Player of the year not being the same as #1 for the year? I guess?
No, definitely not the same. Player of the year is heavily based on who did the best at Slams.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 The ATP did not shaft itself. The UK Govt, the LTA and then the AELTC imposed a ban which the vast majority of players, commentators and fans believe was unfair. The WTA and ATP decided, rightly so, that they had no option but to do something, and the sole thing they could do, for a tournament that they do not run, was to strip it of points. They had no other power or tool to apply.
Lay the responsibilities where they really should be.
And for Novak not qualifying for the ATP Finals: he chose not to be vaccinated, during a pandemic, and countries decide who enters or not. So, he gets to play two slams this year. Figure out who is responsible for that; it is not that hard.
by Cuckoo4Coco
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:01 pm
The ATP did not shaft itself. The UK Govt, the LTA and then the AELTC imposed a ban which the vast majority of players, commentators and fans believe was unfair. The WTA and ATP decided, rightly so, that they had no option but to do something, and the sole thing they could do, for a tournament that they do not run, was to strip it of points. They had no other power or tool to apply.
Lay the responsibilities where they really should be.
And for Novak not qualifying for the ATP Finals: he chose not to be vaccinated, during a pandemic, and countries decide who enters or not. So, he gets to play two slams this year. Figure out who is responsible for that; it is not that hard.
The thing that really sucked about the whole ban thing as you said is that the UK government initiated it. Then the ATP & the WTA decided to strip the points from the tournament and who did that ultimately hurt but the players that played well in the tournament. That doesn't make sense at all to me. So the players who had nothing to do with the whole war and played in the tournament they even got hurt by all of this crap. My view also is that the Russian and Belarusian players really had nothing to do with the war so they also got hurt by not being able to participate which started this whole thing rolling. So really the entire mess hurt all the players or at least the ones that performed well in the tournament and they all definitely had nothing to do with this stupid war.
by 3mlm Lindsey Davenport suggested today that they should have counted the best of 2021 or 2022 Wimbledon scores instead of not counting 2022 scores. That happened with some tournaments during the pandemic scoring.
by Suliso That would strongly disadvantage younger players who were not yet playing well in 2021.
by ponchi101 The best that the AELTC and LTA could have done would have been to read all the reasons that were posted IN THIS FORUM (for example) about why banning Russian and Belarusian players was a dumb idea. Wrong and dumb. Anyway, water under the bridge.
Now, Novak will be seeded at #7 for next year's RG (USO and Aussie seem off the table, still). Rafa and him, again, in the QF's.
by Cuckoo4Coco
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:58 pm
The best that the AELTC and LTA could have done would have been to read all the reasons that were posted IN THIS FORUM (for example) about why banning Russian and Belarusian players was a dumb idea. Wrong and dumb. Anyway, water under the bridge.
Now, Novak will be seeded at #7 for next year's RG (USO and Aussie seem off the table, still). Rafa and him, again, in the QF's.
The Novak being seeded #7 is completely silly, but the USO and AO being off the table is because of one person and he could change that situation but he will not. So that is his decision. Those countries are not going to make an exemption for one person. In the end it is going to hurt his chances of passing Rafa in the total Slams. I sadly do not see Roger winning anymore Slams and Rafa can still win the French Open regularly until he retires. That leaves Wimbledon for Novak. Rafa can also be in the running for the AO and the USO as well. So the advantage for the total slams as I see it as these 3 players reach the end of their careers is definitely in Rafa's favor right now. Of course there are the other younger players like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Sinner, Alcaraz, Ruud,Rublev, FAA, Berrettini and the rest that want an impact.
by ponchi101 And I did not realize that with the title at Bastad, Cerundolo climbed to #30. I was paying more attention to Baez. Now they both could be seeded at the USO, together with Diego.
by Cuckoo4Coco Even though Bastad was on Clay and I don't really know how well Cerundolo will do on the hard courts at the USO, but he is playing great tennis right now. Someone to keep an eye on.
by ponchi101 Although Argentine produces a lot of clay courters, their last two slams have been at the USO (Delpo 2009, Gaby 1990). Add to that Nalbandian's ATP Champs Vs Roger, and they do well on hard courts.
EDIT. I always forget Gaudio's 2004 RG, which is odd because I liked the guy, especially his BH. But anyway, they are not shabby on hard courts. Gaby made two USO finals, as did Delpo. They play well there.
by ti-amie
I have nothing against Pegula but how is she ranked this high? Am I missing something?
I have nothing against Pegula but how is she ranked this high? Am I missing something?
I like Pegula and it seems like when she enters a tournament she always wins a few matches in the tournaments. I rarely see her go out in the 1st round. Not sure if that is one of the reasons she creeps up in the rankings. She just never seems to do awful and she also seems and this just might be me to enter a lot of tournaments.
by ponchi101 She flipped positions with Collins. A new American #1, which is not a shabby accomplishment.
Last "1st round" exit: IW, after a real 1st round bye. If you consistently make it two or three rounds, I guess you end up at #7. She is solid. What Cuckoo says.
by Cuckoo4Coco
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 10:40 pm
She flipped positions with Collins. A new American #1, which is not a shabby accomplishment.
Last "1st round" exit: IW, after a real 1st round bye. If you consistently make it two or three rounds, I guess you end up at #7. She is solid. What Cuckoo says.
I also know Collins lost in her 1st round in her last tournament last week. It really isn't that Jess is doing a smash up job, but she does win a few matches in each tournament and I guess that is good enough to scoot up one spot or two.
by ti-amie You all are correct but this is why the WTA draws collapse during the first week of a major. Pegula in the top 20 is fine. Top ten?
by Cuckoo4Coco I don't really think that Pegula is a better player than Raducanu, Coco Gauff, Collins, Kasatkina, Bencic, Leylah, Halep, & Ostepenko. So yeah in the top 20 is about right for Jess Pegula , but not the top 10.
by JTContinental Pegula has made the QFs of two slams this year, plus the semifinals of Miami and the finals of Madrid. That's better than a top 20 performance. Since she's been working with David Witt, the level of her game has upped considerably. She's definitely a more consistent player than any of those listed above, and much less likely to have an off day.
Also, she plays every week, and the WTA ranking system greatly favors showing up for the Open(ing) of an Envelope.
by ponchi101 And remember who we have in the top 10 at the moment.
The two winningest players in that group? Mugu and Aryna: 10 tournaments wins (career). You have three players with 1 tournament win: Emma, Sakkari and Pegula. Total number of slams: 5.
And why can't Jessica be better than: Coco, Kasatkina, Bencic and Leylah? That group: highest ranking: 11, 10, 4 and 14. Ok, Bencic has done better, but the other three are about the same standard of players.
It is so even that we can be sure that by the end of the USO, we will have a total shuffle of the order in the top 10 (except Iga) because the separation between players is super slim.
by Cuckoo4Coco
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:58 pm
And remember who we have in the top 10 at the moment.
The two winningest players in that group? Mugu and Aryna: 10 tournaments wins (career). You have three players with 1 tournament win: Emma, Sakkari and Pegula. Total number of slams: 5.
And why can't Jessica be better than: Coco, Kasatkina, Bencic and Leylah? That group: highest ranking: 11, 10, 4 and 14. Ok, Bencic has done better, but the other three are about the same standard of players.
It is so even that we can be sure that by the end of the USO, we will have a total shuffle of the order in the top 10 (except Iga) because the separation between players is super slim.
Oh, Jess can be better than those players you listed for sure. Why not? You are correct that the group of players that could easily flip around in the rankings other than Iga is so huge. I really think this is why we see so many upsets in the women's tournaments because the talent is pretty close between so many of the players. Also I remember you saying to me about the Suicide game that the women's game is very difficult to beat.
by ashkor87
JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:55 pm
Pegula has made the QFs of two slams this year, plus the semifinals of Miami and the finals of Madrid. That's better than a top 20 performance. Since she's been working with David Witt, the level of her game has upped considerably. She's definitely a more consistent player than any of those listed above, and much less likely to have an off day.
Also, she plays every week, and the WTA ranking system greatly favors showing up for the Open(ing) of an Envelope.
Precisely. Rankings are about consistency, not about your peak performance...good for the game, useless for predicting performance at majors where everyone is ready and motivated.
by Cuckoo4Coco That is what I was saying about Jess. She is very consistent with every tournament she enters. She has good results even if she doesn't win the championship of the tournament. That is definitely why she is up there in the rankings.
What I was sort of saying about the players like Coco is they can show flashes of brilliant play in tournaments like in the French Open and then in her next tournament get bounced in the 1st or 2nd round. That is not going to happen with Jess because she is more consistent with her play right now . That may come to Coco, Emma, & Leylah and some of these other players.
by meganfernandez
JTContinental wrote:Pegula has made the QFs of two slams this year, plus the semifinals of Miami and the finals of Madrid. That's better than a top 20 performance. Since she's been working with David Witt, the level of her game has upped considerably. She's definitely a more consistent player than any of those listed above, and much less likely to have an off day.
Also, she plays every week, and the WTA ranking system greatly favors showing up for the Open(ing) of an Envelope.
Exactly. The rankings usually don’t lie.* Pegula has done well at the biggest events - those with the most points. In the race, she is #4 and only 30 points behind Gauff. Our eyes are the liars.
The other thing is, Swiatek and Barty are hogging a ton of points this year. Not much left over for everyone else, so you can get in the top 10 with fewer points than you needed in other years, when points were more distributed.
*Except when Slam points don’t count.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by 3mlm
JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:55 pm
Pegula has made the QFs of two slams this year, plus the semifinals of Miami and the finals of Madrid. That's better than a top 20 performance. Since she's been working with David Witt, the level of her game has upped considerably. She's definitely a more consistent player than any of those listed above, and much less likely to have an off day.
Also, she plays every week, and the WTA ranking system greatly favors showing up for the Open(ing) of an Envelope.
The WTA ranking system favors players who play 17 tournaments in a year since that's all that count in the rankings except for players who get to also count the year end championships.
Pegula played 16 tournaments in the last 52 weeks, which is fewer than anyone else in the top 10 except Swiatek who played 15.
Pegula is #4 in the YTD rankings and has played 11 tournaments this year, which is fewer than anyone else in the top 10 except Swiatek who played 10 and Collins who played 9. That's not including Wimbledon which isn't included in the rankings this year.
That's not playing "every week" or even playing more tournaments than other top players.
by JTContinental It's your 17 best, though, so if you play 24 tournaments like Paula Badosa, you can chuck out your 7 worst results, which definitely favors those that play every week. I take back what I said about Pegula being one of those players.
by ponchi101
JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:12 am
It's your 17 best, though, so if you play 24 tournaments like Paula Badosa, you can chuck out your 7 worst results, which definitely favors those that play every week. I take back what I said about Pegula being one of those players.
Ugly thought. Could that be why Badosa retires with such frequency? She knows she can do it because those retirements drop if she keeps playing?
If I remember well, the rule that it was your BEST 17 was installed precisely to encourage players to play more tournaments. During the 80's, in which the ranking was an average, and counted every single tournament played, there were a lot of incentives for Martina and Chrissie NOT to play every week (just an example). They decided to get rid of that at the time, to make them play more.
by Cuckoo4Coco It always seemed to me that Jess played a lot more tourneys, but I guess that is not the case. The main thing though is she consistently does pretty well in her tournaments that she does enter and that is what keeps her up at the top.
I really don't like the Best 17 rule basically because players can end up getting injured more frequently. Yeah, I guess the tournament organizers want top players in the tournaments, but the main thing is the safety of the players and to have them fresh for the tournaments they do enter.
by ponchi101 The "Best of 17" rule was needed when the ranking was an average, again, in the 80's. Because it was an average, if you went out in 1R, your average would take a major blow, so players were super picky of where to play. Also, an average meant that the fewer tournaments you played, the better, as your divisor was lower. It really hurt the smaller tournaments, which could not even dream of having a Navratilova, Evert, Shriver or Mandlikova in their draw.
Also, it promotes participation because if you have a couple of 1R in your results, you may say "hey, there is a 125 next week where I could do well. Let me play and drop that 1R because, the worst that can happen is that I will also lose in the 1R and remain the same".
It is a good rule, especially in the WTA, where tournaments' promotions are critical.
by Cuckoo4Coco
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:43 pm
The "Best of 17" rule was needed when the ranking was an average, again, in the 80's. Because it was an average, if you went out in 1R, your average would take a major blow, so players were super picky of where to play. Also, an average meant that the fewer tournaments you played, the better, as your divisor was lower. It really hurt the smaller tournaments, which could not even dream of having a Navratilova, Evert, Shriver or Mandlikova in their draw.
Also, it promotes participation because if you have a couple of 1R in your results, you may say "hey, there is a 125 next week where I could do well. Let me play and drop that 1R because, the worst that can happen is that I will also lose in the 1R and remain the same".
It is a good rule, especially in the WTA, where tournaments' promotions are critical.
I suppose looking at it that way is good, but players playing a lot of tourneys has to tire them out and then there is the risk for injury. I guess players still pick and choose the tournaments they want to play, especially the top players so they can stay fresh and at the same time prepare for the major tournaments.
by meganfernandez
Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:48 pm
I guess players still pick and choose the tournaments that give them appearance fees they want to play....
Fixed. Pegula, of course, doesn't need the money, and most Top 10 players don't, but some are still motivated by money. A lot of factors that go into scheduling, but I think in the Top 10-15 it's about preparing for majors the best they can, while fulfilling tour and sponsor obligations. A lot of players also talk about playing in as many different locations/events as possible throughout their career. For instance, everyone wants to experience Charleston as some point because the tournament has a great reputation. And some players like to visit new places while they have the chance.
Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:48 pm
I guess players still pick and choose the tournaments that give them appearance fees they want to play....
Fixed. Pegula, of course, doesn't need the money, and most Top 10 players don't, but some are still motivated by money. A lot of factors that go into scheduling, but I think in the Top 10-15 it's about preparing for majors the best they can, while fulfilling tour and sponsor obligations. A lot of players also talk about playing in as many different locations/events as possible throughout their career. For instance, everyone wants to experience Charleston as some point because the tournament has a great reputation. And some players like to visit new places while they have the chance.
This is off-topic from rankings, but dovetails.
I hear many players talk about when they are at different places in the world they love eating at all the different places.
Not going to predict a John Isner upset by Ben Shelton, but I will predict that Shelton will make it a tough match. If and this is a huge if , Isner does not serve well Shelton has a shot. He can hit the strokes with Isner.
Surely he won't get a wild card into DC, right? Maybe qualifying? It's a 500. He could probably get wild cards into Lexington and Chicago Challengers before the Open. Maybe Cincy qualies?
Surely he won't get a wild card into DC, right? Maybe qualifying? It's a 500. He could probably get wild cards into Lexington and Chicago Challengers before the Open. Maybe Cincy qualies?
I doubt a WC in DC. I hope these tournaments leading to the USO see the potential of Shelton and do give him WC entries because I think he will do well and make the tournaments exciting.
by patrick If Shelton makes SF, special exemption is possible
by Cuckoo4Coco
patrick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 4:56 pm
If Shelton makes SF, special exemption is possible
If he can somehow get by John isner which is going to be a tough task the tournament is starting to open up with the withdrawals of Kyrgios and Olpeka. So you never know. The other college guy from Georgia Tech Andres Martin who also won his ATP debut in Atlanta could also win his next match as well.
by ti-amieCurrent Women's Singles Ranking
Monday 7/25/2022
1 Iga Świątek 8336
2 Anett Kontaveit 4476
3 Maria Sakkari 4190
4 Paula Badosa 4030
5 Ons Jabeur 4010
6 Aryna Sabalenka 3267
7 Jessica Pegula 3087
8 Garbiñe Muguruza 2886
9 Danielle Collins 2743
10 Emma Raducanu 2717
by Owendonovan Do I remember correctly that there was a time when the WTA awarded more points for beating higher ranked players?
by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:19 pm
Do I remember correctly that there was a time when the WTA awarded more points for beating higher ranked players?
In the 80's. There were BONUS points for beating a higher seed. Beating Navratilova could be as much as 50 points, as she was #1.
But it was a mess. Somebody beating Navs could make more points with that victory than a semifinalists at the same event. Then, it was only if you beat a HIGHER ranked player, meaning Navs (or Evert, pretty much) could never collect any points. Then it was the thing that if Evert beat Navs in the final, she would collect the extra 50 points, but if it was the other way around, Navs could not collect Chrissie's 49.
It was a noble idea that was completely impossible to implement. There were always too many nuances.
Plus, remember that at the time, the ranking was based on an Average; Martina had to be guaranteed her average because her average was so high if she played smaller and mid grade tournaments and still won them, her average would drop because the points given by the tournament (a 125, for example) were less than her average. She was so good and so far above everybody else other than Chris that any formula to make it more fair ended up hurting her ranking.
Indeed, but perhaps at this stage more illustrative would be race rankings. Here is the top 10
Iga Swiatek 7350
Ons Jabeur 2991
Coco Gauff 2263
Jessica Pegula 2262
Maria Sakkari 2183
Daria Kasatkina 2127
Paula Badosa 2009
Belinda Bencic 1876
Veronika Kudermetiva 1784
Danielle Collins 1757
----
Anett Kontaveit 1736
Madison Keys 1733
by meganfernandez Taro Daniel is now the #1 male player in Japan, taking over from Nishioka, just two places behind him. Nishikori is down to #160. He held on to the #1 ranking in Japan for at least a decade.
by Cuckoo4Coco
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 5:51 pm
Taro Daniel is now the #1 male player in Japan, taking over from Nishioka, just two places behind him. Nishikori is down to #160. He held on to the #1 ranking in Japan for at least a decade.
I was actually shocked he lost his 1st round match yesterday to J.J.Wolf, and in the fashion he did at 6-2, 6-3.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 That's a long drought. I did not realize that.
That is a strong possibility with the #2 seed in Hubert Hurkacz already out, and the #1 seed is Rublev and anything can happen with him. That would leave Taylor Fritz the top seeded player in the tournament.
by ti-amie
by ashkor87 something seems drastically wrong with the WTA rankings.. I think the real problem is that 4 of the top 5 arent performing - as senior management, they would be fired!
#2 Kontaveit? hasnt done anything since 2021,
#3 Sakkari, #4 Badosa - over-rated, not really that good
#5 Jabeur may be ok
#6 -Sabalenka.. how on earth?
#7 -Pegula - consistent, middle of the pack, not really top-10 class
#8 - Muguruza - has doen nothing since winning the YEC
#9 - Collins, yes, she is a top 5 player
I would posit that as of now (last day of San Jose), the top 10 are, in no particular order:
Swiatek, Rybakina, Osaka, Gauff, Bencic, Leylah, Kasatkina, Jabeur, collins - if we insist on 10, maybe Anisimova (though I think she will not do well till the clay court season or, at least, Indian Wells)..
THe ATP rankings are messed up because of the ban and the vaccine issue, but otherwise it seems ok, except for Sinner being too low..
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:22 am
something seems drastically wrong with the WTA rankings.. I think the real problem is that 4 of the top 5 arent performing - as senior management, they would be fired!
#2 Kontaveit? hasnt done anything since 2021,
#3 Sakkari, #4 Badosa - over-rated, not really that good
#5 Jabeur may be ok
#6 -Sabalenka.. how on earth?
#7 -Pegula - consistent, middle of the pack, not really top-10 class
#8 - Muguruza - has doen nothing since winning the YEC
#9 - Collins, yes, she is a top 5 player
I would posit that as of now (last day of San Jose), the top 10 are, in no particular order:
Swiatek, Rybakina, Osaka, Gauff, Bencic, Leylah, Kasatkina, Jabeur, collins - if we insist on 10, maybe Anisimova (though I think she will not do well till the clay court season or, at least, Indian Wells)..
THe ATP rankings are messed up because of the ban and the vaccine issue, but otherwise it seems ok, except for Sinner being too low..
What you write there ^ makes no sense to me at all, ashkor.
Where do I begin...?
Firstly, as you know, the rankings are indicative of how the player in question has done over the past year, and not on how they've done only in the past 3 months, or on how many Majors they won 3 years ago. Although you obviously know this, you don't seem to understand or accept it, as you are very often criticizing the rankings in the same manner.
You should really start your own rankings system - one which ignores everything except for the most recent 3 months and the 4 Majors!
Kontaveit: She had a great end of 2021. She was the best player in the world over a period of 2 months or so at that time. Therefore, she is #2 now, largely on the strength of that.
Osaka: What has she done recently for you to include her in your CURRENT top 10? I can't think of anything outstanding she's done in the past year. What a player has done in the past, and what they have the 'potential' to do in the future, should not be considered in determining the rankings. Only results over the past year should be considered.
Leylah: She hasn't played a match in 2 months, and no-one knows how she'll play in the coming weeks after the foot injury, in addition to the rust of not playing for a long time - yet she is part of your current top 10, ahead of players who've actually played in those 2 months that Leylah has not played.
Raducanu: In all of your criticism of players 'not deserving' of their ranking, you completely omit the most glaring and obvious example of a player who 'doesn't deserve' her ranking - Raducanu. She is in the top 10 right now, even though she has done absolutely nothing noticeable in the past 11 months - with the exception of an unusually high number of withdrawals and in-match retirements. But you don't mention her at all in your 'not deserving of her ranking' criticism because she is one of your favourites. If you're going to make a personal assessment of the rankings, that's fine - and it's fine for people to agree or to disagree with you - but at least make an attempt to be somewhat fair and objective, and not 'play favourites'.
by ashkor87 My rankings are not based on performance, neither recent nor last year's.. peak potential moderated by 'any reason to think otherwise' is how I put it. Raducanu needs a fast court, she would have done better at San Jose than Washington.. and she wont get the kind of conditions she thrives in, till the USO (that too, only if they leave the court alone and dont slow it down). Let us agree to disagree.... what is the point of calling Kontaveit #2, for instance? Can she actually beat any of the players I listed in my top 9, if they should meet in the near future? I doubt it.
by Deuce You know that the rankings are not based on 'who can or can't beat who'.
It seems that you are saying that if Player A has a losing record against Player B, then Player A should never be ranked above Player B, regardless of their other results.
And if Raducanu requires a very specific type of court to play well, then she would be quite one-dimensional, would she not be? So for Raducanu only, her ranking should be based only on her performances on fast hardcourts, while the results of the other players on all surfaces must be counted?
That's another element of your ranking system - some players should only be assessed on the surface on which they play best, with their results on other surfaces being dismissed.
Hmmm....
And - again - in determining 'your rankings', you are also putting the emphases on results from long ago combined with what you feel is a player's potential.
None of it makes sense to me.
by ashkor87 let us take them one at a time. I will try to explain..
I assume there is no issue with Swiatek being #1.
Osaka - she is a 4-time major champion, had mental health issues, is clearly over them now. There is nothing wrong with her game, she is playing herself back into form.
Rybakina - no comment necessary. I have always considered her a future champion, she has now proved it.
Gauff - still has weaknesses but has shown the ability to beat good players in big events,
Bencic - again, a top performer a couple years ago, nothing is wrong with her or her game, given the right conditions, namely a fast court, she will do well again.
Leylah - performed above expectations at the French, beating people like Anisimova whom she should not be able to beat. seems to have recovered from injury, so no reason to think she cannot reach that level again. Great player on fast courts, see the match against Osaka in last year's USO.. the match looks like a ping-pong game.
I could go on but I think the reasoning is pretty clear. If you dont agree, tell me why.
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:06 am
let us take them one at a time. I will try to explain..
I assume there is no issue with Swiatek being #1.
Osaka - she is a 4-time major champion, had mental health issues, is clearly over them now. There is nothing wrong with her game, she is playing herself back into form.
Rybakina - no comment necessary. I have always considered her a future champion, she has now proved it.
Gauff - still has weaknesses but has shown the ability to beat good players in big events,
Bencic - again, a top performer a couple years ago, nothing is wrong with her or her game, given the right conditions, namely a fast court, she will do well again.
Leylah - performed above expectations at the French, beating people like Anisimova whom she should not be able to beat. seems to have recovered from injury, so no reason to think she cannot reach that level again. Great player on fast courts, see the match against Osaka in last year's USO.. the match looks like a ping-pong game.
I could go on but I think the reasoning is pretty clear. If you dont agree, tell me why.
^ I believe I've already done that in my previous 2 posts, ashkor...
by ponchi101 By this stage of the season, as Suliso said in a post above, perhaps you also need to look at the RACE, not just the ranking. In there, you can see that Jabeur is #2, even without the Wimby finals' points. Pegula is a clean #4, Badosa and Sakkari 7 & 5.
Sure, Sabalenka, Pliskova and Muguruza are in the rankings, despite having done nothing for the year. But that is what the rankings are about. What would you do? Ons reaches the Wimbledon final. She is playing well. But then, she loses her second match at San Diego. Do you drop her out of the top ten? She won Madrid, has been playing well, is at a career high.
The ranking can't be a knee jerk mechanism. "Oh, Rybakina won Wimbledon. She is #1". It can't work that way. This is not a car race in which the person leading is, well, the person leading. It doesn't matter who just raced the fastest lap. The ranking says what the players have done over the last 52 weeks. I agree, Muguruza has done nothing THIS YEAR to be there, but she won Guadalajara. You just can't drop her out of the top 10 just like that.
And about Naomi. I hope you are right, and her mental health issues are over. But it may also mean she has a different perspective, and that may not be good for her tennis. Might be very good for her life, and those things are connected, but are not necessarily parallel.
by ponchi101 And sometimes, the rankings get it right. Or give you proper indications.
Rybakina won Wimby. She obviously cannot be the #26 player in the world, right? No way.
But look a her results. She lost to Kasatkina last week, and today was taken to three sets by a player ranked #47. A good match, evenly played. Had Rybakina been able to collect the 2,000 points from W, she would have been ranked around #6, and we would be wondering what is happening, coming up with a lot of possible explanations.
Now, no. She is a very fine player, a Slam champion, but she is around #25. And the ranking tells us that.
by Deuce And if Rybakina would have had the points from Wimbledon, she may have been seeded at Toronto (depending on when the entry cutoff was)... and so she'd have easier 1st and 2nd round matches in theory - and so would avoid early round matches with players like Kasatkina.
by ashkor87 just checked - Sakkari, ranked #3, maybe 4 in the world! has won exactly 1 tournament in her life.. in Morocco, in 2019. Tells me something about the rankings.!
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:40 am
just checked - Sakkari, ranked #3, maybe 4 in the world! has won exactly 1 tournament in her life.. in Morocco, in 2019. Tells me something about the rankings.!
Rankings reward consistency. She's made enough deep runs.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:40 am
just checked - Sakkari, ranked #3, maybe 4 in the world! has won exactly 1 tournament in her life.. in Morocco, in 2019. Tells me something about the rankings.!
Rankings reward consistency. She's made enough deep runs.
Consistency doesn't help you win a given match, especially against a good player in a big match .but we have talked about this. I was just shocked at Sakkari, I don't think I would rate her even in my top 20 at this rate..
by ponchi101 What is your opinion of FAA? Not only he has won only 1 tournament all his life, he is 1-9 in tournament finals. Yet, he is ranked 9th in the world.
You have been talking about the rankings. But, what is your proposal? For example, for the MS1000's in both tours, and since you are talking about the fact that Sakkari has won only one tournament in her life, do you propose that the tournament indeed gives 1000 points to the winner, but a considerable lower number for every other result? 200 points for the finalist, 75 for the SF's, and so on?
The rankings are the way that the seedings were corrected. We are old enough to remember how seedings, prior to the creation of the ATP and WTA, and the pro tours, were simply the whim of the tournament director. That had to go. So, what should be done with Sakkari? Or, you recently also mentioned Badosa. She has 3 total tournaments. Ons has three, Pegula has 1, Raducanu has 1, Kontaveit looks like a Steffi Graf in comparison, with 6, Aryna and Garbie have 10.
Serious question: what would you do with the rankings? Shorten the window of calculation to the last 6 months? (That would leave, sometimes during the year, to only TWO Slams being counted for your ranking). Further increase the points for winners, and drop them for the rest of the rounds? Would you include the number of tournaments you have won in your entire career, in some fancy calculation?
You say you would not rank Sakkari in the top 20. You mean you can name 20 players that are clearly better than her? Sure, I don't think she is the greatest player ever (except amongst Greek women), but it is not as if the woman is clueless out there.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:34 pm
What is your opinion of FAA? Not only he has won only 1 tournament all his life, he is 1-9 in tournament finals. Yet, he is ranked 9th in the world.
You have been talking about the rankings. But, what is your proposal? For example, for the MS1000's in both tours, and since you are talking about the fact that Sakkari has won only one tournament in her life, do you propose that the tournament indeed gives 1000 points to the winner, but a considerable lower number for every other result? 200 points for the finalist, 75 for the SF's, and so on?
The rankings are the way that the seedings were corrected. We are old enough to remember how seedings, prior to the creation of the ATP and WTA, and the pro tours, were simply the whim of the tournament director. That had to go. So, what should be done with Sakkari? Or, you recently also mentioned Badosa. She has 3 total tournaments. Ons has three, Pegula has 1, Raducanu has 1, Kontaveit looks like a Steffi Graf in comparison, with 6, Aryna and Garbie have 10.
Serious question: what would you do with the rankings? Shorten the window of calculation to the last 6 months? (That would leave, sometimes during the year, to only TWO Slams being counted for your ranking). Further increase the points for winners, and drop them for the rest of the rounds? Would you include the number of tournaments you have won in your entire career, in some fancy calculation?
You say you would not rank Sakkari in the top 20. You mean you can name 20 players that are clearly better than her? Sure, I don't think she is the greatest player ever (except amongst Greek women), but it is not as if the woman is clueless out there.
Reducing points for rounds other than winner would disincentive top players from entering tournaments. The tour needs to incentive top players to play as much as possible.
I'm surprised anyone obsesses over the rankings. Every ranking system is a value system, reflective and not predictive. I guess the discussion is about the values. I don't have any problem with them. I don't think winning a title should be valued any more than it is. It's just one more match.
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:34 pmWhat is your opinion of FAA? Not only he has won only 1 tournament all his life, he is 1-9 in tournament finals. Yet, he is ranked 9th in the world.
You have been talking about the rankings. But, what is your proposal? For example, for the MS1000's in both tours, and since you are talking about the fact that Sakkari has won only one tournament in her life, do you propose that the tournament indeed gives 1000 points to the winner, but a considerable lower number for every other result? 200 points for the finalist, 75 for the SF's, and so on?
The rankings are the way that the seedings were corrected. We are old enough to remember how seedings, prior to the creation of the ATP and WTA, and the pro tours, were simply the whim of the tournament director. That had to go. So, what should be done with Sakkari? Or, you recently also mentioned Badosa. She has 3 total tournaments. Ons has three, Pegula has 1, Raducanu has 1, Kontaveit looks like a Steffi Graf in comparison, with 6, Aryna and Garbie have 10.
Serious question: what would you do with the rankings? Shorten the window of calculation to the last 6 months? (That would leave, sometimes during the year, to only TWO Slams being counted for your ranking). Further increase the points for winners, and drop them for the rest of the rounds? Would you include the number of tournaments you have won in your entire career, in some fancy calculation?
You say you would not rank Sakkari in the top 20. You mean you can name 20 players that are clearly better than her? Sure, I don't think she is the greatest player ever (except amongst Greek women), but it is not as if the woman is clueless out there.
I was very surprised to see FAA in the top ten to be honest.
Sakkari, from what I've seen, has thought herself out of a lot of her matches.
I don't know what to do to fix the rankings system but right now the rankings mean absolutely nothing with a few major exceptions of course.
by ponchi101 That is where we disagree. The rankings are telling us a lot. They are telling us that, in both tours, the parity is immense.
In the WTA, you take out IGA, and everybody is basically a #2. In the men's, take out Novak, Rafa and Daniil, and everybody is also packed together. Seeing as Rafa and Noval will retire sooner than the rest, the ranking is telling us what we will see soon.
by Canucklehead I agree with ponchi101, there are many players on both sides of the tours that on any given day can defeat one another. Yes there is Novak, Rafa, and Daniil on the men's side who have an advantage and even Iga on the women's side, but beyond that it is anyone's match to win on any given day. Watching most of these matches, and trying to figure out some sort of continuity to it all is utterly impossible.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie So far all of the four 4 players recently ranked #2 are pur in Toronto. Krejcikova was out in Round 1. Badosa, Kontaveit, Jabeur exited in Round 2. None of the four won a set.
by ponchi101 We have been talking about slumps recently, yet we have not mentioned Kontaveit's. She is also going nowhere, fast.
by Canucklehead Ups and downs seems the name of the game in the women's game, unless your name is Iga Swiatek in which you have stayed pretty consistent at the top. The rest of these players at the top are either new and attempting to make a name for themselves there or they are struggling to stay there.
by ashkor87 re the Parity thing:
I do think there is parity but only outside the top. Within the top,one can see some layers, within each of which there could be some parity:
the top layer is Swiatek, all by herself
then comes Osaka, Rybakina, Halep (if she is well and fit)
Gauff is knocking at the doors of this level, though a bit tentatively
the next layer is Kasatkina, Bencic, Leylah, Jabeur, Andreescu, Collins (hope she recovers from her ailment), Ostapenko
Raducanu on a fast surface, not otherwise
then comes a layer consisting of Badosa, Sakkari, Pliskova, Anisimova, maybe Sabalenka, Kudermetova
Samsonova and Alexandrova are knocking on the doors of this layer by now.
generally speaking, a player from a given layer will not beat a player in the layer above (though there are exceptions - for instance, Ostapenko can beat anyone on a given day).
I would say this is more likely to hold than the rankings
by ponchi101 Ok. Let's follow your idea.
How do you translate this layering into an actionable, objective method for players to enter a tournament?
To give you an example.
You know we are playing this contest called HRtNY. Of the top 15 players, Kontaveit, Muguruza and Bencic have been picked BY NO ONE. So, the opinion of about 10 players is that indeed, Kontaveit is not a #2. Nor 3, nor 4, 5, 6, etc.
But, we took Osaka and Rybakina (some did, like myself) but it was only because, I guess, they were in the B category, and were, therefore, "cheap". But there is no way I would have picked Osaka had she been a top 15 player. She has done nothing in a long time.
And I will spot you for this, which I consider a contradiction. You said Sakkari was not a top 20 player. Yet you put her in a fourth layer, with the sum of those 4 layers coming up to 19 players. Therefore, she is top 20.
And Halep as a player in the class below Iga? Sure, she won W in 2019. But she has dropped all the way to 15. That is extremely generous and it seems to me to be a fan speaking.
by Canucklehead
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:58 am
Ok. Let's follow your idea.
How do you translate this layering into an actionable, objective method for players to enter a tournament?
To give you an example.
You know we are playing this contest called HRtNY. Of the top 15 players, Kontaveit, Muguruza and Bencic have been picked BY NO ONE. So, the opinion of about 10 players is that indeed, Kontaveit is not a #2. Nor 3, nor 4, 5, 6, etc.
But, we took Osaka and Rybakina (some did, like myself) but it was only because, I guess, they were in the B category, and were, therefore, "cheap". But there is no way I would have picked Osaka had she been a top 15 player. She has done nothing in a long time.
And I will spot you for this, which I consider a contradiction. You said Sakkari was not a top 20 player. Yet you put her in a fourth layer, with the sum of those 4 layers coming up to 19 players. Therefore, she is top 20.
And Halep as a player in the class below Iga? Sure, she won W in 2019. But she has dropped all the way to 15. That is extremely generous and it seems to me to be a fan speaking.
I was glancing at this theory, and primarily was looking at the player Ons Jabeur who was in one of the lower layers listed. I cannot fathom the idea that at this time, Ons Jabeur would consistently be defeated by any of those players not named Iga that have been named in layers above her.
The 3 players listed in the tier right below Iga are Osaka and Halep, both of whom have had really nice careers, but are not at that 2nd tier level in their games right now. Rybakina was the other player listed, and granted she won Wimbledon, but what has she done beyond that?
by ashkor87 I do think Jabeur would be defeated by Osaka, Rybakina..Halep .
As for Sakkari, yes maybe she is #19 but I have probably forgotten one or two ..like Cornet, whom I would rate above Sakkari right now .
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:58 am
Ok. Let's follow your idea.
How do you translate this layering into an actionable, objective method for players to enter a tournament?
To give you an example.
You know we are playing this contest called HRtNY. Of the top 15 players, Kontaveit, Muguruza and Bencic have been picked BY NO ONE. So, the opinion of about 10 players is that indeed, Kontaveit is not a #2. Nor 3, nor 4, 5, 6, etc.
But, we took Osaka and Rybakina (some did, like myself) but it was only because, I guess, they were in the B category, and were, therefore, "cheap". But there is no way I would have picked Osaka had she been a top 15 player. She has done nothing in a long time.
And I will spot you for this, which I consider a contradiction. You said Sakkari was not a top 20 player. Yet you put her in a fourth layer, with the sum of those 4 layers coming up to 19 players. Therefore, she is top 20.
And Halep as a player in the class below Iga? Sure, she won W in 2019. But she has dropped all the way to 15. That is extremely generous and it seems to me to be a fan speaking.
I am .not playing but overlooking Bencic, one of the best hard court players in the world, seems to be a mistake!
by ashkor87 What to do about rankings,? Ignore them, I would say. Focus on how good the player is, how well she can play, how well is she playing, is there any reason to think she has lost it...
by ponchi101 Ah, but then we are talking about two separate things.
The rankings are the measure for an entire year of performance, and we agree there. Prior to Roland Garros, Rafa had a lousy clay court season. Yet, when RG started, everybody said, from the start, that the real final was his QF vs Novak. And we were mostly right.
I find your idea that Osaka is a second tier player, at the moment, driven by past results. Nobody is denying Osaka, when she was #1, was an absolute force. But right now, it has been two years of turmoil, and no results to speak of. So, her ranking around the 40's is granted and those of us that took her in our teams are now paying for it, as she is not producing.
Bencic as one of the world's best hard court players is also generous of you. Belinda has never reached an MS1000 final, much less win one. Sure, it is her best surface, but that does not make her one of the best. Although I think this week she plays until she meets Iga.
Half joke here. If you ignore the rankings, why are you bringing them up so frequently? I say don't ignore them; they are telling us about the great parity. But when somebody reaches #2, you also have to give them credit. These men and women have worked all their lives for these positions. I say, they have earned them.
Until we find a better system.
by ashkor87 Bencic is also Olympic champion, something I had predicted too, sort of, anyway
by ashkor87 And bencic won the Premier level Canadian in 2015, beating Serena ..never won a Ms1000,?! That is only because they were called Premier events then..also Dubai, then called a Premier 5
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:48 am
What to do about rankings,? Ignore them, I would say. Focus on how good the player is, how well she can play, how well is she playing, is there any reason to think she has lost it...
Accept them for what they are. Realize they're an objective, foolproof expression of a subjective value system. The results can serve as a point of reflection to evaluate that system, but one should articulate their values first without bias and defer to those when they don't like the results.
An example: The magazine where I used to work came up with a formula for evaluating schools. A formula is an expression of values. Once they applied the formula, they didn't like the results - a certain prestigious private school was ranked lower than a school that wasn't respected as much. They thought surely that can't be right. They had a bias. So they revisited the formula. Surely they hadn't expressed their values correctly. Should the average SAT scores count double? Should the graduation rate count less? That's fine as long as they remained unbiased to the result and weren't trying to find a formula that put the prestigious school over the underdog. There can be a control in these situations, but I think there's a science to that. And these editors were definitely not scientists. You can very easily abandon the truth for a preconception.
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:55 pm
And bencic won the Premier level Canadian in 2015, beating Serena ..never won a Ms1000,?! That is only because they were called Premier events then..also Dubai, then called a Premier 5
Yes, that would be semantics from my side. I did not look that up, and you are correct there.
by ti-amie
by skatingfan Coco Gauff will be #1 in doubles if she & Pegula win the title in Toronto.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:55 pm
And bencic won the Premier level Canadian in 2015, beating Serena ..never won a Ms1000,?! That is only because they were called Premier events then..also Dubai, then called a Premier 5
Yes, that would be semantics from my side. I did not look that up, and you are correct there.
The WTA still doesn't call them Masters tournaments. They're called WTA1000 tournaments. The Masters Series is solely ATP.
I'm not sure the WTA wants to call any of their tournaments "Masters Tournaments."
by ponchi101 I don't see a problem, but marketing is important. WTA1000 is good enough for me. It says how many points they are getting. Good enough.
by Suliso It is, but her opinion is colored by her already illustrious career. A young player would likely have a different opinion.
by Suliso Gauff is no longer the youngest player in the top 100. That honor now goes to 17 year old Linda Noskova. There are several other teenagers in the top 100, but they all will turn 20 before the end of the year.
For men there are two teenagers in the top 100 - Carlos Alcaraz and Holger Rune. Only slightly older (20) are Lorenzo Musetti, Jack Draper and Jiri Lehecka.
by AcesAnnie
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:09 am
Gauff is no longer the youngest player in the top 100. That honor now goes to 17 year old Linda Noskova. There are several other teenagers in the top 100, but they all will turn 20 before the end of the year.
For men there are two teenagers in the top 100 - Carlos Alcaraz and Holger Rune. Only slightly older (20) are Lorenzo Musetti, Jack Draper and Jiri Lehecka.
Linda Noskova is very talented from the little I have seen her play. I look forward to seeing more from her.
by martini4me
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:43 pm
I don't see a problem, but marketing is important. WTA1000 is good enough for me. It says how many points they are getting. Good enough.
Except not necessarily. Only Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Beijing are worth 1000 points for the winners. The other five "WTA1000" are only worth 900 points.
And the WTA500 and WTA250 give 470 and 280 points respectively to the winners, just as they did before the renaming.
Go figure.
by ponchi101 Thanks for explaining that, because I would have never thought so.
by martini4me So Coric is ranked high enough to be seeded at the US Open. Except (I believe) he will have to go through qualifying.
Even if he qualifies, is he able to be seeded? Do they name the seeds and/or do the draw before qualifying finishes?
by ponchi101 Let's hope they have the sensible idea of having a WC still available. That scenario would be silly.
by skatingfan
martini4me wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:56 pm
So Coric is ranked high enough to be seeded at the US Open. Except (I believe) he will have to go through qualifying.
Even if he qualifies, is he able to be seeded? Do they name the seeds and/or do the draw before qualifying finishes?
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:58 pm
Let's hope they have the sensible idea of having a WC still available. That scenario would be silly.
Coric is on the entry list using his protected ranking, so being seeded based on tomorrow's ranking shouldn't be an issue.
by martini4me Okay, good. I had forgotten about the protected rankings when I first posted that. Then I heard them say he'd gotten into Cincinnati using protected ranking, and so I went and checked the entry list on the US Open thread here. For some reason, I missed him at the bottom of the list of direct entries, along with the other protected ranking players (Bedene, Wawrinka and Edmund).
by Suliso Rankings may or may not matter to players, but seeded over unseeded does make a difference.
by ponchi101 In a nutshell, why they are needed. It was very open in the 60's that the seeding at a tournament was, frequently, done on who would smooch to the organizers the best.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:52 pm
Rankings may or may not matter to players, but seeded over unseeded does make a difference.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 22, 2022 7:08 pm
In a nutshell, why they are needed. It was very open in the 60's that the seeding at a tournament was, frequently, done on who would smooch to the organizers the best.
I think rankings are necessary. They have an important practical use. In any competition, you have to track performance. But they have limited predictive value.
I don't know if Petra means that rankings aren't important to her anymore personally, as a goal, or that they don't have predictive value.
by Suliso Rankings are also a must because there has to be a way to determine eligibility for tournament entry. Rankings are way more important below ca 30. Petra has a luxury of saying that she doesn't care. Most tennis professionals can't afford that.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote:Rankings are also a must because there has to be a way to determine eligibility for tournament entry. Rankings are way more important below ca 30. Petra has a luxury of saying that she doesn't care. Most tennis professionals can't afford that.
Yea true. She has earned that luxury.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by Suliso The current candidates for WTA finals (top 8 plus those with min 2,000 points):
Nadal (Q)
Tsitsipas
Alcaraz
Ruud
Medvedev
Auger-Aliassime
Rublev
Zverev
...
Hurkacz
Fritz
Norrie
Carreno Busta
by skatingfan Raducanu down to at least #80 dropping 2030 points, and at least 69 places in the rankings.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:00 pm
The current candidates for WTA finals (top 8 plus those with min 2,000 points):
Nadal (Q)
Tsitsipas
Alcaraz
Ruud
Medvedev
Auger-Aliassime
Rublev
Zverev
...
Hurkacz
Fritz
Norrie
Carreno Busta
I wonder if Nadal will play, since his baby will be born by then. Zverev probably won't. Tsitsipas should be DQ'd for his performance last night.
by ponchi101 Tsistsipas did his usual schizoid routine. A bad match, then a very thoughtful press in which he admitted to have expected not much from his opponent, and paid the price.
These new top players are difficult to understand.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:34 am
Tsistsipas did his usual schizoid routine. A bad match, then a very thoughtful press in which he admitted to have expected not much from his opponent, and paid the price.
These new top players are difficult to understand.
Not expecting much from the opponent doesn't really explain losing 11 straight games, and then winning the 3rd set.
by dryrunguy
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:34 am
Tsistsipas did his usual schizoid routine. A bad match, then a very thoughtful press in which he admitted to have expected not much from his opponent, and paid the price.
These new top players are difficult to understand.
He was simply miffed because his opponent was permitted to receive the same amount of coaching he always got before it was actually allowed.
by ashkor87 The pathetic performance of high seeds like Kontaveit, Sakkari, Badosa should really make the WTA think about shaking up their ranking algorithm...the older system of weighting points by recency is something that should be considered . ..for instance, points from week 52 ago could be weighted lowest, last week's results highest...it would need the WTA to update the calculation every week, but they already do that..may be worth seeing what such a system would yield as rankings..I haven't the data to do it, but it would make a big difference, I expect. Right now the cutoff of 52 weeks is anyway arbitrary...
by ponchi101 There is no algorithm. Points are just added. In the past, it was an average, and we know what happened then: Martina had such a high average that if she were to play a smaller tournament, AND WIN, her average would drop. There was a reason why that was scrapped.
Remind me when was it that there was a weighting points system. I really can't recall that.
The 52 weeks is not arbitrary. It is the number of weeks in a year. A simple, technical thing.
And a quick example of what would happen if weighted points are used. The points from last year USO would be worth the lowest by now; Emma and Leylah would basically not have been seeded, because their points would have been erased. So, a good USO showing from last year would, by now, mean nothing. I wonder how would players feel about that.
And if you think Kontaveit's loss to Serena was pathetic, well, many people would disagree. In the same way Alize drawing Emma was a very fortunate draw, Anett drawing Serena was the worst possible.
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 1:18 pm
The pathetic performance of high seeds like Kontaveit, Sakkari, Badosa should really make the WTA think about shaking up their ranking algorithm...the older system of weighting points by recency is something that should be considered . ..for instance, points from week 52 ago could be weighted lowest, last week's results highest...it would need the WTA to update the calculation every week, but they already do that..may be worth seeing what such a system would yield as rankings..I haven't the data to do it, but it would make a big difference, I expect. Right now the cutoff of 52 weeks is anyway arbitrary...
What would your current Top 10 look like and why? What period would it reflect?
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 1:18 pm
The pathetic performance of high seeds like Kontaveit, Sakkari, Badosa should really make the WTA think about shaking up their ranking algorithm...the older system of weighting points by recency is something that should be considered . ..for instance, points from week 52 ago could be weighted lowest, last week's results highest...it would need the WTA to update the calculation every week, but they already do that..may be worth seeing what such a system would yield as rankings..I haven't the data to do it, but it would make a big difference, I expect. Right now the cutoff of 52 weeks is anyway arbitrary...
Yes... and while we're at it, let's completely modify the standings in baseball, football, hockey, soccer, and basketball, too.
Oh... and golf, of course...
Because in those sports, teams can get out to huge leads by winning many more games than other teams over the first, say, 2 months of the season, and then play worse than other teams, but still win their division because of their earlier success, etc.
Screenshot 2022-09-02 181133.jpg
The first column is the current rankings. Then, I was not going to go month by month, I did it by quarter. Points from the last three months retain all their value, from the previous quarter retain 0.75, then 0.5 and then 0.25.
The first table is sorted by the current ranking, the second by the proposed one.
So.
Iga remains #1. That was easy.
Ons moves to #2. Ok, that could be true.
Then, you would get KASATKINA, 1st round loser, at #3. For a player that lost in 1R of the last two MS1000.
Pegula moves to #4. Feels a bit odd, but nothing crazy.
Halep moves to #5. Another first round loser, and Cincy 2R loser. And a player that has done nothing at slams this year.
Sabalenka remains at 6.
Then you get the same order of Kontaveit, Sakkari and Badosa.
Muguruza would be out of the top 10, and certainly of the top 30.
Coco would most certainly be in the top 10, both due to Muguruza's drop and her RG final points. Emma and Leylah would have not been seeded. HaddadMaia would be about to enter the top 10.
If this was the rankings, would you agree to that order? Because there is no way that Kasatkina is the world #3. Or Halep #5.
-->
by ponchi101 Ok, Ashkor, I did it for you. Here is a proposed weighted ranking:
Screenshot 2022-09-02 181133.jpg
The first column is the current rankings. Then, I was not going to go month by month, I did it by quarter. Points from the last three months retain all their value, from the previous quarter retain 0.75, then 0.5 and then 0.25.
The first table is sorted by the current ranking, the second by the proposed one.
So.
Iga remains #1. That was easy.
Ons moves to #2. Ok, that could be true.
Then, you would get KASATKINA, 1st round loser, at #3. For a player that lost in 1R of the last two MS1000.
Pegula moves to #4. Feels a bit odd, but nothing crazy.
Halep moves to #5. Another first round loser, and Cincy 2R loser. And a player that has done nothing at slams this year.
Sabalenka remains at 6.
Then you get the same order of Kontaveit, Sakkari and Badosa.
Muguruza would be out of the top 10, and certainly of the top 30.
Coco would most certainly be in the top 10, both due to Muguruza's drop and her RG final points. Emma and Leylah would have not been seeded. HaddadMaia would be about to enter the top 10.
If this was the rankings, would you agree to that order? Because there is no way that Kasatkina is the world #3. Or Halep #5.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:25 pm
Ok, Ashkor, I did it for you. Here is a proposed weighted ranking:
Screenshot 2022-09-02 181133.jpg
The first column is the current rankings. Then, I was not going to go month by month, I did it by quarter. Points from the last three months retain all their value, from the previous quarter retain 0.75, then 0.5 and then 0.25.
The first table is sorted by the current ranking, the second by the proposed one.
So.
Iga remains #1. That was easy.
Ons moves to #2. Ok, that could be true.
Then, you would get KASATKINA, 1st round loser, at #3. For a player that lost in 1R of the last two MS1000.
Pegula moves to #4. Feels a bit odd, but nothing crazy.
Halep moves to #5. Another first round loser, and Cincy 2R loser. And a player that has done nothing at slams this year.
Sabalenka remains at 6.
Then you get the same order of Kontaveit, Sakkari and Badosa.
Muguruza would be out of the top 10, and certainly of the top 30.
Coco would most certainly be in the top 10, both due to Muguruza's drop and her RG final points. Emma and Leylah would have not been seeded. HaddadMaia would be about to enter the top 10.
If this was the rankings, would you agree to that order? Because there is no way that Kasatkina is the world #3. Or Halep #5.
These also don't reflect Wimbledon.
by ponchi101 Yes, but we understand that. This is, again, another strange year for the rankings because of Wimbledon points not being awarded.
But by now we would be talking about not a parallel universe; we would be talking about a parallel, reversed, inside out Universe, in which Maureen Connelly never went for that fateful horse ride, Monica Seles never got stabbed, Richard Williams decided to put down a basketball court in his backyard and Martina Navratilova went back to Prague to say goodbye to her mom, never to be seen or heard of again.
These are the points they all have. Wimbledon points would make this thing too complicated.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:25 pm
Ok, Ashkor, I did it for you. Here is a proposed weighted ranking:
Screenshot 2022-09-02 181133.jpg
The first column is the current rankings. Then, I was not going to go month by month, I did it by quarter. Points from the last three months retain all their value, from the previous quarter retain 0.75, then 0.5 and then 0.25.
The first table is sorted by the current ranking, the second by the proposed one.
So.
Iga remains #1. That was easy.
Ons moves to #2. Ok, that could be true.
Then, you would get KASATKINA, 1st round loser, at #3. For a player that lost in 1R of the last two MS1000.
Pegula moves to #4. Feels a bit odd, but nothing crazy.
Halep moves to #5. Another first round loser, and Cincy 2R loser. And a player that has done nothing at slams this year.
Sabalenka remains at 6.
Then you get the same order of Kontaveit, Sakkari and Badosa.
Muguruza would be out of the top 10, and certainly of the top 30.
Coco would most certainly be in the top 10, both due to Muguruza's drop and her RG final points. Emma and Leylah would have not been seeded. HaddadMaia would be about to enter the top 10.
If this was the rankings, would you agree to that order? Because there is no way that Kasatkina is the world #3. Or Halep #5.
I added Wimbledon points for the Top 10. Not much changes, but Jabeur and Halep are more solidly #2 and #3, and Rybakina would enter the top 10.
Iga - 5720
Jabeur 3974
Halep - 2961
Sabalenka - 2272 (I added her 2021 SF points, for the sake of experiment)
Kasatkina - 2511 (I added her 2021 R2 points)
Pegula - 2431
(Rybakina would be at least here)
Badosa - 1944
Sakkari - 1870
Kontaveit - 1866
Muguruza - 672
Players who might have moved into the bottom of the Top 10 w/Wimbledon points: Ostapenko, Garcia, Anisimova
by ponchi101 Ok. There you go. Thanks for that part.
So it is clear that Muguruza would be long gone from the top 10, but Halep at #3 would be as odd as right now we say about Badosa or Sakkari. Kontaveit at 9? She will be there soon enough, so in that case, the rankings are telling us what WILL happen; that is pretty valuable.
Rybakina is looking like Emma2; huge win out of nowhere, nothing going since. But sure, she just won the most important tournament of her life, and of most people's life. If she were at #6, that would sound right.
by ashkor87 Wow!! That is a lot of work! Thank you folks!
by Suliso It changes things, but not as much as one might imagine.
by ashkor87 Actually I couldn't care less about the rankings..I just need something to ignore! But great research here..good to know.
by ashkor87 Halep is a Wimbledon semifinalist and Toronto champion! What is odd about her being #3?
As for Rybakina, she had great results in the past couple years, enough for some of us to place her on a 'future champions' list .
Btw, apropos nothing, my current future champions list is Samsonova, Alexandrova and Q Zheng plus Coco of course
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 8:00 am
Actually I couldn't care less about the rankings..I just need something to ignore! But great research here..good to know.
You are becoming a bit of a puzzle. You are the one that has repeatedly brought up the unfair rankings, yet you now claim you could not care less. Ok, no problems, but you are spinning a bit too fast.
As for your Halep question. There would be nothing wrong with Halep as #3. Which is our point. There is NOTHING wrong with Kontaveit at #2, Sakkari #3 and Badosa #4. It is the system that says so, yet you said it was unfair. Our point (or my point) was that a weighted ranking system would not change the rankings much.
Maybe I will work out a bit some players further down the ranking. What would you tell a player in the 50's, whose bulk of points could come from one good tournament last fall, if she would fall off the top 96 (usual Slam cut off) because those points would vanish before she could even defend?
by Suliso Let's have a look at the race rankings before the QF's. WTA finals will take place and there is a limited number of tournaments to add serious points after USO. Only one 1000 level (Guadalajara) and three 500 level events. Bolded players still alive in the USO.
Everyone still alive in USO and sufficiently close: Danielle Collins 1997, Petra Kvitova 1939, Ludmilla Samsonova 1337, Shuai Zhang 1445, Victoria Azarenka 1246, Alison Riske 1180, Karolina Pliskova 1127, Ajla Tomljanovic 1095
by Suliso I would say that realistically everyone down to Gauff is safely in. Halep and Sakkari however could still miss out.
by ponchi101 And Kontaveit is going to be very hard pressed to repeat her scorching last three months from last season.
As you said yesterday, Mugu will most likely drop of the top 20, and I would say even farther. She plays a limited schedule but after yesterday's loss, she may have to reconsider that.
by Suliso Alcaraz or Ruud title would make either man #1. If neither wins Nadal is back at #1 despite today's defeat.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:11 pm
Alcaraz or Ruud title would make either man #1. If neither wins Nadal is back at #1 despite today's defeat.
I think we can safely say Ruud is not going to win the title. Alcaraz might.
by ponchi101 Kyrgios beats Alcaraz in the final, making Rafa #1.
Everyone else is under 2,000 points and probably has no realistic chance considering how few tournaments are left.
Wonder how much Iga will play this fall. She doesn't need to play before the WTA finals, but will want some indoor matches before the finals.
by ponchi101 I say she plays a regular schedule. She has no injuries to tend to, and no reason NOT to play. It will not be week after week, but there are some interesting tournaments there.
And if she wins the finals, she will have achieved a very, very good year for anybody. At age 20, that means that she may be on her way to several years of clear dominance.
And time to re-think her final slam total. In the same way that Naomi's total has to be re-assessed (I say she will recover, but she is no longer a candidate for double digits), Iga looks like the only current player that will reach that level.
Of course, one good year does not mean much, but right now, she is the best bet for the 6+ group.
by JTContinental Swiatek seems to prefer to be playing so I think she'll play a full fall slate.
by Deuce I don't see Swiatek headed for 'clear dominance' over the next few years... I think other players will figure her out, and that'll bring her back towards the pack.
She may end up being #1 for more time than any other player over the next 5 years, but if that happens, she won't be a dominant #1.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by JTContinental Gauff into the top 10 at last, and Garcia returns there as well. Jess Pegula now ranked in the top 5.
Fernandez slips to 40 and Raducanu to 83.
by ashkor87 But kontaveit 3, badosa 4, sakkari 6..absurdity continues to reign
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:26 am
But kontaveit 3, badosa 4, sakkari 6..absurdity continues to reign
Maybe just focus on the race with just few weeks left in the season.
by ashkor87 Yes, that looks more reasonable certainly!!
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:26 am
But kontaveit 3, badosa 4, sakkari 6..absurdity continues to reign
^ But you said you don't care about the rankings at all...
by nelslus
JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 6:06 am
Gauff into the top 10 at last, and Garcia returns there as well. Jess Pegula now ranked in the top 5.
Fernandez slips to 40 and Raducanu to 83.
Courtesy of winning ONE match today, in the live rankings, Raducanu shoots up 10 spots to #73. The advantage for her is that wins will shoot her up the rankings more quickly. And, she doesn't have all that much to defend anymore.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:26 am
But kontaveit 3, badosa 4, sakkari 6..absurdity continues to reign
^ But you said you don't care about the rankings at all...
I love absurdity, though!
Guess you are in the right forum
(Wait. I admin this place... )
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:57 pm
Guess you are in the right forum
(Wait. I admin this place... )
And you volunteered for the role.
by Suliso Funny observation: Swiatek has exactly 2x more points than Jabeur (10,180 vs 5,090).
by ashkor87 #7 Sakkari comprehensively beaten by #74 Sherif! No need to say more ...
Who is the most over-rated player in the world?
by ponchi101 Over rated? There are several for that competition.
We need to split hairs. Over rated is not the same as OVER RANKED.
And here we go again, arguing! Ah, Ashkor...
(She is definitely not playing anywhere near her ranking).
by ashkor87 That is a nice distinction, I like it...not to argue but 'over-ranked' is obvious, no discussion called for ..'over-rated' is more subjective...how good do we think she is? By 'we' I mean the wise folk on this forum! Those who understand the game, not just how to read a list of rankings...I think she is over-rated also, in that sense...the most over-rated? Maybe not...there are other worthy candidates...
by Deuce If Sakkari is over-ranked, why then does she have more points over the past year than the players ranked below her?
The rankings are based on results. And results are the best measure we have of one's ability.
Once again - 'potential' means absolutely nothing. In terms of feasibility, it is entirely useless and insignificant. If a given player is said to have 'great potential', but their results are poor, what then is the potential worth? Nothing!
The only legitimate argument I can see for claiming a player is over-ranked would be a case like Raducanu - where her ranking was 95% based on the result of just ONE tournament. Once the points from that tournament were removed, she fell far in the rankings (it may have been a record for the number of positions a player has fallen from one week to the next).
With a player like Sakkari, her ranking is based on many tournaments.
I therefore cannot consider Sakkari as being over-ranked.
by ashkor87 Krejcikova is probably the most under-rated! Impressive wins over Bencic and Kontaveit to take the Tallinn title...
by ponchi101 I don't think she is under-rated. I personally took it for one of our contests, but it was at the time in which she was playing very poorly. She gave me almost no points.
Over rates: how about Anisimova? Another player that I took for Green Acres and delivered nothing, and one player we have been waiting to deliver. And are still waiting. At least I am.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:33 pm
I don't think she is under-rated. I personally took it for one of our contests, but it was at the time in which she was playing very poorly. She gave me almost no points.
Over rates: how about Anisimova? Another player that I took for Green Acres and delivered nothing, and one player we have been waiting to deliver. And are still waiting. At least I am.
She must have been still recovering then...from Covid etc...wecan never tell...
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:33 pm
I don't think she is under-rated. I personally took it for one of our contests, but it was at the time in which she was playing very poorly. She gave me almost no points.
Over rates: how about Anisimova? Another player that I took for Green Acres and delivered nothing, and one player we have been waiting to deliver. And are still waiting. At least I am.
See, that is why I don't play any of these games, it would interfere with my sheer enjoyment of tennis..ofcourse, my various random predictions do, too but I can still enjoy the tennis when my prediction turns out wrong, which is often, ofcourse...
by ti-amie "Parity"
by ti-amie
Juan José @jjvallejoa
Djokovic got to 10 total Big Titles held at the end of 2015, too: 3 Slams, 6 M1000s (something I'd be shocked if it happens again) and the YEC.
by ponchi101 A very interesting stat.
by JTContinental After knocking on the door for most of the year, Taylor Fritz has finally cracked the top 10, moving up to 8 this week.
by JTContinental Gauff and Sakkari move into the top 5 this week, at the expense of Sabalenka and Kontaveit, who dropped all the way to 17. Kudermetova moves into the top 10 for a career high ranking of 9.
by Suliso There was a claim recently in another thread that WTA is "graying". It's certainly true in ATP, but it it really true for women as well? So I had a look - are there more 30+ players in the top 100 or more 22 and under?
Over 30 (oldest first)
Kaia Kanepi (37)
Tatjana Maria
Shuai Zhang
Victoria Azarenka
Alize Cornet (retiring soon)
Petra Kvitova
Madison Brengle
Sorana Cirstea
Alison Riske
Irina Camelia Begu
Rebecca Marino
Petra Martic
Nuria Parrizas Dias
Simona Halep
Camila Giorgi
Qiang Wang
Magda Linette
Karolina Pliskova
Viktorija Golubic
Shelby Rogers
So exactly 20% is 30 or over as of today. Another 3-4 will get there by the start of the next season
22 and under (youngest first)
Linda Fruhvirtova (17)
Linda Noskova
Coco Gauff
Emma Raducanu
Qinwen Zheng (20)
Leylah Fernandez
Diane Parry
Marta Kostyuk
Camila Osorio
Amanda Anisimova
Iga Swiatek
Xiyu Wang
Elisabetta Cocciaretto
Kaja Juvan
14% of the top 100 are very young. Indeed a slight advantage to older players, but nothing huge. Particularly considering that there are 11 (!!!) young players in the 100-125 range.
by ptmcmahon To see if it's greying we'd have to compare that to sometime a few years ago Not that I'm telling you to do that though.
by ponchi101 I would think we can agree that careers are lengthening. Players are staying in the tour longer, thanks to better training and keeping their bodies in better shape.
by Deuce
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:15 pm
I would think we can agree that careers are lengthening. Players are staying in the tour longer, thanks to better training and keeping their bodies in better shape.
Is that true, or are players simply remaining at a higher level while ageing today, as compared to 30 or 40 years ago?
Connors and Navratilova both had very lengthy careers - though they obviously didn't remain at the top level as they aged. Borg retired at 26 - but who else retired early back in that era? McEnroe deteriorated, then retired in his early 30s, I believe...
I don't think that careers are necessarily lengthening now - I think maybe it's just a case of there being more players remaining at or near the top level as they age today versus in the past.
Money should be considered, as well, in this equation. There is obviously a lot more money in the game today than there was 30 or 40 years ago - not just prize money, but also endorsements, etc. And so players can afford to retire much earlier today than in the past. Is that happening overall? I'll leave it to the statistically inclined to do that research, if they so choose.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:15 pm
I would think we can agree that careers are lengthening. Players are staying in the tour longer, thanks to better training and keeping their bodies in better shape.
Definitely all that - and also the power of the "new normal." In the past, it just wasn't done. Now it is, so players (and their teams) adjust their own expectations accordingly, and how they manage their careers and lives.
by JazzNU Were these posted? I looked where I thought they'd be and didn't see them.
by ti-amie
by Suliso FAA up to career high #6. Rune at career high #12 and a possibility to join the top 10 if he can beat Djokovic or Tsitsipas in the final.
by Suliso What a way by Rune to finish the year in the top 10 at the very last moment. Surely not the only time he finishes the year that high. Missed out on WTF by just 44 points...
by ponchi101 When do we get the first Carlitos/Rune Slam final? Next year? Or do we have to wait some more?
Rune.jpg
Seriously, not next year. He has only played in 5 Slams so far, although he has already been to a quarterfinal. I just think there's too much experience across the net at this point, esp with Djokovic and Nadal still in good form. And now he has expectations to deal with on top of best of 5. Maybe another year or two. Of course it could happen but I wouldn't bet on it. Which means he'll win the Australian Open.
I also haven't SEEN him play very much. It's one thing to judge on paper with theories, another with your eyes. -->
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:23 pm
When do we get the first Carlitos/Rune Slam final? Next year? Or do we have to wait some more?
Does this child look like he's ready to contend for a Slam?
Rune.jpg
Seriously, not next year. He has only played in 5 Slams so far, although he has already been to a quarterfinal. I just think there's too much experience across the net at this point, esp with Djokovic and Nadal still in good form. And now he has expectations to deal with on top of best of 5. Maybe another year or two. Of course it could happen but I wouldn't bet on it. Which means he'll win the Australian Open.
I also haven't SEEN him play very much. It's one thing to judge on paper with theories, another with your eyes.
by ponchi101 You know my opinion about experience
Yesterday was not a case of Djokovic playing poorly; he never does. But there are two things about Rune that are different.
1. He is able to take deep shots into his BH on the rise. Against Novak, who obviously has a very good BH, on several occasions Rune just took a deep BH with his own BH and redirected down the line. A couple were for clear winners. So, just when you think that you have pushed him back, the one that ends up doing the running, if not left flat footed, is you.
2. The movement is top notch. And that is one common thing that all great ones have. He moves as well as Carlitos, moves better than Sinner, and has fantastic speed in all directions. Novak hit a few drop shots, and I can't recall a single one for a clear winner.
The volleying is also better than average.
So, I say that the first Carlitos/Holger final in a slam will be simply determined by the draw. Carlitos is obviously ready (he has been there), and anybody that takes down 5 top ten players, PLUS a three-time slam winner at age 19, has a lot going for him.
by ti-amie I'm not ready to get on a Rune bandwagon. There are always weird results at Bercy. They'll deny it but they're all tired and nagging injuries feel like major injuries. Carlitos overplayed this year and it finally caught up with him in my opinion.
I like Ponchi's analysis and will look to pay more attention to his game and see how they play him after having time to study him.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:59 pm
You know my opinion about experience
Yesterday was not a case of Djokovic playing poorly; he never does. But there are two things about Rune that are different.
1. He is able to take deep shots into his BH on the rise. Against Novak, who obviously has a very good BH, on several occasions Rune just took a deep BH with his own BH and redirected down the line. A couple were for clear winners. So, just when you think that you have pushed him back, the one that ends up doing the running, if not left flat footed, is you.
2. The movement is top notch. And that is one common thing that all great ones have. He moves as well as Carlitos, moves better than Sinner, and has fantastic speed in all directions. Novak hit a few drop shots, and I can't recall a single one for a clear winner.
The volleying is also better than average.
So, I say that the first Carlitos/Holger final in a slam will be simply determined by the draw. Carlitos is obviously ready (he has been there), and anybody that takes down 5 top ten players, PLUS a three-time slam winner at age 19, has a lot going for him.
Great analysis. His top level and some of his abilities, even now, are very high. In best of 3 indoors. We're talking about someone who lost to JJ Wolf three months ago.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie Tsitsipas?
by ponchi101 He is #3 at the moment.
And yes, it would be odd as hell.
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 5:48 pmTsitsipas?
He would #1 by 30 points if he goes undefeated at the WTF, and Nadal doesn't make the final with a 4-1 record.
by ashkor87 Turin is usually very fast...not likely to favor Tsitsi
I would have bet on Sinner except...Djoko is fresh, should win
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:53 am
Turin is usually very fast...not likely to favor Tsitsi
I would have bet on Sinner except...Djoko is fresh, should win
I will bet you two dog-chewed balls Novak won't win
Paris is a court that favors him a lot, and yet he could not win. To me, the problem now for Rafa and Novak is the recovery time; if they have one tough match, specially a late one, they don't have the time to come back. It is the reason they are still so dominant at Slams (with the days-off schedule) but have come down to earth, slightly, on the regular tour.
Having said that:
Rafa: won't win. Not his place.
Tsitsipas: As good a chance as anybody else.
Ruud. Not his favorite surface.
Medvedev: Good chances. He likes indoor fast.
FAA: very good chances. He LOVES indoor fast.
Rublev: The one guy that should withdraw so that Rune can get in. Zero chance.
Novak: Contradicting myself here. Betting against him seldom pays off.
Fritz: good fast court player, has some very good strokes, then he fizzles. Or Fritzzles?
Rune: He would not win it; but he would not go 0-3.
by ti-amie I wanted to argue with you about Rublev but I really can't.
Rafa never does well at this event no matter where it's held.
Stefanos, FAA, Medvedev, Fritz (he is an American. Indoor fast should favor him if he holds it together mentally) and yes the brat Rune.
by Deuce I thought I was in the Turin thread reading the last few posts - but then I saw I wasn't...
by ashkor87 Fritz is slow on his feet...
by ti-amie
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 3:15 pm
Fritz is slow on his feet...
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 3:15 pm
Fritz is slow on his feet...
Hmm. Would you say he's Cilic like or Isner like?
He is quicker than Isner, but then he doesn't have a serve as good, either! Nobody does...
by skatingfan I didn't realize that Holger Rune's stay in the top 10 would be so brief. A year ago this week he made the semis of a Challenger event in Pau, France, and those points are coming off this week - a net loss of 23 points - allowing Hubert Hurkacz to finish the year in the top 10.
by Suliso Unfortunate that he couldn't finish the year in the top 10, but of course he'll get back at the latest after AO (nothing to defend).
by ponchi101 Plus, seeding-wise it makes no difference being 10 or 11.
He will be back soon, and likely for a long time.
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by ashkor87 Well, you keep a 9 time champion out of the AO then don't count the major he does win, naturally you will get a new #1!
by Deuce ^ That's true...
by ponchi101 Carlos is #1.
Who is the best player is a different question, this year.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:55 am
Carlos is #1.
Who is the best player is a different question, this year.
Yes, of course, #1 is a fact, pure data - pointless to dispute it! But it is a different question, as you rightly note, than who is the best player- I would submit that is a much more interesting question, because we can argue about it! No point arguing about facts.
by ponchi101 After the Finals are over, and because we will need that data to gauge our views, I will start a topic about that.
Because there is a lot to talk about this year.
by JazzNU
by ponchi101 After the end of the finals, I will start a topic for "The year in review".
But Daniil had a regression this year. That's for sure.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:13 pm
After the end of the finals, I will start a topic for "The year in review".
But Daniil had a regression this year. That's for sure.
True but remember how badly he was treated by the crowd at the AO..then came the clay season, he is no good on it anyway..then he was not allowed to play wimbledon..very unfortunate..we need to give him a break and see how he rebounds next year
by ponchi101 I also remember him telling the Aussie crowd they were idiots. That usually does not make you many friends.
As per above, we can discuss that in that topic, when we start.
by ashkor87 Just a data point..if we add 2000 points to Djokovic for Wimbledon, he is tied with Alcaraz at #1
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:50 am
Just a data point..if we add 2000 points to Djokovic for Wimbledon, he is tied with Alcaraz at #1
^ No...
Alcaraz has 6820 points. Djokovic has 4820 points. If we add the 2000 points from Wimbledon to Djokovic, he would be at 6820. But what about Alcaraz's points from Wimbledon? And Nadal's points from Wimbledon? Nadal currently has 6020 points (excluding Wimbledon).
You can't conveniently give only Djokovic his Wimbledon points, but not also give the Wimbledon points to the other players!
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:50 am
Just a data point..if we add 2000 points to Djokovic for Wimbledon, he is tied with Alcaraz at #1
^ No...
Alcaraz has 6820 points. Djokovic has 4820 points. If we add the 2000 points from Wimbledon to Djokovic, he would be at 6820. But what about Alcaraz's points from Wimbledon? And Nadal's points from Wimbledon? Nadal currently has 6020 points (excluding Wimbledon).
You can't conveniently give only Djokovic his Wimbledon points, but not also give the Wimbledon points to the other players!
Top 5 with Wimbledon points:
Alcaraz 6970
Djokovic 6820
Nadal 6380
Ruud 5865
Tsitsipas 5650
The big change is that Novak would probably catch Alcaraz next spring if they all had Wimbledon points. Alcaraz is defending almost 2,000 points through Miami and Novak is only defending 90 from Dubai.
by ashkor87 Thanks for the computation! Which I was too lazy to do...although, given how I feel about rankings in general, I wasn't motivated enough to do it .but great that you did..thank you again.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:13 pm
After the end of the finals, I will start a topic for "The year in review".
But Daniil had a regression this year. That's for sure.
Actually, a year best forgotten! I will spend the next month trying to forget ..!
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:13 pm
After the end of the finals, I will start a topic for "The year in review".
But Daniil had a regression this year. That's for sure.
Actually, a year best forgotten! I will spend the next month trying to forget ..!
I started the "year in review" topic, so you can answer my question there, but why should this year be best forgotten, tennis wise? It has had some very good moments.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:13 pm
After the end of the finals, I will start a topic for "The year in review".
But Daniil had a regression this year. That's for sure.
Actually, a year best forgotten! I will spend the next month trying to forget ..!
Still top 10 and still made the year-end finals. Yes, it was a disappointing follow-up to 2021, but some fluctuation in results is normal. Most careers have ups and downs as players navigate life and success and injuries. Most don't sustain their A+++ game month in and month out for years. We just got spoiled by the Big 3.
by ponchi101 Uhm.... not so sure, Megan.
There have been a lot of players that once they got to the top, stayed there on a continuous basis. Connors, Borg, Mac and Lendl arrived and, sure, they did not win a slam every time they got there, but they kept winning tournaments. When the replacements came, they did the same: Wilander, Becker and Edberg kept a high level. Then Sampras came in and, although it was as you say, he won the USO in 90 and "only" won another slam in 93, he kept winning tournaments.
Then the Big 3 came in and basically cleaned the slate.
But I have the feel that Daniil and Stefanos did not improve this year. They were overtaken by Carlitos and, if you give me a longer year, Rune perhaps would have done better than them.
My view is: they stagnated. The only one from that group that I would say escapes that label is Zverev, because of the injury.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:14 pm
Uhm.... not so sure, Megan.
There have been a lot of players that once they got to the top, stayed there on a continuous basis. Connors, Borg, Mac and Lendl arrived and, sure, they did not win a slam every time they got there, but they kept winning tournaments. When the replacements came, they did the same: Wilander, Becker and Edberg kept a high level. Then Sampras came in and, although it was as you say, he won the USO in 90 and "only" won another slam in 93, he kept winning tournaments.
Then the Big 3 came in and basically cleaned the slate.
But I have the feel that Daniil and Stefanos did not improve this year. They were overtaken by Carlitos and, if you give me a longer year, Rune perhaps would have done better than them.
My view is: they stagnated. The only one from that group that I would say escapes that label is Zverev, because of the injury.
By top, do you mean top 2 or 3? Daniil's still Top 10. I'd say there's more competition than in Mac and Jimbo's days, and the tour is more rigorous. I agree Daniil's year wasn't as good as last year, and that's going to be the standard, but he still had a good year. It's not a big drop. It's a little drop. Otherwise he'd be out of the top 10.
And yes, Carlitos and RUne improved more because they had more room for improvement. Let's see if they continue to post steady improvement year after year or have the usual bumps in the road. I bet Rune will. Carlitos, who knows, he seems like a beast but these impressions aren't predictions.
Interesting that none of the Russians lose much ground when the rankings are adjusted with Wimbledon points, except Rybakina. Tatjana Maria is hurt the most, as she'll miss out on a seeding at the Australian Open, probably the French, and tour-event cutoffs.
by ponchi101 The "alternate universe" rankings would certainly be interesting.
However.
Let's not forget that there was indeed a reason, and a good one, not to award points. EVERYBODY, and especially here at this forum, was in agreement that banning the participation of Russian and Belarussian INDIVIDUAL players was a wrong move by the LTA and, especially, the AELTC. It was unfair and it was detrimental to the sport. And that there was only one thing that the ATP/WTA/ITF could do, because the AELTC is so powerful and there was no way the players would boycott Wimbledon.
And that was take away the points.
Yes, it was and is a completely mess. But there was a reason.
by ashkor87 Rankings in general are nothing more than interesting! Re what Wimbledon did, my impression is they bowed to pressure from their Tory government, which they need not have done..their main concern apparently was that Princess Kate should not be seen giving a trophy to a Russian..it was all about their own prissy propriety and image, no human calculation was involved, so I think the whole mess could have been avoided if they had thought about the players instead of their precious princess.
by ashkor87 Rankings certainly don't mean much in the highly charged atmosphere of Davis Cup...#45 Sonego is beating everyone as if he is #1 in the world!
by JTContinental I just noticed that Ben Shelton is already ranked in the top 100, so I took a look at his record and he has won the last three challengers he has played.
by skatingfan Medvedev will be outside the top 10 after this loss.
by ashkor87 In the AO QFs on the women's side, exactly 4 out of 8 were won by the higher ranked player...so ranking was about as good a predictor as a coin toss. Which is what I have always said..
by ponchi101 And we have asked. What would you replace it with? Should seedings be done as in the past, by a tournament committee? Should all seedings be done at random?
Look at the Predictions contest. We have an AI there (sort of AI): it picks the highest ranked player always to win. The AI does better than the average, always.
by ashkor87 Of course, Elo did no better...
I am not saying rankings need to be replaced by some other metric..all I am saying is, they are not good predictors.. they do not predict, they only report. For those familiar with finance, I always say it is like finance versus accounting.
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:30 am
Of course, Elo did no better...
I am not saying rankings need to be replaced by some other metric..all I am saying is, they are not good predictors.. they do not predict, they only report. For those familiar with finance, I always say it is like finance versus accounting.
Ok. I swear this is the first time I hear you say that. But, a very good metaphor. I can live with that.
by JazzNU
by skatingfan I don't think it's been noted so far here, but whoever wins the men's final will over take Alcaraz for world #1 on Monday.
by ponchi101 Carlitos also talked about it. He said it would be deservingly so.
by JazzNU FYI, the ATP site has added live rankings to their site. They have both, the rankings as they always have them updated after tournaments each week and then a separate tab that lists the live rankings that includes real time results.
by JTContinental There will be 10 American men in the top 50 and 13 in the top 60 when the rankings come out on Monday
by JTContinental No changes to the top 33 places on the WTA rankings, which seems odd even for the week after a slam.
Lin Zhu up to 41, Alycia Parks up to 51, career highs for both.
Andreescu has passed Fernandez as the top ranked Canadian at 37.
by ashkor87 Over the mid East swing, Sakkari is defending 350 points, Bencic and Rybakina 1 each. There will be a bit of a shakeup. Meanwhile someone who has won a grand total of 2 tournaments in her entire career is seeded 2.
by ponchi101 Total tournaments, top ten:
Iga: 11
Aryna: 12
Jabeur: 3
Pegula: 2
Garcia: 11
Gauff: 3
Sakkari:1
Kasatkina: 6
Bencic: 8
Rybakina: 3
And I would say that a few of them will not get to 15 tournaments in their career, which used to be a one year haul for the likes of Martina and Chrissie.
Different times.
by ponchi101 This reminds me of the 1982 F1 world championship. Keke Rosberg won it, with only 1 VICTORY the entire year. But nobody won more than 2 GP that year, and Rosberg won it based on a lot of consistency (plenty of 2nds).
by 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.
by ti-amie This is a very important North American Spring for Iga. She's shown vulnerability. She has to put fear back into her opponents heads. As for who will come out on top I think you can write all of their names on sticks, toss them up, and pick them up at random.
That said I do think you've ranked Bencic too high and QZ isn't quite ready yet. She still panics at crucial parts of a match.JMHO
by Suliso I expect a short weak period from Sabalenka. Nothing to do with her game. She'll have difficulty adjusting to her new status.
by JazzNU
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:32 pm
Meanwhile someone who has won a grand total of 2 tournaments in her entire career is seeded 2.
I don't know what that has to do with anything. Has Pegula not played well the last few years and had a good last 12 months? She hasn't won many titles, but rankings points aren't awarded based on titles. She earned her ranking in general and her seed here.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:32 pm
Meanwhile someone who has won a grand total of 2 tournaments in her entire career is seeded 2.
I don't know what that has to do with anything. Has Pegula not played well the last few years and had a good last 12 months? She hasn't won many titles, but rankings points aren't awarded based on titles. She earned her ranking in general and her seed here.
I remember something last year about reaching the QFs or better in all of the big Premier level + tournaments she entered except no-points Wimbledon
by Fastbackss
JTContinental wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:44 am
I remember something last year about reaching the QFs or better in all of the big Premier level + tournaments she entered except no-points Wimbledon
Here is what I posted last month:
Pegula's made the quarters at 4 of the last 5 Slams.
In the 8 WTA1000 last year she won 1, lost in final of 1, lost in semis of 2, lost in quarters of 2, lost in 3R of 2, and 2R of
by ashkor87
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:28 am
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. bhm
8.:QZ
9. ostapenko
10. Alexandrova
Replacing Vika with Alexandrova, as Vika hasn't surfaced. So also Garcia with bhm
All slow to meetium hard courts ..
The wtA rankings mean as little as they usually do.
by ponchi101 I really don't know what else to ask you, because every time I have asked you how would you change the rankings, you have said you don't know.
Change them so they would mean something to you.
Pegula did not go and buy her ranking points at the supermarket. If it were that easy, she would be #1; her dad would buy her the ranking.
And the rankings say a lot of things. For example: Iga is 4,000 points over Sabalenka. Which tells you that during the last year, she has been that much better.
OVER THE LAST YEAR. Not the last few weeks.
by JTContinental Samsonova at 4 has to be a joke, and Alexandrova might consider winning a title before you put her in the top 10
by JazzNU
JTContinental wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:57 pm
Samsonova at 4 has to be a joke, and Alexandrova might consider winning a title before you put her in the top 10
He's the biggest Alexandrova supporter I've seen, consistently putting her in as a contender to win slams. A good reminder that every player has fans.
JTContinental wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:44 am
I remember something last year about reaching the QFs or better in all of the big Premier level + tournaments she entered except no-points Wimbledon
Here is what I posted last month:
Pegula's made the quarters at 4 of the last 5 Slams.
In the 8 WTA1000 last year she won 1, lost in final of 1, lost in semis of 2, lost in quarters of 2, lost in 3R of 2, and 2R of
very true but would that make her the third or fourth best player in the world? I dont think it is enough.
JTContinental wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:57 pm
Samsonova at 4 has to be a joke, and Alexandrova might consider winning a title before you put her in the top 10
He's the biggest Alexandrova supporter I've seen, consistently putting her in as a contender to win slams. A good reminder that every player has fans.
yes, we all need a risky asset in our portfolio.. last year around August, I had Samsonova and she has done well for me. I am expecting Alexandrova to do well soon.. she has more upside, in my opinion, than,say, Pegula. If we just go by the ranking, what is the fun in it?
by ashkor87
JTContinental wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:57 pm
Samsonova at 4 has to be a joke, and Alexandrova might consider winning a title before you put her in the top 10
why is it a joke? have you watched her performance recently? she has played up to this level, I think...
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 4:43 pm
I really don't know what else to ask you, because every time I have asked you how would you change the rankings, you have said you don't know.
Change them so they would mean something to you.
Pegula did not go and buy her ranking points at the supermarket. If it were that easy, she would be #1; her dad would buy her the ranking.
And the rankings say a lot of things. For example: Iga is 4,000 points over Sabalenka. Which tells you that during the last year, she has been that much better.
OVER THE LAST YEAR. Not the last few weeks.
I thought I had - rankings are good for the past, not useful for the future, that is all .for that, we have to use our knowledge and understanding of the game, which is what makes it fun!
by Sinner Fan I think rankings are useful for seeding in tournaments. Rankings do not determine who going into tournament is the best player because they are seed at #1 spot. You look recently at play of Caroline Garcia and she was not top seed player in big tournament and she play well because she was playing top of her game. Iga is playing top of game and is #1 player and the ranking is correct for that. The same for Carlos Alcaraz. That not saying on certain surface they cannot be beat.
by ashkor87 Let us wait for the end of IW, my ranking is for this period.
The clay court season is something else altogether.. Stuttgart is the first, I would say - charleston is not really clay. It is something between hard court and clay.
by ponchi101 Charleston is har tru. Sure, not European red clay, but the sliding is the same. The ball bounces a bit more, though.
by JTContinental Mostly quiet on the rankings front this week. Pegula and Jabeur will switch places at 3 and 4, respectively. Also of note, Vondrousova and Yastremska are both out of the top 100.
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.
by Deuce Well, if we're going to ignore the actual rankings, which I believe fairly tell us who the best players have been over the past year, and instead are to go by ranking players to the second (or half second?) as Ashkor seems to favour - that is, the hottest players at the moment are ranked the highest -, then I must humbly admit that those times when I've hit the perfect down the line backhand, I was the #1 player in the world for a brief period.
by Suliso
JTContinental wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 11:25 pm
Mostly quiet on the rankings front this week. Pegula and Jabeur will switch places at 3 and 4, respectively. Also of note, Vondrousova and Yastremska are both out of the top 100.
Also Samsonova at career high #13.
by Suliso Teenagers in the top 100 (WTA)
#6 Coco Gauff (18.9)
#50 Linda Noskova (18.2)
#52 Linda Fruhvirtova (17.8)
#90 Diana Shnaider (18.8)
by Suliso Five youngest players in the top 100 (ATP)
#2 Carlos Alcaraz (19.7)
#10 Holger Rune (19.8)
#42 Ben Shelton (20.3)
#18 Lorenzo Musetti (20.9)
#44 Jack Draper (21.1)
Good chance that Arthur Fils joins this list very soon.
by JazzNU
JTContinental wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 11:25 pm
Mostly quiet on the rankings front this week. Pegula and Jabeur will switch places at 3 and 4, respectively. Also of note, Vondrousova and Yastremska are both out of the top 100.
I think Marketa will reverse that fairly soon enough. But I have to ask yet again, do these players know the rules for protected ranking? Because it regularly seems like they don't. We know for certain in the case of Coco Vandeweghe, she didn't have the first clue about it. Don't rush your comeback and Marketa is easily at the correct length to enter Aussie Open and even the other Aussie tournaments with a PR. Why wouldn't you use that?
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.
by Suliso Yes, but you can calculate rankings differently and obtain presumably slightly different order.
by 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.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:10 am
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.
by Owendonovan I liked when you got more points for beating a higher ranked opponent.
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:13 am
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.
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:28 am
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 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:13 am
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 ..
by 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 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:28 am
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..
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:28 am
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.
by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:16 pm
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.
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:59 pm
...
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.
by Fastbackss
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:58 am
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.
by 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.
by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:16 pm
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.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:59 pm
...
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.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 4:10 pm
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.
by Suliso Also ATP never had them. I don't think they make any sense, particularly in an era of relative parity.
by 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.
by ti-amie
by 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.
by 3mlm
Deuce wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:17 pm
^ 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 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:17 pm
^ 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.
by 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.
by 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
by Suliso That's not completely true. Past performance is a decent indicator of future results.
by 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.
by Suliso Of course it's not a guarantee plus there is rarely a difference between say #5 and #7. Other factors would be surface, h2h and recent form.
by Suliso Also look at Djokovic. Does he win because he's #1? No, he's #1 because he wins so often. Not the same thing.
by ashkor87 here is an example - Giorgi - she is not ranked high but she is the best player left in the Merida draw, I believe. Point is, it is our knowledge of tennis that tells us this, that we should trust... the ranking is not relevant. someone here said Linette would win, because she is the highest ranked.. that is a total nonsequiteur, I would think.
by Ainsley
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 1:40 pm
Also look at Djokovic. Does he win because he's #1? No, he's #1 because he wins so often. Not the same thing.
He is the #1 player in the world because he is that good and his record states that. That is why rankings need to be a part of the system.The same goes for Iga. I think though rankings can work alongside with other factors as well such as what court surface or h2h.
by Ainsley
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 2:32 pm
here is an example - Giorgi - she is not ranked high but she is the best player left in the Merida draw, I believe. Point is, it is our knowledge of tennis that tells us this, that we should trust... the ranking is not relevant. someone here said Linette would win, because she is the highest ranked.. that is a total nonsequiteur, I would think.
I think that's why we watch tennis so we can understand how a player is currently playing or how they play on a certain surface compared to another surface or what their h2h match ups are against other opponents in the draw. It seemed to give an advantage Giorgi in Merida. Once I started watching some of the matches, I thought that the courts were setting up well for Siniakova and she has done rather well.
by ti-amie
by Deuce I really don't understand the people (person, actually) constantly whining about rankings...
Rankings are not, and were never meant to be, a predictor of who would win a given match. So why complain (constantly) about a problem that doesn't even exist?
Rankings are an indicator of past achievements - up to the very recent past. This is made very clear, so as to not confuse anyone. People who follow tennis, in particular, should know this. Rankings are not an indication of future achievements - nor do they ever pretend to be - because future achievements cannot be predicted, they can only be guessed at.
Rankings are also a reward for those past achievements in the form of seedings for tournaments, which are designed to give a certain 'advantage' to the seeded players.
So... I suppose one can continue to whine about rankings, but, from my perspective, those complaints hold no water, as they target a 'problem' that does not exist.
by Ainsley
Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 6:44 am
I really don't understand the people (person, actually) constantly whining about rankings...
Rankings are not, and were never meant to be, a predictor of who would win a given match. So why complain (constantly) about a problem that doesn't even exist?
Rankings are an indicator of past achievements - up to the very recent past. This is made very clear, so as to not confuse anyone. People who follow tennis, in particular, should know this. Rankings are not an indication of future achievements - nor do they ever pretend to be - because future achievements cannot be predicted, they can only be guessed at.
Rankings are also a reward for those past achievements in the form of seedings for tournaments, which are designed to give a certain 'advantage' to the seeded players.
So... I suppose one can continue to whine about rankings, but, from my perspective, those complaints hold no water, as they target a 'problem' that does not exist.
This is exactly why rankings need to be part of the game. Not as an indicator of who is going to win the current match up, but to look at past achievements.
Rankings are used in just about every sport there is. The last big event was the Super Bowl in America. Most people were saying that the Philadelphia Eagles were the better team all season long due to the way they played throughout the entire season. They certainly were not the best team standing on the field on the Super Bowl Day. That achievement went to the Kansas City Chiefs. This did not take anything away from the achievements the Philadelphia Eagles had during the season.
Another example and this is probably the biggest prime example of rankings that go down every year in a sporting event and that is in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. They even call the tournament March Madness because of all of the upsets that occur along the way. They still have to use the seasons achievements of the teams entered into the tournament to rank them, but it rarely goes according to plan.
This is why rankings have to coexist with the game. They are not a determination of who is going to win each match. That is what they play the game for. It is just an indicator of past results. That is it.
by ashkor87 Which is precisely right
by JTContinental I missed this last week, but Taylor Fritz is now ranked 5, and is the first American top 5 player since Andy Roddick in 2009.
Not much movement on the WTA front with most players resting up for the Sunshine Double. The top 22 spots stayed the same, but several players in the top 100 reached career high rankings; Zhu (33), Kostyuk (40), McNally (73), Volynets (74), Bonaventure (84), Rakhimova (89)
by skatingfan Nadal will fall outside the top 10 after Indian Wells - his French Open seeding could be very interesting.
by ponchi101 He will fall out of the top 10 for the first time in over 900 weeks, the second longest after Martina's 1,000. A fine record, and one that perhaps be set for the men.
by nelslus
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:14 pm
He will fall out of the top 10 for the first time in over 900 weeks, the second longest after Martina's 1,000. A fine record, and one that perhaps be set for the men.
AND keeping in mind, it took multiple horrible injuries for Rafa's top 10 reign to end.
i hate showing respect for Pirate Pants. But, I mean....and, LOL, good look for anyone to take Rafa's record for Roland Garros titles. That is the record that is so ridiculous to me.
We're going to be seeing, for a long time, how Rafa, Roger, and Voldemort are freaks.
We're going to be seeing, for a long time, how Rafa, Roger, and Voldemort are freaks.
I had never thought about it this way. Completely correct.
It will take a long time for people to come back to the normal that any player with 6 slams is a GREAT PLAYER.
by ashkor87 It also helps that courts around the world are getting similar in speed..a good player can win all the tournaments he enters...not so much among the women, though! Maybe Swiatek...
In earlier days, there were clay court specialists like Bruguera and Costa .or even grass specialists. There are hardly any specialists any more, men or women..
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:01 am
It also helps that courts around the world are getting similar in speed..a good player can win all the tournaments he enters...not so much among the women, though! Maybe Swiatek...
In earlier days, there were clay court specialists like Bruguera and Costa .or even grass specialists. There are hardly any specialists any more, men or women..
You say that there are hardly anymore surface specialists today (which is correct)... and that the court speeds are becoming similar across the different surfaces (debatable)... but, at the same time, you keep claiming that court speed is the biggest factor in determining who will do well and who won’t at any given tournament. This is completely contradictory.
You're essentially saying - in pretty much every post - that every player is a specialist for a certain court speed (usually defined as 'fast' or 'slow'). In 99% of your posts, you mention court speed as being a major factor in determining who will do well and who won't at each tournament.
Again - this constant claiming that court speed is a major determining factor - essentially THE determining factor - in which players will do well at a tournament, and which players won’t is nonsense. The vast majority of players are not surface or court speed specialists. A very good player is a very good player regardless of surface or court speed. The same for a mediocre player. The same for a not so good player. That is one thing in the game that has not changed over the years...
Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Connors, etc., etc., etc. won multiple tournaments on multiple different surfaces and multiple different court speeds. Back then, the differences in court speed between surfaces were greater than they are today (indoor carpet, which we never see these days, was very fast). And talent transcended all of that - as it does today.
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:01 am
It also helps that courts around the world are getting similar in speed..a good player can win all the tournaments he enters...not so much among the women, though! Maybe Swiatek...
In earlier days, there were clay court specialists like Bruguera and Costa .or even grass specialists. There are hardly any specialists any more, men or women..
I saw the Cornet-Swiatek match last year at Wimby and Iga looked very, very uncomfortable. We know, she was going through a winning streak that ended there, but I am not sure if she can win every tournament.
About no specialists. I think there are still some players that are dedicated to only clay, and are therefore middle of the pack players because they don't transition well to other surfaces. The Ramos-Vinolas in the ATP, and Parrizas-Dias in the WTA. They can play on hard, but their level drops considerably.
Grass court specialists? Nobody left. Of course, Novak is the best grass court player nowadays, but he is not a specialist on anything. He is simply excellent on any surface.
by ashkor87 About Ramos Vinolas I have heard it said he is so talented, he looks like the best player in the world in practice...but something happens to him in a match. Possibly something he can get over with a good coach/ shrink .of course this is only hearsay..
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:01 am
It also helps that courts around the world are getting similar in speed..a good player can win all the tournaments he enters...not so much among the women, though! Maybe Swiatek...
In earlier days, there were clay court specialists like Bruguera and Costa .or even grass specialists. There are hardly any specialists any more, men or women..
I saw the Cornet-Swiatek match last year at Wimby and Iga looked very, very uncomfortable. We know, she was going through a winning streak that ended there, but I am not sure if she can win every tournament.
About no specialists. I think there are still some players that are dedicated to only clay, and are therefore middle of the pack players because they don't transition well to other surfaces. The Ramos-Vinolas in the ATP, and Parrizas-Dias in the WTA. They can play on hard, but their level drops considerably.
Grass court specialists? Nobody left. Of course, Novak is the best grass court player nowadays, but he is not a specialist on anything. He is simply excellent on any surface.
Certainly there is no single player, not even Iga or Novak or Carlos that could win every tournament they enter. There is too much depth in the talent on the tour and on any day, especially in the later rounds these players can easily go down. Look at a player like Jessica Pegula who seemingly every tournament she enters is right there at the end in the QF's or SF's and on the brink of beating IGA or Sabalenka to reach the finals or even win a tournament. It will happen at some point for her or even another player. Krejcikova just beat Iga in a Final. Novak just lost to Daniil. Carlos lost to Norrie. There is way too much depth in the rankings for even the top player to win every tournament.
by ponchi101 This is a semantical argument.
Novak CAN win every tournament he enters. He WILL NOT win every tournament, but he always has the possibility. Surface transitions, ball changes, different locations simply don't matter to him. He plays always as a contender.
Iga can win every tournament she enters, that is not on grass.
I still have to see more of Carlitos.
by Scoob There are too many factors involved as you stated. Not only the surface conditions and ball changes, but the players within the draw. Like I stated in my previous post there is talent on the tour. There are players gunning to prove themselves and move to the top of the rankings all the time and many of them have the talent to do just that. Just this past year Caroline Garcia played her way to #5 in the world. Young hungry players like Holger Rune and Ben Shelton are itching to upset those top players.
Now, I don't know about Iga losing her #1 ranking spot by year's end, but I would imagine there could easily be a new #1 in the ATP ranking by years end.
by ponchi101 I hope you are right, but I don't see Novak losing at Wimbledon, and proper rest should give him a very good chance at the USO.
by Scoob
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:29 pm
I hope you are right, but I don't see Novak losing at Wimbledon, and proper rest should give him a very good chance at the USO.
I think at Wimbledon it is going to be really tough to defeat him, but at the US Open I can easily see it happening with someone like Carlos or Daniil beating him.
by ashkor87
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:28 am
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.
not bad, 3 of the 4 IW semifinalists are in the top 5. we shall see how it holds up after Miami...
by ashkor87 Nadal now outside top 10;for the first time in 18:years!! What a man! What a player!
by ponchi101 918 weeks in the top 10. That will be one tough record to break (ATP; Navs has over 1000 in the WTA).
by 3mlm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:32 pm
918 weeks in the top 10. That will be one tough record to break (ATP; Navs has over 1000 in the WTA).
That's more than 17 years, despite multiple injuries.
Other active players in the ATP with the longest current streaks are Djokovic (223), Tsitsipas (190) and Ruud (80). It would take Djokovic and Tsitsipas more than 13 years to catch Nadal and Ruud 16 years. Their ages would be 47, 37 and 40, respectively, by the time they could. Alcaraz would be at least 36 before he could catch Nadal, as would virtually any other possible player now or in the future.
The prospects for a WTA player exceeding Navratilova's record are even less promising as that would require more than 19 years continuously in the top 10 and most WTA careers are shorter than that.
by ponchi101 Alcaraz would have to be non-stop in the top ten until 2034 to reach Nadal.
by Suliso How long for Djokovic to reach total weeks (not consecutive)?
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:34 pm
How long for Djokovic to reach total weeks (not consecutive)?
by Suliso Nadal actually not #1. I thought he would be.
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:11 am
Nadal actually not #1. I thought he would be.
If you include a certain Czeck lady, no. But are you thinking of somebody else?
by Suliso Nadal is 56 weeks behind Federer in total weeks in the top 10.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:55 pm
If you include a certain Czeck lady, no. But are you thinking of somebody else?
Federer
by ponchi101 Ah, non-consecutive. Txs for that data.
by 3mlm
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:11 am
Nadal actually not #1. I thought he would be.
I wasn't surprised. Federer was 20 when he first reached the top ten and 40 when he last dropped out. Nadal's only 36. He just needs to get back in the top 10 and stay there for 13 months (non-consecutive) to catch Federer. Not looking so easy for Nadal these days, though.
by Suliso He'd have to start winning a lot again. Not in the top 100 in the race.
by ponchi101 It has been one injury after another. I don't see him being able to return to a full time schedule.
But he has few points to defend after RG (Only his Wimby semifinal, mostly).
by Suliso Right, but can he win RG again?
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:13 pm
Right, but can he win RG again?
We have been waiting for a long time for him NOT to be able to win it.
But I don't think his chances have ever been lower than this year. We have to wait and see how he shows up at MC.
by Deuce
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:01 pm
It has been one injury after another. I don't see him being able to return to a full time schedule.
But he has few points to defend after RG (Only his Wimby semifinal, mostly).
He got points from last year's Wimbledon
by ponchi101
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:01 pm
It has been one injury after another. I don't see him being able to return to a full time schedule.
But he has few points to defend after RG (Only his Wimby semifinal, mostly).
Corrected. As it was indeed pointed that he (and nobody else) got no points from last year's W.
by ashkor87 I can't see anyone beating Alcaraz at RG this year...except maybe djokovic...trouble is, same for next 5 years!!
by ponchi101 Ruud is a very good clay court player. We have to see what shape Nadal comes back in. Novak has done well there. Tsitsipas loves clay. Clay is the favorite surface of a lot of players.
Let's get a couple of clay tournaments in and then we can gauge it properly
by ponchi101 We have had a little bit of a conversation about rankings. I decided to do a simple calculation: what is the frequency in which the higher ranked player beats the lower ranked player?
Just did the last 4 years. Higher ranked player wins first, lower ranked wins second, % of higher ranked wins third.
ATP
2019: 1603, 1007, 61.4%
2020: 803, 464, 63.3%
2021: 1563, 926, 62.7%
2022: 1686, 946, 64.1%
by ashkor87 Trouble is, some of these are higher ranked players like Swiatek beating someone in the first round of a slam . Not sure it tells me much.
by ashkor87 I have no idea and no access to data to do this but it would be worth repeating with, say, players ranked within 10 places of each other, and leaving out the top 3 or 5, who will always beat anybody...
by atlpam It would be interesting to break into groups of 20. Stats where the higher ranked player is in the top 20, ranked 21-40, 41-60, etc.
by Suliso 12-14% advantage for the higher ranked player is almost nothing, but I suspect it's skewed by matches between players in the 40-100 range. Difference there is really small, probably as little as 4-5%.
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:56 am
Trouble is, some of these are higher ranked players like Swiatek beating someone in the first round of a slam . Not sure it tells me much.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:59 am
I have no idea and no access to data to do this but it would be worth repeating with, say, players ranked within 10 places of each other, and leaving out the top 3 or 5, who will always beat anybody...
You like to pick the example that suits your hypothesis. Here, choosing Swiatek to win a match means, as you say, very little. Picking a specific player to beat another is what we have been discussing: you need a lot of data. Let's remember (you and I are old enough) Graf-McNeil at Wimbledon (I forget the year). How much money would you have placed on McNeil? Me, zero. But McNeil won, which is the reason we remember that match as an epic upset.
What this means is simple: RANKINGS are a reliable piece of information. Of course the lower ranked player will beat the higher ranked player with certain frequency; otherwise, the rankings would be frozen perennially. But the higher ranked player will beat him more times than not. Not #3 beating #5; those are specific players. IN GENERAL.
See it this way. for 2022, there were 2,600 matches in the ATP (approx.). Assume you are given $100 for every match, to bet on the winner, and you have no info other than the ranking. Well, you can get all sophisticated and stuff, but it is obvious that the strategy is to bet on the higher ranked player, ALWAYS. Do that, and you would end up with a nice (using my numbers) $74K. Just by betting on that data.
Now, your second question, which is translated to this: how finely do rankings matter? By that I mean (and you mean): the closer the ranking of the two players, the least important the ranking is for the result. A match between #2 and #3 is a 50/50 match, IF you go only by the rankings. So, as you asked:
Exclude the top 3 ranked players, and look only at matches between players within 10 ranking spots. For 2022 (ATP):
173 Higher ranked player
203 Lower ranked player
So, by these constraints, yes, ranking does not determine the outcome. That is 46% for the HIGHER ranked player. But I suspect that we have a distortion there: Novak spent a very long portion of the year ranked outside the top 3. And he lost very little.
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:18 pm
12-14% advantage for the higher ranked player is almost nothing, but I suspect it's skewed by matches between players in the 40-100 range. Difference there is really small, probably as little as 4-5%.
I am surprised by your statement. It is NOT a 12-14% advantage. IF the higher ranked player has a 64% chance of winning, the lower ranked player has a 36% chance. And that is a 28 points spread, because sports are a zero-sum game. I said that to Ashkor.
About your guess. Matches excluding players ranked above 40 (2022 ATP):
580 (higher ranked)
422 (lower ranked)
So sure, it gets smaller, but that is still 57.9%, on a sample that is large enough to be representative.
by Suliso Indeed I didn't define it correctly. Spread is as you say much larger, but one could also say solely from a higher ranked player's perspective that he/she is winning 14 matches per 100 more than if it was a random chance (50-50 with enough data points). Either way it's a solid advantage, but not an overwhelming one. Nadal won 83% of matches last year.
by ponchi101 We are also dealing here with a circularity. How do you get a high ranking? By winning a lot. And if you win a lot, you get a high ranking (more or less; if you win a lot of 125's, your ranking goes high, but not in the same way).
Sure, Nadal won 83% of matches last year. And Mr #100, won less than 50%. Is it a standard curve, maybe skewed a bit? Maybe a Pareto effect?
My initial question was simply that: do rankings matter? I say, at least a little. But I am not going to bet my house on IGA, next time she plays ARYNA, simply based on their rankings. But given #20 vs #80, I say go with #20. You have a little bit better chance.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:47 pmBut given #20 vs #80, I say go with #20. You have a little bit better chance.
More than a little, but that we could say before too
Nevertheless thanks for the analysis. Always nice to see some numbers!
by ashkor87 Evidently she doesn't think much of rankings either, neither does Sabalenka it seems..
by ponchi101 She currently does not hold any slams.
But I said it somewhere in some topic: she is in the conversation, and she is playing solid tennis. Her losses this year have been understandable. To me, she is certainly a more solid player than Garcia, Ons, Coco, Daria or Sakkari, at the moment.
If she does not believe in rankings, it makes sense. She reached #2 and right now she is outside the top ten. So her mentality can't be "I am ranked properly". She must think "I am better than my ranking".
I bet Rafa does not think he is the best 12th player in the world.
by ti-amie I am ashamed to say I had to think about who the "Big 3" in the WTA are. Sabalenka, Rybakina and of course Iga. Sabalenka is playing great right now but she can still do a Sakkari and rip defeat from the jaws of victory. Tonight's match will go a long way to establish Krejcikova as a "Big 4" member.
by Deuce This talk of a 'big 3' or 'big 4' in the WTA is pure nonsense.
How long were Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic at the top of the game? Slightly longer than the few MONTHS that Swiatek, Sabalenka, and Rybakina have been at the top, I believe.
People tend to exaggerate an awful lot these days (everything is 'awesome' and 'epic', etc.).
The 'big 3/big 4' talk in the WTA should stop and resume only in about 5 years IF there is any long-term consistency at the top at that point.
by Suliso I think I agree this time. At least 3 Slams each and then we can talk.
by Suliso Medvedev up to #4 if he wins. Sinner already back to career high #9, but will rise to #6 if he wins tomorrow. Alcaraz has lost his #1 ranking to Djokovic.
On the women's side Rybakina currently #7 and will rise another spot with a title. Kvitova currently #11 and will rise one more spot past Bencic if she wins the title.
WTA live race:
Sabalenka
Rybakina
Pegula
Swiatek
Krejcikova
ATP live race
Medvedev
Djokovic
Alcaraz
Sinner
Tsitsipas
by ponchi101 I am surprised that Rybakina will "only" reach #6 with the win. I know, her Wimby points are zero, and that hurts, but I gather it shows how poorly she played, for a few tournaments, after that win.
If she wins, though, I will say she has had the most successful first quarter of them all. And we will have a real race for #1.
by 3mlm And with the win Kvitova moves into the #5 spot in the WTA live race.
by JazzNU
by ashkor87 a triumph for the ranking system.. the top 4 seeds, the highest ranked 4 players, are in the semis of Charleston! what happens next may be different, but still a good result for the ranking system.
PS: i would bet on the lowest ranked of the 4, though, to win the title! but not very high confidence level..
by ponchi101 In Bogota, 2 of the top 4 (#1 lost in 1R). So, a reasonable tool for prediction. Not infallible, just reasonable.
by JTContinental
Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:32 pm
I think I agree this time. At least 3 Slams each and then we can talk.
Agreed--two of the WTA "Big 3" have yet to prove they can play elite level tennis for more than a couple of months at a time.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 3:58 pm
In Bogota, 2 of the top 4 (#1 lost in 1R). So, a reasonable tool for prediction. Not infallible, just reasonable.
Maybe rankings are less meaningful in smaller tournaments..the players are not that great anyway even if they are seeded high..
by ponchi101 Most of the players in Bogota were ranked below 100. The only known ones were still below that line: Podoroska, Bouchard, SST. That Mertens did not even make it out of the first round may be some indication of where her game is.
Then again, the altitude makes if hard to play here for people that have been bred at lower elevations.
by JTContinental Tiafoe will be ranked a career high 11 tomorrow
by ponchi101 He is within range of USA's #1, a few hundred points behind Fritz. Not a shabby accomplishment.
by JazzNU
by JazzNU To the many people who said Sakkari was a joke being in the Top 10 last season
by ashkor87 Trouble is, Sakkari doesn't go further...
by ponchi101 And that is the reason she is in the TOP 10, and not in the TOP 3.
But denying her consistency is not looking at these data.
by JazzNU
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 4:53 am
Trouble is, Sakkari doesn't go further...
No, the trouble is the need to disrespect her. Because that's all that this is doing.
by Suliso Do we absolutely have to respect her here? Just saying...
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 4:53 am
Trouble is, Sakkari doesn't go further...
No, the trouble is the need to disrespect her. Because that's all that this is doing.
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 5:36 pm
Do we absolutely have to respect here here? Just saying...
Pointing out that Sakkari seldom goes further is not disrespect. In the last 3 years, she has made 5 finals, losing all. So, she only progresses from the SF's to the final on 1/4 of the occasions.
The data show that indeed, she is a consistent performer. But it also shows that there seems to be a ceiling.
by ti-amie Sakkari is the one player, even more than Sabalenka, who seems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time she's in sight of a final. Sabalenka has been playing very well of late and I felt she would win this. It's not disrespectful to point out that as ponchi said she has a ceiling.
by nelslus Honestly- Sakarri just pisses me off. SO freakin' talented. But, over and over again- including today (the end of the first set)- she gets this scared, dear-caught-in-the-headlights look whenever there is anything resembling a pressure moment during any Big-Moment match past any SF. It's just annoying.
She's SO much better than this. But, until she truly realizes this.....
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 4:53 am
Trouble is, Sakkari doesn't go further...
No, the trouble is the need to disrespect her. Because that's all that this is doing.
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2023 5:36 pm
Do we absolutely have to respect here here? Just saying...
Pointing out that Sakkari seldom goes further is not disrespect. In the last 3 years, she has made 5 finals, losing all. So, she only progresses from the SF's to the final on 1/4 of the occasions.
The data show that indeed, she is a consistent performer. But it also shows that there seems to be a ceiling.
No, it's disrespectful. Let the stat just be what it is, there was zero need for the comment accept to take a shot at her. And it's coming from someone who constantly wants everyone to see a player with a history of being good not great to be viewed as a grand slam contender with no stats to back it up.
by Suliso Next week's rankings will be used for RG seedings. There is some uncertainty who'll get the last few positions. As of right now Nishioka and Giorgia are occupying the last position, but both are already out and several players just below them are alive.
For men the top 8 is set with 95% certainty (Alcaraz, Djokovic, Medvedev, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Rune and Sinner). For women it's not as certain - Kasatkina would overtake Sakkari for #8 if she reaches SF's. Given the draw it doesn't look completely impossible.
by Suliso That didn't take long... With Coco losing to Bouzkova the latter moves into a seeded position and now Stephens is the last seed. Obviously assuming no withdrawals. However, that might not be it yet. Badosa needs one more win (over Muchova) to move into a seeded range and Muchova needs two. If either thing happens Stephens is out and Shelby Rogers will be #32 seed.
As for Gauff herself she'll be seeded either #5 or #6, but will need to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the next four weeks or so to avoid tumbling out of the top 10.
by ti-amie
by ashkor87 Interesting fact- there have been 6 Wta tournaments this year, 1000 pointers and above, Swiatek has won ....None!
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 4:31 am
Interesting fact- there have been 6 Wta tournaments this year, 1000 pointers and above, Swiatek has won ....None!
Mick also pointed that out in another topic.
We can accept that her hard court season was not great, but not bad either. But of the big clay tournaments, she only won Stuttgart, which is important but is not huge.
I still say she will be a dominant force for years to come. But we keep forgetting, over and over, that the Serenas, Steffis, Martinas and Chrissies are the exceptions. Last year was a very, very good year for Iga. Repeating that level was always going to be hard.
by ashkor87 I remain confident, though, that she will win the French....
by ponchi101 If you can only bet on one player at RG, sure, the money is still on her.
But, for example. I plan to start the usual polls but giving people the chance to pick as many as three players. Because after Madrid/Rome, there is no player, on either tour, that is like a 75% favorite. There will be mixes.
If somebody picks Rybakina, for example, they have a point.
by ponchi101 Novak out of the #1. Total weeks there: 387.
It is an unbelievable number, and achievement.
by ashkor87 How many players will perform up to their rankings at RG? Would be interesting to track, say, the top 16..a safe bet it wouldn't even be 50% ..
by ponchi101 How many players make their seeding?
Well, since you are proposing the experiment...
by ashkor87 Yes, I bet less than 50%!! We shall see.
by ashkor87https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2001/ ... is.comment
Just remembering why there are 32 seeds today. Personally, I think, 8 is enough
But what is the real purpose of seeding? Not truth and justice, for sure, nor fairness to the players .it has always been to maximize revenue to the tournament..by ensuring that the players people want to see, last as long as possible, and the marquee matches are as late as possible , when revenues are highest.
In today,'s world, I think, ,8 seeds would be enough..and add some local wild cards! When I went to see Wimbledon, I got to see Federer on centre court because folks had come to see an English player and left right after,! I couldn't believe my luck...!
by New England Nitemare From the 70's to the mid 90's they used to seed 16 players at the GS tournaments. I think they should go back to that. I always thought 32 players seeded was too many.
by ponchi101 16 was the right number. But remember that even the mid level players wanted the 32 seeds system. The #17 player in the world ran the chance of running into Mac or Lendl in 1R, and that was a bit harsh.
And we always attach a little bit of a morality play to tennis; we forget that, as poetic and beautiful as it can be, this is still a business. If you cannot generate the revenue to make it worth it for the players, some possible champions will not join the sport.
Look at the WTA; we have been talking lately about equal pay and all it entails, not realizing that for all its faults, the WTA is still the most profitable women's league in the world. Having Kalinina lose in 1R to Swiatek at RG (for example) does nobody any good.
So, keep it at 32 seeds. It really is a trivial problem in comparison to others.
by New England Nitemare To your case and point ponchi, i remember in 1994 at Wimbledon, Steffi Graf was the #1 seed and she lost in the 1st round to Lori McNeil who I think was ranked #19 in the world, a brutal draw for Steffi, and Lori McNeil went all the way to the semifinals before losing to eventual champion Conchita Martinez. I think the 32 seeds are here to stay. They would never go back to 16 seeds.
by skatingfan I don't think we should have fewer seeds at the Grand Slam events than we get at Indidan Wells, Miami, Rome, and Madrid.
by ponchi101 Certainly not. Those seedings should revert also to 16, if that were the move at the slams.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 11:05 pm
Certainly not. Those seedings should revert also to 16, if that were the move at the slams.
How do you do that in a 96 player draw? Random players get a first round bye, or do you change the draw size?
Also, if only 1/8 of players should be seeded should 64 player draws only have 8 seeds? I don't see how fewer seeds is better for the tournaments, the players, or the fans.
by ponchi101 We started talking about how it went in the past, with only 16 seeds. The general agreement for the tournaments is as you say: more seeds avoids highly ranked players playing top seeds early in a tournament.
About going back to 8 seeds in 64 seed tourneys: that happens, doesn't it? You get tournaments in which only the top four seeds get a BYE, while the others play their round. Which has never made sense to me either.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 11:05 pm
Certainly not. Those seedings should revert also to 16, if that were the move at the slams.
How do you do that in a 96 player draw? Random players get a first round bye, or do you change the draw size?
Also, if only 1/8 of players should be seeded should 64 player draws only have 8 seeds? I don't see how fewer seeds is better for the tournaments, the players, or the fans.
Especially if a bunch go out in early rounds.
by skatingfan Nadal will drop outside the top 100 as a result of not defending the title at Roland Garros.
Zverev needs a good run to keep his ranking. If he loses early he will fall out of the 50.
by ashkor87 5 of the top 16 gone in R1!!
by Suliso I will be laughing if the top 4 now reach SF's.
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 5:56 am
I will be laughing if the top 4 now reach SF's.
Could happen..for once, 3 of the top 4 are great players...only 1 isn't ..on the women's side, that is..the men have already lost #2.
by Suliso Svitolina is back in the top 100 in no time at all (#73 in live ranking).
by ponchi101 Probably end of the line, as she might be going against Aryna. But she has the game to annoy Sabalenka, so maybe with a little luck...
by ashkor87 Sabalenka has become impervious to annoyance these days ..only a Tier 1 player can beat her now, except when she is fatigued from having gone deep the previous tournament...neither apply now
by ponchi101 Sloane hit only 5 winners yesterday. FIVE. And yet, she pushed Aryna to two long sets.
Aryna still can spend long stretches of matches spraying balls all over. I agree, she is not faltering mentally, but if the balls don't land in, there is very little she can do.
by Suliso Haddad Maia joins the top 10. She's the real South American star. Far superior to Podoroska, Osorio or anyone else at tour level.
by ponchi101 She is the ONLY S. American star. Cami only registers here in Colombia, and in a country dominated by football, she registers very little. And Podoroska's failure to gain any traction after her RG SF has pretty much left her out of the Argentinian public's view.
This is a region where the WTA has a lot of work to do. And with women's football becoming more popular, there is a lot of competition for a tennis player to become a household name. Right now, we are in a vicious circle: there are no female players, so there are no tournaments, so there are no places to develop tennis, so no young women take up the sport...
by ashkor87
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:56 am
Sabalenka has become impervious to annoyance these days ..only a Tier 1 player can beat her now, except when she is fatigued from having gone deep the previous tournament...neither apply now
I do consider Muchova to be right at the top of Tier 2
Orwell ince described himself as being from the upper lower middle class..in the same spirit, we can define top tier of tier 2..
Bencic, Muchova, Pegula, Krejcikova?
Middle tier 2 - Sakkari, Badosa, Kasatkina, Coco..
Too fine!!
by ponchi101 Oh, c'mon, we are getting silly now If we go that way, why not say Tier 2.5? If such and such player is "Top tier 2", why not put the players below her at Tier 3, and re-arrange accordingly?
And then, of course, we can go for even further and have the one player that is Tier 1.2, and so on.
You are trying to slice this bologna loaf a bit too thinly, I would say. And we have never decided on a semi-proper definition of what these Tiers are. Are players in Tier 1 players that have ALREADY won a slam, or that we think could win a slam? Tier 2, players that have reached a slam final? Tier 3, players with a MS1000? We have never decided what we mean by that, at least heuristically.
And we might be suffering from recency bias. Sure, Muchova is having a hell of a tournament; but let's not forget that she has been dormant, and/or injured, since her Aussie SF. This may be a sign, but we need ot see if she can stablish herself as a constant, top player from now on.
by Suliso Iga has a good chance of holding on to #1 ranking a bit longer. Albeit I still predict Sabalenka to overtake her after Wimbledon.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:55 pm
Oh, c'mon, we are getting silly now If we go that way, why not say Tier 2.5? If such and such player is "Top tier 2", why not put the players below her at Tier 3, and re-arrange accordingly?
And then, of course, we can go for even further and have the one player that is Tier 1.2, and so on.
You are trying to slice this bologna loaf a bit too thinly, I would say. And we have never decided on a semi-proper definition of what these Tiers are. Are players in Tier 1 players that have ALREADY won a slam, or that we think could win a slam? Tier 2, players that have reached a slam final? Tier 3, players with a MS1000? We have never decided what we mean by that, at least heuristically.
And we might be suffering from recency bias. Sure, Muchova is having a hell of a tournament; but let's not forget that she has been dormant, and/or injured, since her Aussie SF. This may be a sign, but we need to see if she can stablish herself as a constant, top player from now on.
True..that is why I gave up in the end...
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:55 pm
Oh, c'mon, we are getting silly now If we go that way, why not say Tier 2.5? If such and such player is "Top tier 2", why not put the players below her at Tier 3, and re-arrange accordingly?
And then, of course, we can go for even further and have the one player that is Tier 1.2, and so on.
You are trying to slice this bologna loaf a bit too thinly, I would say. And we have never decided on a semi-proper definition of what these Tiers are. Are players in Tier 1 players that have ALREADY won a slam, or that we think could win a slam? Tier 2, players that have reached a slam final? Tier 3, players with a MS1000? We have never decided what we mean by that, at least heuristically.
And we might be suffering from recency bias. Sure, Muchova is having a hell of a tournament; but let's not forget that she has been dormant, and/or injured, since her Aussie SF. This may be a sign, but we need if she can stablish herself as a constant, top player from now on.
True..that is why I gave up in the end...
by Suliso WTA clay season is over and here are the top 10 in the race after it.
Large difference between the top 3 and others. To catch up anyone else will need to win Wimbledon or USO.
by ponchi101 Funny that they can all gain points at Wimby.
And Muchova's jump is interesting. I think she can do well on grass. And I hope so.
by Suliso Most top players will be in Berlin in two weeks, but Iga has opted to take another week off and play in Bad Homburg instead.
by JTContinental John Isner drops out of the top 100 for the first time since June of 2009
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:44 pm
Funny that they can all gain points at Wimby.
And Muchova's jump is interesting. I think she can do well on grass. And I hope so.
Yes, unique situation! Even Rybakina can gain 2000 points if she wins! Hadn't thought of that...
by ti-amie
by ashkor87 Maybe should be an annual exercise .
No. Of wta titles won
(Not counting Venus with 49)
One probably shouldn't count Osaka (for now) and Halep either. Osaka might or might not come back, but Halep will surely never be a factor again.
Also the list is very much incomplete. Azarenka with 21 titles for example and I'm sure many others missing with 2-4 titles.
Muguruza has 10
I think Halep is done winning anything big. Maybe a 250. Osaka has a better chance, IMO. I expect her to come back but not sure what her commitment level will be. I hope she has a strong second act to her career.
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 1:45 am
Of course, Navratilova had 167 singles titles and 177 in doubles! I can't even get my head around such numbers!!
Like, how you could even lay that many tournaments. Did she have a 90% winning percentage for events entered? Or just a super long career?
by skatingfan
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 1:47 pm
Like, how you could even lay that many tournaments. Did she have a 90% winning percentage for events entered? Or just a super long career?
She won her first tour singles title in 1974, and her last in 1994.
by skatingfan Alcaraz will be #1 again tomorrow after winning the title at Queen's.
by Suliso
skatingfan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 2:38 pm
Alcaraz will be #1 again tomorrow after winning the title at Queen's.
He will, but a top player with two straight Slam titles is still someone else.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 1:45 am
Of course, Navratilova had 167 singles titles and 177 in doubles! I can't even get my head around such numbers!!
Like, how you could even lay that many tournaments. Did she have a 90% winning percentage for events entered? Or just a super long career?
As stated above, 20 years of winning, and a stretch down there of about 6 years in which it was at least 10 tournaments a year.
No "Load Management" for Miss Navratilova. Not one bit.
Svitolina recently won her title #17 in Strasbourg.
Pliskova also did not retire yet. And she has 16
Pavlyuchenkova has 12
So: the winningest players in the tour... have been around for a long time
by ashkor87 Just to complete..
Keys 5
Kenin 5
Sloane 7
Kontaveit 4
by ashkor87 Svitolina recently won her title #17 in Strasbourg.
Pliskova also did not retire yet. And she has 16
Pavlyuchenkova has 12
I knew I had forgotten a bunch of people!
by ashkor87 Am (pleasantly) surprised Svitolina has 17..I never thought of her as a major player .! Equally surprised Bencic only has 8..would have guessed 12 or more .
Kvitova had 31 now. Best player ever not to be ranked No. 1, or No. 2 GOAT.
Hana Mandlikova would like to have a word with you
Mandlikova's best ranking was No. 3. (Martina and Chris would like to have a word with you.)
I know. I was going by "never to be ranked #1".
If we go just by "best #2 ever", then, indeed, Petra may have a word.
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:52 pm
Am (pleasantly) surprised Svitolina has 17..I never thought of her as a major player .! Equally surprised Bencic only has 8..would have guessed 12 or more .
Bencic had a bunch of years lost to injury.
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 2:49 pm
He will, but a top player with two straight Slam titles is still someone else.
Absolutely. I think this is a temporary return to #1. Say, until July 17.
by ponchi101 Completely. The sole question is: how far back will Carlitos be after Wimbledon, having to defend those 2000 USO points in September, and Novak having nothing to worry about?
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 10:00 pm
Completely. The sole question is: how far back will Carlitos be after Wimbledon, having to defend those 2000 USO points in September, and Novak having nothing to worry about?
Alcaraz played 4 tournaments last year prior to the US Open - 2 clay events, Canada, & Cincinnati - & has 640 points to defend before the US Open. If he does well at Wimbledon - quarters or better - I don't expect him to play as many tournaments this year, but if he had good results at just Cincinnati, and Canada he could easily gain some points. Now Djokovic doesn't have any points to defend, but I don't expect him to play more than 1 tournament, probably Cincinnati, this summer.
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 2:49 pm
He will, but a top player with two straight Slam titles is still someone else.
Absolutely. I think this is a temporary return to #1. Say, until July 17.
Young players like Alcaraz often improve at an astonishing speed..wouldn't be surprised if he wins W this year ..this is very likely Djokovic' last W title ...he won't mind, hd has plenty .!
by mick1303 What is also worth noting is that out of 31 Petra's title only 4 are International (now WTA250). The wast majority is bigger titles: 2 Slams, 1 YEC (plus 1 lesser YEC), 10 Tier I (which in WTA are oddly divided into Mandatory and not), 13 Premier (WTA500). This is an atypical distribution. Goes to show that she is "big match oriented".
by JTContinental As much as I wish for it to be true, absolutely nothing is indicating a changing of the guard for the Wimbledon title
by ponchi101
mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 3:37 pm
What is also worth noting is that out of 31 Petra's title only 4 are International (now WTA250). The wast majority is bigger titles: 2 Slams, 1 YEC (plus 1 lesser YEC), 10 Tier I (which in WTA are oddly divided into Mandatory and not), 13 Premier (WTA500). This is an atypical distribution. Goes to show that she is "big match oriented".
Or that she rarely plays the lesser tournaments. Can't win them if you don't play them (and she is good enough not to play those).
by ashkor87 Re #1 on the men's side, let us not forget the only reason Alcaraz is #1. Is because Djokovic got no points for his Wimby last year! And did not play USO either..
Svitolina recently won her title #17 in Strasbourg.
Pliskova also did not retire yet. And she has 16
Pavlyuchenkova has 12
So: the winningest players in the tour... have been around for a long time
Sabalenka is 25, Iga 22... Pretty good numbers for their ages.
by Owendonovan It will be interesting to see if the amount of points available with zero to lose over Wimbledon can significantly alter the current rankings.
by ponchi101 Look at Muchova at RG. Entered ranked 47 (I think) and left ranked in the top 20.
Slams offer so many points they always alter the ranking for any mid level player that does well. Linette is enjoying her high ranking thanks to that Aussie run.
by ashkor87 True but this situation is unique. Even Rybakina is not defending any points..normally, the top players don't gain much, this time they will..
by ti-amie
by Suliso Sabalenka to ascend to #1 if she can beat Jabeur.
by ponchi101 And rightly so. One slam, one SF and one F (at least) makes her the best.
by 3mlm In the ATP:
No matter what happens, Medvedev will remain #3.
If Sinner wins the title he will advance to #4; otherwise, he will remain #8*.
If both Alcaraz and Djokovic make the final, the winner will be #1, the loser #2. If only one makes the final, he will be #1, the other #2. If neither makes the final, Alcaraz will be #1, Djokovic #2.
In the WTA:
As noted above, if Sabalenka makes the final, she will be #1 even if she loses; otherwise she will remain #2.
If Jabeur wins the title, she will be #3; otherwise she will remain #6*.
If Vondrousova wins the title, she will be #10; if she makes the final, she will be #16; otherwise she will drop to #24*.
If Svitolina wins the title, she will be #12; if she makes the final, she will be #21; otherwise she will remain #27*.
*Based on live rank including current Wimbledon points.
by ashkor87 Vondrousova is in the forties before W so ' will drop?' I was a bit startled ....
by 3mlm
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:31 am
Vondrousova is in the forties before W so ' will drop?' I was a bit startled ....
She's currently #23 in the live rankings, so it would be a drop because Svitolina, currently #27 in the live rankings, would move past her to #21.
by ashkor87 Aah! Live rankings..thanks..
by patrick See Swiatek will remain at number one for a few more weeks thanks to Jabeur.
by ponchi101 The modern WTA.
Three slams for the year. 6 finalists.
No such thing as The Big Any Number.
by Suliso
patrick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 5:03 pm
See Swiatek will remain at number one for a few more weeks thanks to Jabeur.
Till after USO most likely
by ponchi101 Why after? She is defending those 2000 points there. Failure to do that and the change could happen.
Or am I missing some numbers?
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 7:56 pm
Why after? She is defending those 2000 points there. Failure to do that and the change could happen.
Or am I missing some numbers?
The points don't come off until after the tournament finishes, but setting the US Open aside for a moment both players have opportunities to gain points in the summer though Sabalenka has a few more points to defend than Swiatek.
by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 7:56 pm
Why after? She is defending those 2000 points there. Failure to do that and the change could happen.
Or am I missing some numbers?
I meant that Swiatek likely stays at #1 until after her USO points are gone. Obviously could also be much longer than that if she outplays Sabalenka during the summer and at USO, but that we don't know yet.
by mick1303 There is something I don't understand looking at the current live ranking. All 4 of Alcaraz, Djokovic, Medvedev and Sinner reached semis and suppose to have equal added points, given that there should not be points subtracted from last year (Wimbledon gave no points last year and there are no other tour events during this time). But they show +630 for Sinner and Medvedev and +720 for Alcaraz and Djokovic. Why?
by skatingfan
mick1303 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 14, 2023 10:27 am
There is something I don't understand looking at the current live ranking. All 4 of Alcaraz, Djokovic, Medvedev and Sinner reached semis and suppose to have equal added points, given that there should not be points subtracted from last year (Wimbledon gave no points last year and there are no other tour events during this time). But they show +630 for Sinner and Medvedev and +720 for Alcaraz and Djokovic. Why?
Because not only did they not give points last year, but they removed Wimbledon from the mandatory position in the ranking system. So if you look at Medvedev's ranking for example you will see he gets 90 points from an ATP 250 called Adelaide 1 under 'Best of Other Countable Tournaments' , and now that Wimbledon is added on as a Mandatory tournament that 90 points drops from his rankings. 720 for semifinals - minus 90 = 630 https://www.atptour.com/en/players/dani ... -breakdown
by ponchi101 I am frequently truly impressed with the knowledge in this forum.
Hat's off to you, Skatingfan
by Suliso Vondrousova joins the top 10 for the first time.
Somewhat surprisingly Gauff kept her rankings spot despite losing in the first round.
by 3mlm
Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:46 pm
Vondrousova joins the top 10 for the first time.
Somewhat surprisingly Gauff kept her rankings spot despite losing in the first round.
She got a little help from Sakkari losing in the first round and Kasatkina losing in the third round and also some players losing points for the reason Skatingfan explained above.
by Owendonovan Now that Wimpy points have been added, do we find the ranking more honestly reflective of the ability of the player according to their current ranking?
by ponchi101 I say that it should follow logically. The lack of points last year distorted the rankings.
If Alcaraz wins, he will be reigning USO and Wimby champ. A worthy #1. If Djokovic wins, no discussion.
by skatingfan The most interesting thing about the rankings post Wimbledon is that unless Djokovic wins this match there will no changes in the top 13. Tommy Paul moves up to a new career high at #14 will be the first change.
by ashkor87 I am actually surprised Djokovic would not play Toronto..since he did not play this swing at all last year, he has no points to defend.. and every point helps, doesnt it? unless he is so confident or so focused on the USO he doesnt care about ranking? he has said only the grand slams matter, so maybe that is what it is..
by ponchi101 He does not care about the ranking anymore. He is citing fatigue as his reason for not playing. Really? He has played 14 matches between Wimby and RG.
He is only focused now on Slams. He wants 24, and he wants 25 to settle any possible doubt. My only issue is that, as I have said before, that strategy is dubious to me; NOTHING can replace time on court VS real peers. There is no way you can emulate a real 3 sets of actual play with 3 sets of training.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:47 pm
He does not care about the ranking anymore. He is citing fatigue as his reason for not playing. Really? He has played 14 matches between Wimby and RG.
He is only focused now on Slams. He wants 24, and he wants 25 to settle any possible doubt. My only issue is that, as I have said before, that strategy is dubious to me; NOTHING can replace time on court VS real peers. There is no way you can emulate a real 3 sets of actual play with 3 sets of training.
Agree that he doesn't care about the ranking. He wants as many Slams as he can eke out. I think he still cares about competing and getting the best out of his body, the challenge that comes with that. He wants to compete with this new generation.
Fatigue can be shorthand for "I don't want to." We all know that. He will probably play Cincinnati. But don't you think champions know how to best prepare? He's not going to imperil his chances.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:47 pm
He does not care about the ranking anymore. He is citing fatigue as his reason for not playing. Really? He has played 14 matches between Wimby and RG.
He is only focused now on Slams. He wants 24, and he wants 25 to settle any possible doubt. My only issue is that, as I have said before, that strategy is dubious to me; NOTHING can replace time on court VS real peers. There is no way you can emulate a real 3 sets of actual play with 3 sets of training.
Fatigue can be shorthand for "I don't want to." We all know that. He will probably play Cincinnati. But don't you think champions know how to best prepare? He's not going to imperil his chances.
Gotta agree. Novak ain't no Dewy & Springtime Mirra Andreeva-esque (AKA, Good Andreeva) competitor these days. Pace yourself. Plus- this year, Novak won the Aussie and Rolland Garros titles. And, much as I quiver and vomit at this thought- Novak was damned close to winning Wimbledon this year. I don't think missing the likes of Toronto's gonna impact his chances.
by ti-amie
by JTContinental One of the Big 3 is ranked 4 this week, so does that mean the era is over?
by ponchi101
JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:49 pm
One of the Big 3 is ranked 4 this week, so does that mean the era is over?
It was good while it lasted. The whole 6 months.
(you are right).
by ashkor87 Big 3 had nothing to do with ranking in my mind (I don't care about rankings. Period)
by ashkor87 Rankings are data, they are facts. Only Trump would argue that they are false, because data does not have the property of being true or false. Data just is. Big 3 is an expression of a judgment, which can, and should, be argued about . Conflating the two is what they call , in philosophy, a category mistake.
by ponchi101 I'll side with Iga. Calling three players the Big 3, when two of them only had 1 slam in their name, was rather silly.
It is not as if none of them ever loses before the semis of any tournament.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 3:48 pm
I'll side with Iga. Calling three players the Big 3, when two of them only had 1 slam in their name, was rather silly.
It is not as if none of them ever loses before the semis of any tournament.
Yeah, they need to find a different term. That one is retired.
by Owendonovan Krejcikova can beat 'em all any day any how.
Everybody 27 or younger except for the 36-year-old Djokovic, now back on US soil in Cincy with coronavirus vaccine policy change
by JTContinental I see Halep was the defending champion at the Canadian Open and currently has 970 ranking points. Does that mean she will drop to 0 on Monday?
by skatingfan
JTContinental wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 11:03 pm
I see Halep was the defending champion at the Canadian Open and currently has 970 ranking points. Does that mean she will drop to 0 on Monday?
She will have 70 points on Monday - Canada is worth 900 points - and will be ranked 578.
by Suliso Muchova joins the top 10 for the first time. Actually all the top Czechs are next to each other from 9-12. Vondrousova, Muchova, Kvitova and Krejcikova in that order.
Sabalenka missed the chance to move ahead of Swiatek in safe points after USO. Now if they both lose at the same stage Iga is still 100 points ahead.
by Suliso On the men's side Djokovic can't be #1 tomorrow, but he has an excellent chance after USO. Particularly if he wins today.
by ponchi101 He has to lose very early not to get to #1 again, after the USO.
by 3mlm Even if Alcaraz wins today and Djokovic withdraws from the USO, Alcaraz would need to make the final of the USO to stay ahead of Djokovic (by 20 points). If Djokovic wins today and wins his first round match at the USO, he would be #1 even if Alcaraz wins the USO.
by JTContinental
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 7:51 pm
Muchova joins the top 10 for the first time. Actually all the top Czechs are next to each other from 9-12. Vondrousova, Muchova, Kvitova and Krejcikova in that order.
Sabalenka missed the chance to move ahead of Swiatek in safe points after USO. Now if they both lose at the same stage Iga is still 100 points ahead.
Lindsay mentioned this in commentary today and how they could have a formidable Olympic team that doesn't contain Pliskova, who is the 5th ranked Czech at 21.
by Suliso
3mlm wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 9:01 pm
Even if Alcaraz wins today and Djokovic withdraws from the USO, Alcaraz would need to make the final of the USO to stay ahead of Djokovic (by 20 points). If Djokovic wins today and wins his first round match at the USO, he would be #1 even if Alcaraz wins the USO.
That's all true, however Alcaraz is still 500 points ahead in the race so he's likely to be back unless Djokovic actually outplays him at USO.
by skatingfan I think the big question is how much will Djokovic play this fall. He played a lot last year after missing the whole summer, but will he defend all those points. In addition, we also have Shanghai on the calendar after 4 years where no one has points to defend, and Alcaraz also missed the WTF last year giving him a couple big opportunities to earn points this fall.
by Suliso The final 8 for women is already clear with 80% probability. Big gap between #8 in the race (Jabeur) and closest followers.
by ti-amie
by skatingfan That's remarkable - Austin Kraijcek will take over as ATP doubles #1 on Monday, and the WTA doubles #1 will be decided over the next few days with Gauff/Pegula holding pole position to be co-#1's with Hsieh, and Townsend still in the running.
by skatingfan Shelton will crack the top 20 next week with 5 of his countable ranking slots still being taken by challengers.
by nelslus
skatingfan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 4:35 am
Shelton will crack the top 20 next week with 5 of his countable ranking slots still being taken by challengers.
#19 at present. Insane. Didn't get the chance to watch this. Will have to look at this match when I get back to Chicago. SO impressive.
by meganfernandez
nelslus wrote:
skatingfan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 4:35 am
Shelton will crack the top 20 next week with 5 of his countable ranking slots still being taken by challengers.
#19 at present. Insane. Didn't get the chance to watch this. Will have to look at this match when I get back to Chicago. SO impressive.
He played loose and took his chances. Big-match player. I give him a puncher’s chance vs Djokovic (at least to take a set). He loves the crowd.
skatingfan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 4:35 am
Shelton will crack the top 20 next week with 5 of his countable ranking slots still being taken by challengers.
#19 at present. Insane. Didn't get the chance to watch this. Will have to look at this match when I get back to Chicago. SO impressive.
He played loose and took his chances. Big-match player. I give him a puncher’s chance vs Djokovic (at least to take a set). He loves the crowd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd say, 0 sets. VERY happy if I'm wrong.
by atlpam After watching the 3rd set, which had 6 breaks of serve before going to a tiebreak, Djokovic will need to be ill/hobbled for Shelton to take advantage. He can't hang with Djokovic for long rallies, and Djokovic will put serves back in play. Ben still has a tendency to showboat, going for the serve speed record when up 40-0 on his service game, which resulted in 2 double faults in a row, in one case (and Dad/coach shaking his head in the stands). Djokovic will not let him get away with that.
skatingfan wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 4:35 am
Shelton will crack the top 20 next week with 5 of his countable ranking slots still being taken by challengers.
#19 at present. Insane. Didn't get the chance to watch this. Will have to look at this match when I get back to Chicago. SO impressive.
He played loose and took his chances. Big-match player. I give him a puncher’s chance vs Djokovic (at least to take a set). He loves the crowd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I say he has not played a "big match" yet. QF's against Tiafoe does not quite make that category.
Semi's vs The Goat at the USO? Now you are talking.
nelslus wrote:
#19 at present. Insane. Didn't get the chance to watch this. Will have to look at this match when I get back to Chicago. SO impressive.
He played loose and took his chances. Big-match player. I give him a puncher’s chance vs Djokovic (at least to take a set). He loves the crowd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I say he has not played a "big match" yet. QF's against Tiafoe does not quite make that category.
Semi's vs The Goat at the USO? Now you are talking.
I think QF night match at the Open against a Top 10 player is a big match. Nothing compares to playing the GOAT or an established champion, but there were a lot of eyes on this match with a spot in his first semi on the line. Biggest match of his life so far. He loves it.
by meganfernandez
atlpam wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:33 pm
After watching the 3rd set, which had 6 breaks of serve before going to a tiebreak, Djokovic will need to be ill/hobbled for Shelton to take advantage. He can't hang with Djokovic for long rallies, and Djokovic will put serves back in play. Ben still has a tendency to showboat, going for the serve speed record when up 40-0 on his service game, which resulted in 2 double faults in a row, in one case (and Dad/coach shaking his head in the stands). Djokovic will not let him get away with that.
You might be right about long rallies, but I'm optimistic that he will impose his game. That's one thing Ben does really well. He definitely won't have the crap attitude that Fritz did for the whole match. Ben will embrace the moment and that will help him. You cynics! Do I expect him to win? No, but I expect him to show, to compete very well, and possibly make it interesting. I think he has a puncher's chance with that serve, big game, attitude, and crowd. This is Djokovic's worst Slam and he evidently isn't feeling 100%.
by Fastbackss The stat that got me is that he has not won 2 matches in a row since the Australian Open (challenger excluded). So yeah, he likes the stage.
But I agree. I don't see him being able to "push" Djokovic off the way he often did to Frances. Ben controlled more points than he will be able to against Novak. With his serve he could still take a set but I don't see him being ready... yet.
(And I chortled when he did the "big second serve" TWICE when up 40-0)
by meganfernandez
Fastbackss wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 4:11 pm
The stat that got me is that he has not won 2 matches in a row since the Australian Open (challenger excluded). So yeah, he likes the stage.
But I agree. I don't see him being able to "push" Djokovic off the way he often did to Frances. Ben controlled more points than he will be able to against Novak. With his serve he could still take a set but I don't see him being ready... yet.
(And I chortled when he did the "big second serve" TWICE when up 40-0)
That stat is crazy, and good observation about the stage. I wonder if he isn't as motivated in smaller tournaments, too. He lost to No 178 Jerry Shang, former junior No. 1, twice in a row in the summer - DC and Atlanta.
by meganfernandez Iga's thoughts on losing No. 1. Very insightful and positive.
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 5:56 am
He played loose and took his chances. Big-match player. I give him a puncher’s chance vs Djokovic (at least to take a set). He loves the crowd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I say he has not played a "big match" yet. QF's against Tiafoe does not quite make that category.
Semi's vs The Goat at the USO? Now you are talking.
I think QF night match at the Open against a Top 10 player is a big match. Nothing compares to playing the GOAT or an established champion, but there were a lot of eyes on this match with a spot in his first semi on the line. Biggest match of his life so far. He loves it.
Both Zverev and Medvedev said they would be watching Shelton vs Tiafoe.
Tiafoe had his chances but surprisingly he lost the third set TB.
That third set was a war.
atlpam wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:33 pm
After watching the 3rd set, which had 6 breaks of serve before going to a tiebreak, Djokovic will need to be ill/hobbled for Shelton to take advantage. He can't hang with Djokovic for long rallies, and Djokovic will put serves back in play. Ben still has a tendency to showboat, going for the serve speed record when up 40-0 on his service game, which resulted in 2 double faults in a row, in one case (and Dad/coach shaking his head in the stands). Djokovic will not let him get away with that.
You might be right about long rallies, but I'm optimistic that he will impose his game. That's one thing Ben does really well. He definitely won't have the crap attitude that Fritz did for the whole match. Ben will embrace the moment and that will help him. You cynics! Do I expect him to win? No, but I expect him to show, to compete very well, and possibly make it interesting. I think he has a puncher's chance with that serve, big game, attitude, and crowd. This is Djokovic's worst Slam and he evidently isn't feeling 100%.
And he seems to be completely fearless...which is something Djokovic doesn't really ever face. I figure if Djere can take two sets off of him, why not Shelton?
by nelslus THIS time, I feel it's gonna be a blood-bath. Novak's gonna want to show this "kid" something. I expect a very, VERY bad scoreline. I more just hope that Ben can find a very solid career, and keep on improving. He WILL have to learn how to play better at "regular" ATP events. In any case, his Aussie and US Open results are very impressive, regardless. (BTW, IMO, his Tommy Paul win DOES qualify as a big-match Slam result. AND- perhaps to a lesser extent- his destroying Karatsev.)
And he seems to be completely fearless...which is something Djokovic doesn't really ever face. I figure if Djere can take two sets off of him, why not Shelton?
Djokovic does not face fearlessness? He has been playing Roger and Rafa for over 20 years. I don't recall those two every showing fear.
Djere took two sets from Novak because he is Serbian too and Novak does not like to crush his fellow countrymen.
And about this match being a bloodbath: nah, that's not going to happen either. It will be a controlled win, but we are not going to see a 1-1-2 scoreline. It will be a regular, methodical win.
by ti-amie I expect a bloodbath too. He doesn't want another "kid" showing him up like Carlos did at Wimbledon.
by skatingfan
ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:03 pm
I expect a bloodbath too. He doesn't want another "kid" showing him up like Carlos did at Wimbledon.
Djokovic will want to keep the crowd out of it, and the best way to do that is to blunt Shelton early, and often.
And he seems to be completely fearless...which is something Djokovic doesn't really ever face. I figure if Djere can take two sets off of him, why not Shelton?
Djokovic does not face fearlessness? He has been playing Roger and Rafa for over 20 years. I don't recall those two every showing fear.
Djere took two sets from Novak because he is Serbian too and Novak does not like to crush his fellow countrymen.
And about this match being a bloodbath: nah, that's not going to happen either. It will be a controlled win, but we are not going to see a 1-1-2 scoreline. It will be a regular, methodical win.
I would say that Novak's been in both Roger's and Rafa's headspace for at least the last decade.
by JTContinental New #1s in both singles and doubles in the WTA, the first time in more than 20 years that has happened simultaneously
by ashkor87 The last spot in the race to the WTF seems to be between Rune and Fritz...Rune says he is back..after injury.
by ponchi101 I give Fritz the advantage. Something about more guts (I know, the bar is low).
by Fastbackss I would have agreed with you until I saw the wrist commentary today
by Suliso Iga winning Beijing has prevented Sabalenka from formally securing year end #1. She's still a strong favorite, though.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 He'll get the WC's. And he is talented enough that some training can get him far into a smaller tournament.
But, is that a career wasted, or what?
by ti-amie
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:15 pm
He'll get the WC's. And he is talented enough that some training can get him far into a smaller tournament.
But, is that a career wasted, or what?
It is. Monfils was the wasted talent of his generation and now we have Kyrgios. Should Tomic be included in the wasted talent category as well?
by ponchi101 No. Tomic had several technical issues that really did not make him a true contender. That FH was a shaky shot, for that level.
He was a lot of hype, with no real results. Nick beat RRN the first time he played each one of them. That was legit.
by Owendonovan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:37 pm
No. Tomic had several technical issues that really did not make him a true contender. That FH was a shaky shot, for that level.
He was a lot of hype, with no real results. Nick beat RRN the first time he played each one of them. That was legit.
And an arrogance that could never be backed up.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 11:15 pm
He'll get the WC's. And he is talented enough that some training can get him far into a smaller tournament.
But, is that a career wasted, or what?
Nick has no interest in smaller tournaments, or early rounds of big tournaments. He just wants to play Slam finals against Novak, Alcaraz or Medvedev.
Yes, talent wasted. It's a shame, but he is who he is. He seems to not be over the bullying from his childhood. It appears that he still doesn't accept responsibility for himself.
I still think there's a tiny chance that he pulls an Agassi and comes back from the dead for a couple years. Heck, maybe Agassi is the perfect coach for him.
by ti-amie I've always felt that in his head Kyrgios still sees himself as the chubby kid who was bullied.
by ashkor87 #8 beat #7 in the finals of the Elite trophy. ..#1 and 2 failed to get past the group stage ..rankings mean a lot, don't they?!
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:08 am
#8 beat #7 in the finals of the Elite trophy. ..#1 and 2 failed to get past the group stage ..rankings mean a lot, don't they?!
Rankings are about previous results, but they don't necessarily provide a predictive value, particularly when we're talking about players generally ranked between 10 & 20.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:08 am
#8 beat #7 in the finals of the Elite trophy. ..#1 and 2 failed to get past the group stage ..rankings mean a lot, don't they?!
Rankings are about previous results, but they don't necessarily provide a predictive value, particularly when we're talking about players generally ranked between 10 & 20.
Either that- or, almost all of the top 10-20 players suck.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:08 am
#8 beat #7 in the finals of the Elite trophy. ..#1 and 2 failed to get past the group stage ..rankings mean a lot, don't they?!
Rankings are about previous results, but they don't necessarily provide a predictive value, particularly when we're talking about players generally ranked between 10 & 20.
Yes, that is what I believe too...
by ponchi101 Pa.
Ri.
Ty.
We can't ignore that. All these players are so even (ah, stfu Ponchi, we know where you stand!!!! )
by skatingfan Casper Ruud will slip out of the top 10 if he doesn't win some matches this week.
by ptmcmahon Sounds like if Sabalenka makes final in Cancun she will clinch #1. Otherwise, Swiatek can pass her by winning the title.
by nelslus
skatingfan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 4:38 pm
Casper Ruud will slip out of the top 10 if he doesn't win some matches this week.
#11.
by Suliso
ptmcmahon wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2023 1:44 pm
Sounds like if Sabalenka makes final in Cancun she will clinch #1. Otherwise, Swiatek can pass her by winning the title.
Seems likely that they'll play each other in SF's.
ptmcmahon wrote:Both players in charge of their own fate for #1 now. Neat that it wound up directly in head to head play today.
Watch Swiatek win today now, then lose final and not get it anyway
Another reason to hold the tournament in good conditions. What a shame that the conditions could weigh heavily on who ends the year #1.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes it would have been nice to have the outcomes decided on something else other than the wind when showcasing and celebrating the top players of the year. This would not happen in the ATP.
by ti-amie
by skatingfan I did not expect Swiatek to regain the #1 ranking so quickly, and she's likely to hang on to it for a while now.
by ashkor87 Swiatek is clearly the best of this crop of players...if the tournaments continue to lay slow course, Swiatek will serve many many bagels ..to players in the top 10..because she is better than everyone in every dimension except on serve,- which slow courts blunt nicely...
by Suliso Aryna had a great chance of keeping #1 ranking this fall regardless of Iga's results, but just didn't play enough and when she did results were average.
by ti-amie Shelton's motto became "humble but thirsty"
Sabalenka wants it very, very badly, and doesn't hide it. I don't think Shelton does either but whatever.
by ponchi101 Glad to see that Iga is finally wearing ON shoes. she must have been waiting for her on line.
by Suliso Zheng up to career high #7 (#6 if she wins the title).
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 3:51 pm
Zheng up to career high #7 (#6 if she wins the title).
Wow. Good for her.
by Suliso No change among the top four in ATP (Medvedev could have been #2 with a title), but there is now a huge gap in points between Sinner at #4 and Rublev at #5. More than 3,000 points!
by Suliso Most notable changes in WTA rankings after AO:
Rybakina -2 to #5
Zheng +8 to #7
Svitolina +4 to #19
Paolini +7 to #24
Yastremska +64 to #29
Noskova +20 to #30
Azarenka -11 to #33
Andreeva +12 to #35
Kalinskaya +37 to #38
Linette -32 to #56
Timofeeva +70 to #100
by ashkor87 the only suprising one there is Vika.. why did she fall so much? I dont remember her doing anything great at last years AO..?
by Suliso
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:07 pm
the only suprising one there is Vika.. why did she fall so much? I dont remember her doing anything great at last years AO..?
You have forgotten her SF run.
by ashkor87 i really didn't remember that! did she really go that far last year?! have to look it up
by Jeff from TX Guess Yastremska won't have to worry about qualify for awhile.
by Suliso Rybakina would really like to make some waves in the Middle East before defending IW and Miami points (W, RU).
by ponchi101 Almost 1/3 of her total points, right?
A couple of early losses could be costly.
by Suliso With neither player playing the Middle East swing Sinner is now guaranteed to climb past Medvedev to career high #3 (first ever Italian to be ranked that high).
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 That is not a bad run. 5 years as a top 10.
Can he make it back?
by Suliso I think chances are very high. He's only 25...
by ponchi101 I was thinking more about the injuries. They have not been trivial, and back injuries are notoriously hard to overcome.
I guess he can displace at least one of the current top 10.
by Suliso Of course if injuries completely derail him then it's another story, but otherwise I wouldn't call the current top 10 particularly strong. At full strength Stefanos is better than at least half of them.
by JTContinental With Tsitsipas falling out of the top 10 Monday, it will be the first time since the rankings inception in 1973 that no one in the top 10 will have a one-handed backhand.
by ponchi101 It is a stroke that is dying. And with the death of S&V tennis, having a one hander offers very little advantages.
As a one-handed BH person myself, it is a bit sad. It is one of the most beautiful strokes in the game.
by Suliso Points to defend for the top four before Monte Carlo:
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:38 pm
It is a stroke that is dying. And with the death of S&V tennis, having a one hander offers very little advantages.
As a one-handed BH person myself, it is a bit sad. It is one of the most beautiful strokes in the game.
I really wanted to develop a one-handed backhand, but it was just too difficult for me to control it.
by ponchi101 I grew up with a two hander (Connors and Borg era), but it was never a weapon. It was very much a liability. One day, chasing a shot down the line, I got to it and had to let go of the left hand, and hit a winner with a one handed. My prof said "never again hit with a two hander".
It became my favorite shot, and the one I rather rally with. Much steadier than my FH, that is for sure.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:38 pm
It is a stroke that is dying. And with the death of S&V tennis, having a one hander offers very little advantages.
As a one-handed BH person myself, it is a bit sad. It is one of the most beautiful strokes in the game.
Roddick had some analysis on the death of the one-handed backhand today on his podcast. Has a lot to do with the return of serve and the next shot. You can't just chip it back and start the point with the return. The chip return has to be amazing now - he mentioned Llorda's. Otherwise you're in trouble right away. Also, people can defend with the two-hander better than they used to, and even go from defense to offense with it, like Novak's sliding BH. You see it more and more with better fitness and strings.
Andy wondered when we'd see someone return with a two-handed backhand then switch to one during the rally.
by ashkor87 Very good points by Andy...I would go so far as to say even Sampras did not have a good return (vs Agassi) nor did Federer (vs Djoko and Nadal)..the one-hander is a lovely stroke but has its limitations .certainly it is better for volleys, maybe the decline of volleying is not unrelated to the decline of the one-handed backhand. Even I, at this age, am trying out the double-hander for service return...
Roddick had some analysis on the death of the one-handed backhand today on his podcast. Has a lot to do with the return of serve and the next shot. You can't just chip it back and start the point with the return. The chip return has to be amazing now - he mentioned Llorda's. Otherwise you're in trouble right away. Also, people can defend with the two-hander better than they used to, and even go from defense to offense with it, like Novak's sliding BH. You see it more and more with better fitness and strings.
Andy wondered when we'd see someone return with a two-handed backhand then switch to one during the rally.
I say never. By now, the players have to start so young that they need two hands when growing up. Roger and Pete switched to one handers in their teens, but that was precisely to become attacking players.
I remember reading that Pete Fisher switched Pete from 1H to 2H because he told him: "Name me one great S&V player with a two handed BH". That rationale is useless today, because nobody is growing up to be a S&V player.
by Suliso We should congratulate 18 year old Jakub Mensik with a top 100 debut. Maybe a big future star?
The other teenagers in the top 100 (all 19): Arthur Fils, Luca van Assche and Alex Michelsen
by ponchi101 I will never congratulate him for anything because he was my #1 pick for YCWJ and then he won...
Joking. Indeed, a huge achievement. Dos not happen every day. I will wait to actually watch him play before making a judgement.
Roddick had some analysis on the death of the one-handed backhand today on his podcast. Has a lot to do with the return of serve and the next shot. You can't just chip it back and start the point with the return. The chip return has to be amazing now - he mentioned Llorda's. Otherwise you're in trouble right away. Also, people can defend with the two-hander better than they used to, and even go from defense to offense with it, like Novak's sliding BH. You see it more and more with better fitness and strings.
Andy wondered when we'd see someone return with a two-handed backhand then switch to one during the rally.
I say never. By now, the players have to start so young that they need two hands when growing up. Roger and Pete switched to one handers in their teens, but that was precisely to become attacking players.
I remember reading that Pete Fisher switched Pete from 1H to 2H because he told him: "Name me one great S&V player with a two handed BH". That rationale is useless today, because nobody is growing up to be a S&V player.
Fair point. It's tough once taught.
Roddick podcast even said a form of how it is similarly needed for women as there hasn't been a 1H in an even longer time.
He also pointed out how Barty did a form of1H/2H. 1H to set up and get into rally and 2H down the line or to hit winner
Roddick had some analysis on the death of the one-handed backhand today on his podcast. Has a lot to do with the return of serve and the next shot. You can't just chip it back and start the point with the return. The chip return has to be amazing now - he mentioned Llorda's. Otherwise you're in trouble right away. Also, people can defend with the two-hander better than they used to, and even go from defense to offense with it, like Novak's sliding BH. You see it more and more with better fitness and strings.
Andy wondered when we'd see someone return with a two-handed backhand then switch to one during the rally.
I say never. By now, the players have to start so young that they need two hands when growing up. Roger and Pete switched to one handers in their teens, but that was precisely to become attacking players.
I remember reading that Pete Fisher switched Pete from 1H to 2H because he told him: "Name me one great S&V player with a two handed BH". That rationale is useless today, because nobody is growing up to be a S&V player.
Fair point. It's tough once taught.
Roddick podcast even said a form of how it is similarly needed for women as there hasn't been a 1H in an even longer time.
He also pointed out how Barty did a form of1H/2H. 1H to set up and get into rally and 2H down the line or to hit winner
I’d say Ons does the same thing since she slices her BH a lot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101 Ages ago, Dennis Van Dermeer asked this question: if 80% of the women hit a 2H backhand, how may have a 1H backhand?
The answer was 70%. A lot of players hit their SLICE BH wit one hand, and rallied with both.
The problem is the grip; if your dominant hand has the wrong grip for a slice BH, then going from a 2H to a 1H means not only letting go of one hand, it means changing grips halfway through the stroke. Barty could do it because her right hand was in an eastern BH grip to begin with; therefore, letting go of the left hand was not a liability.
by Suliso Career high and new career high WTA rankings as of tomorrow inside the top 100 (ATP coming tomorrow)
#14 Jasmine Paolini
#24 Anna Kalinskaya
#42 Magdalena Frech
#70 Ashlyn Krueger
#84 Zhuoxuan Bai (never heard of her...)
#95 Brenda Fruhvirtova
#96 Erika Andreeva
by Suliso Sinner is now ahead of Alcaraz in safe points. Carlos will need to outperform him significantly in IW to stay ahead.
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 If we are playing these games ... :
Pete won slams in three different decades, if you count 1990 as the end of the 80's.
by ti-amie
by Fastbackss Third longest span between top 10 appearances...
by ponchi101 Every time I watch him play, I wonder: this guy has NO slam finals' appearances? How is that possible?
by Suliso Sinner up to #2 tomorrow and Dimitrov to #9.
by nelslus
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 3:06 pm
Every time I watch him play, I wonder: this guy has NO slam finals' appearances? How is that possible?
Novak. Roger. Rafa. Murray. Stan. Today's Champs. Plus, all of the FAR more deserving Slam finalists. I think the more pertinent question is- how did Dimitrov ever get 3 Slam SF results?!?!?!?!
Plus- Dimitrov has already gotten The Tours' Aggie/Cibulková Memorial ATP/WTA Championship Consolation Prize Trophy- i.e., Miss Congeniality. All that a Scrub+ player can ever hope for.
by ponchi101 That is the reason I say what I say. Sure, Stan is a three time slam champ, two of them against full strength Novak. But I just don't see that huge difference between Stan and Grigor, in terms of the strength of their game. And frankly, I see Grigor and I see more variety than Andy's. Yet, as I said, zero slam FINALS (I am not even saying slam TITLES).
My myopic eyes just don't see what he is or was missing.
by nelslus
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:22 pm
That is the reason I say what I say. Sure, Stan is a three time slam champ, two of them against full strength Novak. But I just don't see that huge difference between Stan and Grigor, in terms of the strength of their game. And frankly, I see Grigor and I see more variety than Andy's. Yet, as I said, zero slam FINALS (I am not even saying slam TITLES).
My myopic eyes just don't see what he is or was missing.
Mentally tennis-player flaky, FAR too often. Shots not big enough. NOWHERE in the neighborhood of Stan, especially the way Stan clobbered the ball. (Stan also beat Rafa in an Aussie final- granted, Rafa had a 19-3 record, and Stan beat Roger in the Roland Garros QF the year he won in 2015, beating Novak in that final- Roger with the 23-3 record)- Dimitrov with more variety than Andy? Huh? For one- who'd you like better at the net?
AND, Carlos is a force on clay.
by Suliso With Gauff getting too "old" the most promising teenagers on tour are Noskova (19) and M. Andreeva (16).
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:32 pm
If we are playing these games ... :
Pete won slams in three different decades, if you count 1990 as the end of the 80's.
certainly it is
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:22 pm
That is the reason I say what I say. Sure, Stan is a three time slam champ, two of them against full strength Novak. But I just don't see that huge difference between Stan and Grigor, in terms of the strength of their game. And frankly, I see Grigor and I see more variety than Andy's. Yet, as I said, zero slam FINALS (I am not even saying slam TITLES).
My myopic eyes just don't see what he is or was missing.
Wawrinka packs much more power than Dimitrov, and he has the mind and will of a champion..Dimitrov doesnt.
by JTContinental
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:22 pm
That is the reason I say what I say. Sure, Stan is a three time slam champ, two of them against full strength Novak. But I just don't see that huge difference between Stan and Grigor, in terms of the strength of their game. And frankly, I see Grigor and I see more variety than Andy's. Yet, as I said, zero slam FINALS (I am not even saying slam TITLES).
My myopic eyes just don't see what he is or was missing.
The mental game
by Owendonovan Taylor Townsend at new career high of 57.
by skatingfan As a result of losing today to Sinner, Rune will drop out of the top 10 on Monday.
Ben Shelton will be the #1 American on Monday.
by Suliso And Sinner will get to stay above Alcaraz at #2
by ponchi101
skatingfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:51 pm
As a result of losing today to Sinner, Rune will drop out of the top 10 on Monday.
Ben Shelton will be the #1 American on Monday.
Rune stayed there a bit long. His results for the last 1/2 year have been truly forgettable.
Let's see how Patrick can fix that.
by Suliso Earlier this year some of you wondered whether/when Tsitsipas will be back in the top 10. Now we have an answer - it will be next Monday.
by JTContinental
skatingfan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:51 pm
Ben Shelton will be the #1 American on Monday.
That was a short reign
by ashkor87 Sabalenka defending a ton of points in Madrid..Coco can overtake her, so can Ryba but less likely...not that rankings matter so much, and I imagine the RG seedings will not be affected? #2 gets protection from Iga till the finals, worth having..
by Suliso
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:12 am I imagine the RG seedings will not be affected? #2 gets protection from Iga till the finals, worth having..
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:09 pm
Yeah and I'm not sure Pegula should get the nod over Keys on clay... maybe for doubles.
Keys is currently in position to be the 4th American for the Olympics - do we think Pegula will be healthy enough to play the Olympics?
Healthy, yes, but not necessarily in form. But it's the Olympics and players usually want to experience it if they have earned a spot. Chances are she'll still be ranked higher than Keys unless Keys makes the final of the French.
When I said "get the nod," I wasn't sure if the Olympics honors rankings. Do the highest ranked players always get the spots, or does the captain have some discretion?
by skatingfan
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 11:27 pm
Healthy, yes, but not necessarily in form. But it's the Olympics and players usually want to experience it if they have earned a spot. Chances are she'll still be ranked higher than Keys unless Keys makes the final of the French.
When I said "get the nod," I wasn't sure if the Olympics honors rankings. Do the highest ranked players always get the spots, or does the captain have some discretion?
It's ranking based, unless the player passes - it's not like Davis Cup or Billie Jean Cup.
by Suliso I think there are four spots anway so both Keys and Pegula gets to play if they want to.
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 1:35 am
I think there are four spots anway so both Keys and Pegula gets to play if they want to.
Are there separate slots for doubles players?
by Suliso Yes, two teams max
by meganfernandez
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 12:34 pm
Yes, two teams max
Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 12:34 pm
Yes, two teams max
What about alternates?
Top 10 doubles players are guaranteed entry as long as they have an eligible partner, and then everyone else is listed by ranking like they would for a regular tournament with a limit of 2 entries per country.
by skatingfan Jannik Sinner is the new world #1.
by Suliso And the era is over indeed. Djokovic will never be #1 again. Probably between Alcaraz and Sinner for the next few years.
by ponchi101 In retrospect, what a French Open.
End of the Roger/Rafa/Novak era. Rafa most certainly will not be back. Good, reliable players such as Gasquet and Cornet called it over. Thiem was unable to qualify and will also retire. Wawrinka and Murray showed they are no longer able to play nowhere near previous levels, and possibly this was their last RG.
At age 37, a torn meniscus is serious. He certainly will not make it to Wimbledon and he will have to be at full strength before coming back to the hard courts of the N. American circuit.
by skatingfan
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:29 pm
In retrospect, what a French Open.
End of the Roger/Rafa/Novak era. Rafa most certainly will not be back. Good, reliable players such as Gasquet and Cornet called it over. Thiem was unable to qualify and will also retire. Wawrinka and Murray showed they are no longer able to play nowhere near previous levels, and possibly this was their last RG.
At age 37, a torn meniscus is serious. He certainly will not make it to Wimbledon and he will have to be at full strength before coming back to the hard courts of the N. American circuit.
I think he'll do everything he can to be back for the Olympics - it's the only significant title missing from his resume.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:29 pm
In retrospect, what a French Open.
End of the Roger/Rafa/Novak era. Rafa most certainly will not be back. Good, reliable players such as Gasquet and Cornet called it over. Thiem was unable to qualify and will also retire. Wawrinka and Murray showed they are no longer able to play nowhere near previous levels, and possibly this was their last RG.
At age 37, a torn meniscus is serious. He certainly will not make it to Wimbledon and he will have to be at full strength before coming back to the hard courts of the N. American circuit.
True, we probably haven't absorbed the full impact of this year's RG.
by skatingfan Tsitsipas has once again gotten the short end of the stick, and is out of the top ten again this year.
by Suliso Djokovic finishes with 428 weeks as #1, two years ahead of anyone else. The consecutives weeks record stays with Federer, though.
Sinner is 14th different #1 player of this century. For a reference WTA has had 22 different players in #1 position during the same time frame. Lots of players with very few weeks, though. Swiatek is already #9 all time.
by Owendonovan Glad we won't have to hear about how Djokovic won this on one leg.......
by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 11:00 am
Glad we won't have to hear about how Djokovic won this on one leg.......
by meganfernandez
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 11:00 am
Glad we won't have to hear about how Djokovic won this on one leg.......
meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 5:09 pm
Yeah and I'm not sure Pegula should get the nod over Keys on clay... maybe for doubles.
Keys is currently in position to be the 4th American for the Olympics - do we think Pegula will be healthy enough to play the Olympics?
Healthy, yes, but not necessarily in form. But it's the Olympics and players usually want to experience it if they have earned a spot. Chances are she'll still be ranked higher than Keys unless Keys makes the final of the French.
When I said "get the nod," I wasn't sure if the Olympics honors rankings. Do the highest ranked players always get the spots, or does the captain have some discretion?
I'm not sure that such position as "captain" even exists in Olympics team
by Suliso Jasmine Paolini debuts in the top 10. No chance I would have predicted that even just a year ago.
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:29 pm
Jasmine Paolini debuts in the top 10. No chance I would have predicted that even just a year ago.
skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 9:13 pm
Keys is currently in position to be the 4th American for the Olympics - do we think Pegula will be healthy enough to play the Olympics?
Healthy, yes, but not necessarily in form. But it's the Olympics and players usually want to experience it if they have earned a spot. Chances are she'll still be ranked higher than Keys unless Keys makes the final of the French.
When I said "get the nod," I wasn't sure if the Olympics honors rankings. Do the highest ranked players always get the spots, or does the captain have some discretion?
I'm not sure that such position as "captain" even exists in Olympics team
They do, and Rinaldi and Bob Bryan are coaching this year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 Big achievement. Today a bit bittersweet, I guess.
by JTContinental Gauff will move to a career high 2 in the next rankings with not much to defend on grass. She's the highest ranked American player since Serena in 2017.
by JTContinental Career high rankings for 9 women in the top 100 this week:
Coco Gauff 2
Jasmine Paolini 7
Marta Kostyuk 17
Emma Navarro 18
Mirra Andreeva 23
Anna Kalinskaya 24
Linda Noskova 28
Clara Burel 42
Moyuka Uchijima 76
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:29 pm
Jasmine Paolini debuts in the top 10. No chance I would have predicted that even just a year ago.
And I think she will do very well at W..her defence and foot-speed will win her a lot of matches...I was about to say she will do even better than she did at RG but then I realized what that means!!
by ti-amie A taste of the ATP promos for Sinner:
by ti-amie
by ti-amie
by Fastbackss You know, I was sitting earlier tonight, pining for a new hashtag to be part of my life
#pif - that's it!
So simple on the surface, yet so layered
by meganfernandez I wouldn't have recognized Kafelnikov.
by JTContinental Jack Draper will be the new British #1 on Monday
by ponchi101 That should count for a few pints for the rest of his life.
by ashkor87 Not sure this is the right thread..but.. Where has Paolini been hiding all this time?
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 5:16 pm
Not sure this is the right thread..but.. Where has Paolini been hiding all this time?
Italy
by ashkor87 Yes, I suppose ...I am just surprised she wasn't on my radar all this time .she is not young, so she must have been playing somewhere ..
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 5:13 am
Yes, I suppose ...I am just surprised she wasn't on my radar all this time .she is not young, so she must have been playing somewhere ..
Well she's been slowly rising in the rankings over the past 10 years. I don't know if she will remain in the top 10 for more than a year, but she is achieving a lot this season.
by JTContinental Tommy Paul will be the new USA #1 on Monday
by ponchi101 Not a shabby accomplishment. #1 in a country with such a history in tennis is great.
Correct me if I am wrong. The USA gets a new #1, and so does the UK? (Draper). Or was that last week?
by meganfernandez
JTContinental wrote:Tommy Paul will be the new USA #1 on Monday
The adderall works! Ben Shelton better get a TUE.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by JTContinental Caro will be back in the top 100 on Monday
by Suliso I was just thinking to profile some younger players. This time concentrating on men younger than Alcaraz and Rune in the top 100. Most of them I've never seen to play myself. Live rankings as of today given.
#32 Arthur Fils FRA
Age: 20.0 y
Height: 1.85 m
Plays: right
ATP titles: 1 (Lyon 2023)
Junior: 2021 RG RU, 2021 RG Doubles W
#56 Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard FRA
Age: 20.9 y
Height: 2.03 m
Plays: right
ATP titles: 1 (Lyon 2024) + 4 challenger titles
Junior: 2021 RG Doubles W
#60 Alex Michelsen USA
Age: 19.8 y
Height: 1.93 m
Plays: right
ATP titles: 0 (1 RU)
Junior: 2022 Wimbledon Doubles W
by Suliso #71 Luca Nardi ITA
Age: 20.9 y
Height: 1.85 m
Plays: right
ATP titles: 0 (6 challenger titles)
#74 Jakub Mensik CZE
Age: 18.8 y
Height: 1.93 m
Plays: right
ATP titles: 0 (1 RU + 1 Challenger)
Junior: 2022 AO RU
#90 Juncheng Shang CHN
Age: 19.4
Height: 1.80 m
Plays: left
ATP titles: 0 (1 Challenger)
Junior: 2021 USO RU
#97 Luca van Assche FRA
Age: 20.1 y
Height: 1.78 m
Plays: right
ATP titles: 0 (3 challengers)
Junior: 2021 RG W
by Jeff from TX
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:21 pm
Caro will be back in the top 100 on Monday
Hopefully, the next retirement will be permanent.
by ponchi101 I've had Fils in all my fantasy teams as of late. He has not delivered.
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:21 pm
Caro will be back in the top 100 on Monday
Hopefully, the next retirement will be permanent.
I presumed this was a Nelslus post at first
by Suliso It doesn't feel like Swiatek been at the top that long, but already #9 on the all time list and certain to move past Henin and Barty for #7 spot before USO. Only Hingis and the five heavyweights far ahead now.
consistency gets you ranking...Sakkari has done that...
by JTContinental Sakkari does most of her damage at the 1000 level tournaments
by Suliso Lulu Sun up 70 places in live ranking all the way to #53. Her previous career high was #123.
by ti-amie
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 7:01 pm
Lulu Sun up 70 places in live ranking all the way to #53. Her previous career high was #123.
by skatingfan Erin Routliffe will take over as World #1 in Women's Doubles on Monday for the first time in her career.
by JTContinental There are currently 5 American women ranked in the top 15 (Gauff, Pegula, Collins, Keys, Navarro) for the first time since May of 2004 (Lindsay Davenport, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Jennifer Capriati and Chanda Rubin)
by ashkor87
JTContinental wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:29 am
Sakkari does most of her damage at the 1000 level tournaments
She has won only one 1000 event in her life, I think...the same one the equally over-rated JPeg won first.Guadalajara
by ashkor87 I hasten to add - both are good players, just not as good as their rankings would have them.
by ponchi101 So how come they reached such rankings? If you say that any player is not as good as their ranking says, by definition there must be other players that are better than what their ranking says, because the one you claim is not as good should be ranked lower, and therefore such a player is occupying the spot of a better player that is ranked lower.
Mind you, I don't disagree necessarily with that premise; I don't think anybody in the tennis world will say that right now, Alcaraz is NOT the best player in the world, despite being ranked 3rd.
But you continuously choose Pegula as a worst player than her ranking says. So, how come she reached it?
by JTContinental Pegula and Sakkari are not equally overrated, as Pegula's much higher ranking has borne out.
Sakkari has only won one 1000 level, but has been to the finals of 3 others and the semis of 6 additional events, so she gets a lot of points from there.
by ashkor87 I 'pick' on Pegula because her ranking is always too high..that is all.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:29 pm
So how come they reached such rankings? If you say that any player is not as good as their ranking says, by definition there must be other players that are better than what their ranking says, because the one you claim is not as good should be ranked lower, and therefore such a player is occupying the spot of a better player that is ranked lower.
Mind you, I don't disagree necessarily with that premise; I don't think anybody in the tennis world will say that right now, Alcaraz is NOT the best player in the world, despite being ranked 3rd.
But you continuously choose Pegula as a worst player than her ranking says. So, how come she reached it?
Well yes, I choose Pegula because she is consistently ranked in the top 5-6. Is she really the 6th best player in the world right now, on any surface?! But I agree 6 is closer to where she should be, the top 4 are clearly better than the rest, who can pretty much be bunched together...
by ashkor87
JTContinental wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 5:53 pm
Pegula and Sakkari are not equally overrated, as Pegula's much higher ranking has borne out.
Sakkari has only won one 1000 level, but has been to the finals of 3 others and the semis of 6 additional events, so she gets a lot of points from there.
Tautology!
by ashkor87 For the upcoming hard court season, I would rank players thusly:
Men:
1. Sinner
2. Alcaraz
3. Medvedev
4. Djokovic
One of these will win.
Next group (no order) - Fritz, Hurkacz, Paul,
Musetti
These will do well, but not win the whole thing.
Women:
1. Gauff
2. Rybakina
3. Swiatek
4. Sabalenka
One of these will take the title
Next group (no order) - Jabeur, Pegula, Alexandrova, Krejcikova,Vekic, collins, navarro
These can do well but not win the title
Returning players who (we hope) can do well- Andreescu, Osaka, Raducanu, Muchova
The rest are not likely to be a force.
by ponchi101 Have you heard anything about Sabalenka's injury? Shoulder injuries take so long to recover.
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 5:35 pm
Have you heard anything about Sabalenka's injury? Shoulder injuries take so long to recover.
No but I am expecting her to use the Olympics fortnight to rest, anyway...
Update..her Instagram post says injury is healed and she will resume playing this week .so all good .she will return at the Washington tournament
by skatingfan Arthur Fils will supplant Alcaraz as the youngest member of the top 20 with his title run in Hamburg.
by Suliso Czech players in WTA top 200 (ages in brackets).
16 year old Laura Samson will be #373 (+261) next Monday. There is also Tereza Valentova, only half a year older, at #274.
Samson changed from Samsonova for playing purposes to avoid confusion with Ludmila Samsonova abreviated identically as L. Samsonova.
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:31 am
Samson changed from Samsonova for playing purposes to avoid confusion with Ludmila Samsonova abreviated identically as L. Samsonova.
That was very considerate of her - I'm sure that TAT's contest folks will appreciate that in the very near future.
by Suliso Girl's junior GS champions 2010-2020 with highest WTA singles ranking in parentheses
2010: Karolina Pliskova (1), Elina Svitolina (3), Krystina Pliskova (35), Daria Gavrilova (20)
2011: Ann-Sophie Mestach (98), Ons Jabeur (2), Ashleigh Barty (1), Grace Min (97)
2012: Taylor Townsend (57), Annika Beck (37), Eugenie Bouchard (5), Samantha Crawford (98)
2013: Ana Konjuh (20), Belinda Bencic (4)
2014: Elizaveta Kulichkova (87), Daria Kasatkina (8), Jelena Ostapenko (5), Marie Bouzkova (24)
2015: Tereza Mihalikova (349), Paula Badosa (2), Sofya Zhuk (116), Dalma Galfi (79)
2016: Vera Lapko (60), Rebeka Masarova (62), Anastasia Potapova (21), Kayla Day (84)
2017: Marta Kostyuk (16), Whitney Osuigwe (105), Claire Liu (52), Amanda Anisimova (21)
2018: Liang En-shuo (150), Coco Gauff (2), Iga Swiatek (1), Wang Xiyu (49)
2019: Clara Tauson (33), Leylah Fernandez (13), Daria Snigur (105), Camila Osorio (33)
2020: Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva (121), Elsa Jacquemot (143)
Some of the latest ones are still very young and much can change. Nevertheless some statistics from this list:
40 different players in 11 years accounting for Covid and double winners (Konjuh and Bencic)
35 (87.5%) have achieved minimum success defined as career high in the top 100
14 (35%) have reached the top 20
10 (25%) have reached the top 10
3 (7.5%) have been #1
4 (10%) have won GS titles (Barty, Ostapenko, Gauff and Swiatek)
by Suliso Junior GS winners (both tours, open era) who have gone on to win GS titles in chronological order:
Men: John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Pat Cash, Stefan Edberg (Junior calendar year GS winner), Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, Stanislas Wawrinka, Andy Murray, Marin Cilic
Women: Mima Jausovec, Sue Barker, Hana Mandlikova, Tracy Austin, Gabriela Sabatini, Jennifer Capriati, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Amelie Mauresmo, Justine Henin, Marion Bartoli, Victoria Azarenka, Caroline Wozniacki, Simona Halep, Ashleigh Barty, Jelena Ostapenko, Coco Gauff, Iga Swiatek
A total of 10 men and 18 women.
by ashkor87 Awesome list..thanks!!
by ashkor87 Also interesting to note the time they need to make their mark in the pro circuit,.I had done a computation once..it is between 2 to 7 years I think
Some of the latest ones are still very young and much can change. Nevertheless some statistics from this list:
40 different players in 11 years accounting for Covid and double winners (Konjuh and Bencic)
35 (87.5%) have achieved minimum success defined as career high in the top 100
14 (35%) have reached the top 20
10 (25%) have reached the top 10
3 (7.5%) have been #1
4 (10%) have won GS titles (Barty, Ostapenko, Gauff and Swiatek)
I don't understand the ACCOUNTING FOR COVID part.
by Suliso In 2020 only two junior GS tournaments were held. Otherwise in 11 years max is 44 winners.
by Suliso The same number of teenagers in both ATP and WTA top 100. That must be a pretty rare occurrence. Usually women greatly outnumber men on this one.
by ponchi101 The years of older players dominating seems to be coming back to an end. The big three era, together with Serena's longevity in the WTA, will be the anomaly, not the norm.
Many years to wait, but we will have to wait and see if Sinner, Alcaraz and Swiatek (Sabalenka is a bit older) will be as dominant in their 30's as those top four players.
by skatingfan Interestingly enough there are 22 men, and 23 women over the age of 30 in the top 100 going into the US Open. 5 years ago there were 34 men, and 14 women over the age of 30 in the top 100 going into the US Open. So the men's tour has gotten younger, and the women's tour has gotten a little older over the past half decade.
by skatingfan Jack Draper makes his top 20 debut on Monday, and Emma Navarro will make her top 10 debut.
by ponchi101 Emma is at #8. She is now THE Emma.
Raducanu has to go by full name.
by ashkor87 Zverev at 2, Rublev 6 feels too high..
by JTContinental 8 American men and 9 women are ranked in the top 50.
by JTContinental
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 4:20 pm
The years of older players dominating seems to be coming back to an end. The big three era, together with Serena's longevity in the WTA, will be the anomaly, not the norm.
Many years to wait, but we will have to wait and see if Sinner, Alcaraz and Swiatek (Sabalenka is a bit older) will be as dominant in their 30's as those top four players.
There’s really only a big two. I don’t think Rubakins has lived up to her part of that particular moniker.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 4:20 pm
The years of older players dominating seems to be coming back to an end. The big three era, together with Serena's longevity in the WTA, will be the anomaly, not the norm.
Many years to wait, but we will have to wait and see if Sinner, Alcaraz and Swiatek (Sabalenka is a bit older) will be as dominant in their 30's as those top four players.
There’s really only a big two. I don’t think Rubakins has lived up to her part of that particular moniker.
Agree. Sadly, Elena's record is splotched with too many withdrawals and odd losses. She can play great tennis, when she plays.
And 1 Slam is not enough for BIG status.
We have spoken about this before. Personally, I don't see any BIG player right. The BIGS suffered odd losses very rarely, where always around for the second week of all slams, and did that consistently. I say Iga is BIG on clay, and she may be a BIG one of these days. Carlos is going through a blip, and he will come back, so we have just to wait a little.
And Sinner is having a really good year, which pales when comparing it to those players with GREAT years. Mac's 84, Connor's 74, Wilander's 88. R/R/N had a couple each, so we have to wait to see what else he will do.
by JTContinental Lol at the autocorrect
by ashkor87 In a given year, 'big' has meaning. we are not talking about eternity here. Today, the big 3 in Men are Djokovic, Sinner and Alcaraz.. the big 3 include Rybakina - by quality, not necessarily by accomplishment. But even there, she has beaten the other 2 at big events even this year. I have every hope she will come back.
by Suliso I doubt Djokovic will be a factor for another year.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 4:20 pm
The years of older players dominating seems to be coming back to an end. The big three era, together with Serena's longevity in the WTA, will be the anomaly, not the norm.
Many years to wait, but we will have to wait and see if Sinner, Alcaraz and Swiatek (Sabalenka is a bit older) will be as dominant in their 30's as those top four players.
There’s really only a big two. I don’t think Rubakins has lived up to her part of that particular moniker.
Agree. Sadly, Elena's record is splotched with too many withdrawals and odd losses. She can play great tennis, when she plays.
And 1 Slam is not enough for BIG status.
We have spoken about this before. Personally, I don't see any BIG player right. The BIGS suffered odd losses very rarely, where always around for the second week of all slams, and did that consistently. I say Iga is BIG on clay, and she may be a BIG one of these days. Carlos is going through a blip, and he will come back, so we have just to wait a little.
And Sinner is having a really good year, which pales when comparing it to those players with GREAT years. Mac's 84, Connor's 74, Wilander's 88. R/R/N had a couple each, so we have to wait to see what else he will do.
My method allows comparing year versus year for any player. So top 10 years for the period of 1968-2023 has 4 Federer's years, 3 Djokovic's years and one year of Laver, McEnroe and Lendl. Nadal's best year (2010) is #17 on the list, his next best year (2008) is at #21. Margin's are small though. The point of this is that I do not agree with the statement that "R/R/N each have couple of those years". Nadal kind of falls behind (relatively) in the great years comparison.
There’s really only a big two. I don’t think Rubakins has lived up to her part of that particular moniker.
Agree. Sadly, Elena's record is splotched with too many withdrawals and odd losses. She can play great tennis, when she plays.
And 1 Slam is not enough for BIG status.
We have spoken about this before. Personally, I don't see any BIG player right. The BIGS suffered odd losses very rarely, where always around for the second week of all slams, and did that consistently. I say Iga is BIG on clay, and she may be a BIG one of these days. Carlos is going through a blip, and he will come back, so we have just to wait a little.
And Sinner is having a really good year, which pales when comparing it to those players with GREAT years. Mac's 84, Connor's 74, Wilander's 88. R/R/N had a couple each, so we have to wait to see what else he will do.
My method allows comparing year versus year for any player. So top 10 years for the period of 1968-2023 has 4 Federer's years, 3 Djokovic's years and one year of Laver, McEnroe and Lendl. Nadal's best year (2010) is #17 on the list, his next best year (2008) is at #21. Margin's are small though. The point of this is that I do not agree with the statement that "R/R/N each have couple of those years". Nadal kind of falls behind (relatively) in the great years comparison.
I just threw out there the "couple of years" statement. You have the numbers. So, that is definite.
by ti-amie Zverev is now ranked #2 in the world.
by ponchi101 He has been consistent, has a slam final, and one MS1000 this year. All other players have been off for a while.
by skatingfan There is no big 3 on either tour at the moment - there are the top 3 which are Sinner, Zverev, and Alcaraz on the ATP, and Swiatek, Sabalenka, and Pegula on the WTA.
by ashkor87
ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 8:26 pm
Zverev is now ranked #2 in the world.
Yes, isn't it strange? With Alcaraz and Medvedev, not to mention Djokovic around? Who thinks Zverev is better than those players?
by JTContinental
skatingfan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:42 pm
There is no big 3 on either tour at the moment - there are the top 3 which are Sinner, Zverev, and Alcaraz on the ATP, and Swiatek, Sabalenka, and Pegula on the WTA.
I agree that the term implies an extended period of staying power that none of the current crop of top players have achieved.
by ashkor87 Towards the end of the year, the Race gives us a better sense- on the men's, Zverev is #2 but only a nose ahead of Alcaraz..on the women's, Rybakina is #3, Paolini is #4.. sounds much more sensible to me.. we (i, at least) tend to consider the calendar year to be the unit of time - not rolling 52 weeks.
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 12:26 am
Towards the end of the year, the Race gives us a better sense- on the men's, Zverev is #2 but only a nose ahead of Alcaraz..on the women's, Rybakina is #3, Paolini is #4.. sounds much more sensible to me.. we (i, at least) tend to consider the calendar year to be the unit of time - not rolling 52 weeks.
Pegula made the final in the previous 3 significant events on the tour whereas Paolini has lost in the round of 16 in two, and not played the 3rd, and Rybakina has one win since Wimbledon. The year-to-date rankings are starting to veer to the actual rankings but they are not there yet, and there's still 3 significant events on the calendar left to be played.
by ashkor87 We are not looking at 3 months ranking, are we?
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 3:26 am
We are not looking at 3 months ranking, are we?
You were picking the year-to-date ranking over the official rankings to discount Pegula's position at the top of the game so why not look at an even more recent period of time? Isn't her recent run of form, and Rybakina's lack of form & injury likely to continue over at least the next few weeks leading to the end of the year?
by ashkor87 The race to Saudi (?!) has a twist .Krejcikova will qualify as Major champion so long as she stays in the top 20 - she is #10 right now. Collins at 8 would normally be in the race, has to overtake Navarro to get there..can she? Probably yes .. There are still 4000 points to go, apparently - mostly in the Far East. QZ is just 8 points behind Collins...I would expect her to make it since it is her backyard..
by ashkor87 I don't see 4000 though..Beijing has 1000..is there a Wuhan event too? Plus a couple of 500 level events .
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 5:10 am
I don't see 4000 though..Beijing has 1000..is there a Wuhan event too? Plus a couple of 500 level events .
There's a 500 events this week, Guadalajara, and next, Seoul, then 1000 events at Beijing, and Wuhan, then another 500 event in China, and the WTA Finals are worth 1500 points. Most of the top players aren't playing Guadalajara, so that leaves 4000 points for the rest of the season if someone runs the table.
by Suliso I think it will be Navarro and Krejcikova in 7th and 8th spot for the YEC. Positions 3-6, while not officially in, are too far ahead. Zheng is certainly possible too, but needs to make up 500 points relative to Navarro. Collins will not be a factor.
by Suliso For men it's a similar situation. The first three are officially in and the next three (Medvedev, Fritz and Ruud) are extremely likely. The last two spots will be between Rublev, de Minaur and Djokovic. Surely Djokovic can overtake the other two if he still has a motivation to do so. After that it's a big drop, someone would have to do amazingly well.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 5:10 am
I don't see 4000 though..Beijing has 1000..is there a Wuhan event too? Plus a couple of 500 level events .
There's a 500 events this week, Guadalajara, and next, Seoul, then 1000 events at Beijing, and Wuhan, then another 500 event in China, and the WTA Finals are worth 1500 points. Most of the top players aren't playing Guadalajara, so that leaves 4000 points for the rest of the season if someone runs the table.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 3:26 am
We are not looking at 3 months ranking, are we?
You were picking the year-to-date ranking over the official rankings to discount Pegula's position at the top of the game so why not look at an even more recent period of time? Isn't her recent run of form, and Rybakina's lack of form & injury likely to continue over at least the next few weeks leading to the end of the year?
That isn't the reason I was looking at the race..
by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:54 am
I think it will be Navarro and Krejcikova in 7th and 8th spot for the YEC. Positions 3-6, while not officially in, are too far ahead. Zheng is certainly possible too, but needs to make up 500 points relative to Navarro. Collins will not be a factor.
Why not Collins? She is retiring, may be more motivated to go out in a blaze of glory..how sweet it would be for her to actually win the YEC!
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:08 am
I think Wuhan has been canceled
It's on the WTA website for next month.
by Suliso
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:19 am
Why not Collins? She is retiring, may be more motivated to go out in a blaze of glory..how sweet it would be for her to actually win the YEC!
Because her hot streak from earlier this year seems to be over. She might be mentally retired already. Let's see if I'm wrong on this or not...
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:54 am
I think it will be Navarro and Krejcikova in 7th and 8th spot for the YEC. Positions 3-6, while not officially in, are too far ahead. Zheng is certainly possible too, but needs to make up 500 points relative to Navarro. Collins will not be a factor.
Why not Collins? She is retiring, may be more motivated to go out in a blaze of glory..how sweet it would be for her to actually win the YEC!
If Collins were the kind of player that could use "Motivation to go out in a blaze of glory" to raise the level of her game, that 1R loss at the USO would not have happened. I mean, if she really could do that trick, USO Semis would have been a good way of doing it.
Love Danielle, but I don't see her having enough game to reach the YEC.
by ashkor87 Remember she has health problems..let us not be too harsh
by Fastbackss I hate the automatic qualifier for Finals.
by ponchi101
Fastbackss wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 12:30 pm
I hate the automatic qualifier for Finals.
It must be done. Much easier to market the #8 seed as the "Current Wimbledon champion" than listing the 12 QF's and SF's she did at minor tournaments to get there.
Fastbackss wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 12:30 pm
I hate the automatic qualifier for Finals.
It must be done. Much easier to market the #8 seed as the "Current Wimbledon champion" than listing the 12 QF's and SF's she did at minor tournaments to get there.
I "get" the rationale, but I still do not like it.
At least weight the tallying for the finals in a way that it's impossible to not qualify if you win a slam.
by ti-amie Re Wuhan: The WTA being what it is there was exactly nothing about the entry list available in English. A dedicated fan went to a Chinese site and got an entry list that includes players who are out injured for the rest of the year. I thought it had been cancelled too.
by ashkor87 The men's race..is between Rublev, DeMinaur and Djokovic..will Djokovic bother? Unlikely.
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:42 am
The men's race..is between Rublev, DeMinaur and Djokovic..will Djokovic bother? Unlikely.
Yet Djokovic is going to Shanghai. He may not be prioritizing the WTF, but given de Minaur's injury issues in the second half of the year he may qualify simply by playing.
by Suliso Shanghai is an automatic registration. Whether he's actually going is probably not known yet.
by skatingfan
Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 7:09 am
Shanghai is an automatic registration. Whether he's actually going is probably not known yet.
by ashkor87 It does seem to suggest Djoko is keen to play..but who knows? He could be just saying it to keep his agent happy.
by JTContinental Iga Swiatek has passed Ash Barty to land 7th on the list of most weeks at #1, with 122. I do feel like Sabalenka is poised to take over the #1 slot for 2025, though.
Fastbackss wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 12:30 pm
I hate the automatic qualifier for Finals.
It must be done. Much easier to market the #8 seed as the "Current Wimbledon champion" than listing the 12 QF's and SF's she did at minor tournaments to get there.
I "get" the rationale, but I still do not like it.
At least weight the tallying for the finals in a way that it's impossible to not qualify if you win a slam.
This might ultimately be a non-issue because I don't think Rybakina will be able to play.
by Suliso
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:41 pm
Iga Swiatek has passed Ash Barty to land 7th on the list of most weeks at #1, with 122. I do feel like Sabalenka is poised to take over the #1 slot for 2025, though.
Could easily be 2024, but some strong results are needed for that.
by ashkor87 Is Sabalenka capable of playing well week after week? I don't think she will challenge Swiatek any time soon..maybe Pegula, coco can...
by ashkor87 Next year-
Look for big moves from Shnaider, Andreeva, Noskova..among the men, from DeMinaur, Michelsen...
Those who will probably decline slowly- Svitolina, Jabeur, Fritz, Medvedev, Zverev..
by Suliso
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:39 am
Is Sabalenka capable of playing well week after week? I don't think she will challenge Swiatek any time soon..maybe Pegula, coco can...
Don't need to. 2-3 Slams per year should be sufficient. She'll be well ahead of Iga in the race if she wins the title this week.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:39 am
Is Sabalenka capable of playing well week after week? I don't think she will challenge Swiatek any time soon..maybe Pegula, coco can...
Don't need to. 2-3 Slams per year should be sufficient. She'll be well ahead of Iga in the race if she wins the title this week.
True, but I can't see her doing that..her record doesn't suggest she does well at YEC..of course this year could be different
And 2-3 slams a year?! Who has done that after Serena?!
by ponchi101 Kerber in her 2016 magical year (I think it was 2016).
Naomi did the weird thing of winning her 4 slams in a pair of B2B's (USO/AUS and repeat).
Iga did a RG/USO.
It can be done. But I agree, I don't think it will be the case here.
As for Aryna playing well week after week. On hard courts, she can. She did SF/QF/W/W during the US hard court circuit. That is consistent.
by ti-amie
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:42 am
Next year-
Look for big moves from Shnaider, Andreeva, Noskova..among the men, from DeMinaur, Michelsen...
Those who will probably decline slowly- Svitolina, Jabeur, Fritz, Medvedev, Zverev..
I'd argue that for the women Svitolina and Jabeur have already declined. Fritz I give another year before he stops going deep at majors. Medvedev doesn't really care and as for Zverev -
by ashkor87 This year's US hard court season was ruined by the Olympics...Sabalenka is practically the only one who played..swiatek, rybakina, krejcikova, coco didn't play it fully ...can't quite call Sabalenka Queen of hard courts yet.
I know, I know, not Sabalenka's fault, not trying to asterisk, but her achievements are a bit less stellar than they appear..I wouldn't give her much chance of overtaking Swiatek either this year or the next .
by ashkor87 Btw only Kerber had 2 majors in the same year..2016. Osaka seemed to win in alternate years..other than Serena, I mean.
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:21 am
This year's US hard court season was ruined by the Olympics...Sabalenka is practically the only one who played..swiatek, rybakina, krejcikova, coco didn't play it fully ...can't quite call Sabalenka Queen of hard courts yet.
I know, I know, not Sabalenka's fault, not trying to asterisk, but her achievements are a bit less stellar than they appear..I wouldn't give her much chance of overtaking Swiatek either this year or the next .
Your standards are very high. She has been in the finals of the last 4 hard court slams, winning three.
She is less than 400 points behind Iga in the race. And Iga is not playing this week. So Aryna could overtake her as soon as Beijing is over. (In the race).
by ashkor87 QZ in a tight race with Navarro for the 7th spot in the race..if, as expected, Rybakina pulls out, both will make it..2 big events in China, worth 2000 points, still to go, and QZ seems to thrive in China...I would bet she makes it - Navarro will have to rely on Ryba pulling out, though she is ahead right now.
by ashkor87 Navarro is serious about this race! She has entered a 125 event in Hong Kong!
by ptmcmahon Has to make up for losing to someone on a 21 match losing streak
by ashkor87 That HK 125 tournament is turning out to be interesting! Not only Navarro, but Halep is entered and so is Alycia Parks, Queen of 125K events
by ponchi101 I like that mentality.
I lost to a player that had not won in months. I barely played, it was that fast.
What excuse do I have NOT to enter another tournament? In which I will be seeded #1 and, therefore, the pressure will be on me.
That is how you build up. Not by recoiling in terror because you played one awful match.
Go out there and play again. Like Stan's arm says: fail again. Fail better.
by ashkor87 The WTA ranking system considers the bext one result out of Wuhan, Doha and Dubai.. so if you have won Doha or Dubai (Swiatek, Paolini) why would you bother to play Wuhan?
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 4:14 pm
The WTA ranking system considers the bext one result out of Wuhan, Doha and Dubai.. so if you have won Doha or Dubai (Swiatek, Paolini) why would you bother to play Wuhan?
A player could still count the results of all three tournaments in their ranking if the other two 1000 events are amongst their best 7 results for the year not counting the Grand Slams, and the other 1000 events.
by Fastbackss I guess I am in the same boat with Jack here - I thought the rankings rolled over...not that they reset to match that of the Race to ATP finals
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 4:14 pm
The WTA ranking system considers the bext one result out of Wuhan, Doha and Dubai.. so if you have won Doha or Dubai (Swiatek, Paolini) why would you bother to play Wuhan?
A player could still count the results of all three tournaments in their ranking if the other two 1000 events are amongst their best 7 results for the year not counting the Grand Slams, and the other 1000 events.
Maybe, just maybe, there are players out there that enjoy the silliness of hitting a ball back and forth with another person on the other side.
I've heard it is quite fun.
Seriously. There is prize money to be made, there are points to gain, and you need to stay in a competitive match mindset. I truly believe that if you stop playing at a certain level you simply can't play well.
For example. It had been years since the last time I played a competitive match. I got invited to a mixed doubles a few days ago (I was in BAires) and I started just hitting and letting my partner take a lot of balls (I am a lousy doubles player). Until we were down 0-4 and I said "I have to get involved".
Maybe stuff like that happens to some players too.
by ponchi101
Fastbackss wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 11:16 pm
I guess I am in the same boat with Jack here - I thought the rankings rolled over...not that they reset to match that of the Race to ATP finals
They do not reset. The rankings roll over, over a period of 52 weeks. The RACE only counts the points for the year. It is just that, on week 52 of the year (the last week), the ranking and the ATP race will be calculated over the same span of 52 weeks that the race was calculated.
Or maybe I am also confused.
by skatingfan No, you've got it - as the year goes on the Official Rankings, and the Race start to converge, and at the beginning of the ATP Finals they are the same.
by JTContinental Gauff back in the top 5 Monday, pushing out Paolini. She’s also up to 4 in the Race battle, trailing Rybakina by 3 points
by Suliso It's her amazing consistency. Unless I overlooked something this was only her 2nd final of the year.
by ashkor87 Navarro is now just 108 points ahead of QZ in the race for the 7th spot.. if Rybakina drops out (as I expect) they will both be fine but otherwise...outdoing QZ at her home tournament (literally, apparently that is the region of China she is from) would be quite a feat - which is what Navarro would have to do, to make it.
(Normally, I dont care about rankings but this is to qualify for the finals, so it is a bit more significant!)
by ashkor87 Saba is now about 200 behind Swiatek...with Swiatek sitting out both Beijing and Wuhan, it may come down to the YEC again..I suppose the YEC needs the boost...there is a distasteful whiff around it anyway. I for one intend to boycott it.
by ashkor87
JTContinental wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:34 pm
Gauff back in the top 5 Monday, pushing out Paolini. She’s also up to 4 in the Race battle, trailing Rybakina by 3 points
Not much of a race ..Ryba is not even running
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 4:50 pm
Saba is now about 200 behind Swiatek...with Swiatek sitting out both Beijing and Wuhan, it may come down to the YEC again..I suppose the YEC needs the boost...there is a distasteful whiff around it anyway. I for one intend to boycott it.
In Saudi Arabia, right?
Well, I don't think I would have been able to watch anyway but, sure, I was not going to tune it for that.
by Owendonovan Maybe Rybakina isn't even a consideration for the YEC?
by ashkor87
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:07 am
Maybe Rybakina isn't even a consideration for the YEC?
That is my guess too
by ashkor87 i see some people trolling Navarro for entering a 125K event, 'taking the bread out of the mouths of..' etc.. it is evident to me that Navarro knows she is in a tight race for the seventh spot in the YEC race, and is simply doing what any player would do, scrambling for points! These trolls dont understand how the tour works.
by JTContinental She’s been passed by Zheng in the live race rankings too, so is on the outside lookin in, assuming Rybakina plays.
In other race news, the same live rankings say Gauff and Paolini will punch their tickets to the finals with one more win in Wuhan.
by ashkor87
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 9:27 am
She’s been passed by Zheng in the live race rankings too, so is on the outside lookin in, assuming Rybakina plays.
In other race news, the same live rankings say Gauff and Paolini will punch their tickets to the finals with one more win in Wuhan.
there never was much doubt about them qualifying..which is all that matters at this point
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 7:57 am
i see some people trolling Navarro for entering a 125K event, 'taking the bread out of the mouths of..' etc.. it is evident to me that Navarro knows she is in a tight race for the seventh spot in the YEC race, and is simply doing what any player would do, scrambling for points! These trolls dont understand how the tour works.
On the one hand, you have the players that don't want to play. On the other, when they play, they are told they are taking money from others.
That is the point of having a high ranking. You get to play on your terms. You decide where, you decide when. I am clear on my position about the length of the season and players playing "too much". Nobody forces them to do so. Iga is the best example right now. She does not want to play these weeks? Just don't, then.
If Emma wants to play week in week out, it is her call.
by ashkor87 point is, Emma needs those points to qualify, she is not playing just for the heck of it.
by Suliso With Alcaraz losing and only two tournaments left on his schedule Sinner has officially clinched year end #1 ranking.
by ti-amie
JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 9:27 am
She’s been passed by Zheng in the live race rankings too, so is on the outside lookin in, assuming Rybakina plays.
In other race news, the same live rankings say Gauff and Paolini will punch their tickets to the finals with one more win in Wuhan.
One will and one won't. I'm so bad at this though.
by Suliso There have been only 6 men who have held #1 ranking for every week of at least one calendar year: Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer and Djokovic. McEnroy and Nadal are notably absent from this list.
For women there have been 6 as well - Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena and Barty. Swiatek could join this list this year if Sabalenka falters and she comes back to play and does better at YEC. I don't think that will happen, though.
by ponchi101 The rankings are solid.
But Aryna has two slams this year. Makes it for a better resume, this year.
by JTContinental Gauff, Paolini, Rybakina, Pegula have all secured their spot in the YEC.
by Suliso Slam titles are equal, but in the rankings Sinner leads by crazy 4800 points. Was there ever that great a difference in the big three era?
by Suliso Comparison of Alcaraz and Sinner seasons so far (Paris and YEC left for both).
Sinner
GS titles: 2
MS titles: 3
ATP titles: 7
ATP finals: 8
Record: 65-6
Alcaraz
GS titles: 2
MS titles: 1
ATP titles: 4
ATP finals: 4
Record: 51-10
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:27 am
Slam titles are equal, but in the rankings Sinner leads by crazy 4800 points. Was there ever that great a difference in the big three era?
I looked it up. By the end of RG '16, which was that time in which Novak won his four straight slams ('15 trough '16), the gap between him and Andy was at its widest ever:
ATP top 10 as of June 6, 2016:
1. Novak Djokovic (SRB) 16,950
2. Andy Murray (GBR) 8,915
3. Roger Federer (SUI) 6,655
4. Rafael Nadal (ESP) 5,405
So, he had a gap of 8,045 points. Gasquet, ranked 10, had 2,905 points. That is how many points Novak was hoarding.
Still, Sinner's separation from the rest of the group is impressive.
But we have to get out of the habit of comparing people with the Big 4. It is never fair.
(And, we keep talking Big 3 all the time. That small sample reminds us of why Andy was included in many of the stats too).
by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:17 am
There have been only 6 men who have held #1 ranking for every week of at least one calendar year: Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer and Djokovic. McEnroy and Nadal are notably absent from this list.
For women there have been 6 as well - Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena and Barty. Swiatek could join this list this year if Sabalenka falters and she comes back to play and does better at YEC. I don't think that will happen, though.
You were right. Aryna overtook Iga in the rankings, race, and is in a good position to end the year as #1.
by ponchi101 We were talking about the gap between Sinner and #2 at the moment, which is a huge one.
We keep forgetting, so easily, about the three guys before him.
I found an article about the 8 biggest points gaps between No 1 and No 2 in ATP Rankings:
8. Jannik Sinner – 4,800 points
The Italian first rose to No 1 in the rankings on June 20, 2024 and he has steadily increased his points lead over the chasing pack.
Shortly after winning the US Open in September, Sinner opened a 4,305-point advantage over Alexander Zverev – the 11th biggest gap at the time – but he has now gone better.
Sinner’s Shanghai Masters title saw him increase his lead over second-placed Carlos Alcaraz to 4,800 points (11,920 v 7,120) on October 14.
7. Rafael Nadal – 5,190
Rafael Nadal achieved his 5,000-point difference milestone over the 2008-2009 tennis seasons as he had accumulated 15,360 points on May 11, 2009.
The Spaniard – who finished the 2008 season at No 1 – had points from the 2008 French Open and Wimbledon as well as the 2009 Australian Open in the bag.
Second-placed Roger Federer was on 10,170 points.
6. Rafael Nadal – 5,245
The Spaniard surpassed his previous best tally a few years later and this time it came on the back of winning the 2010 French Open, Wimbledon and US Open.
Nadal reached 12,390 ranking points on October 11, 2010 and Djokovic was second on 7,145.
5. Roger Federer – 5,881
When Federer hit the 5,881-point gap on October 4, 2004, it was the biggest gap at the time. The ATP only changed its points structure in 2009 and the Swiss was on 6,875 points while Andy Roddick was a distant second on 3,780 points.
However, a 1.9 factor adjustment to reflect the current points structure puts Federer on 13,063 and Roddick on 7,182
Federer accumulated his points from his Australian Open, Wimbledon and US Open titles.
4. Roger Federer – 6,346
The following year, Federer cracked the 6,000-point lead on June 13 as he continued to dominate at the top of the rankings.
That milestone came shortly after he reached the semi-final of the French Open as he still had points from his 2004 Wimbledon, US Open and ATP Finals titles.
Federer was on 13,262 points compared to Lleyton Hewitt’s 6,916 after the 1.9 factor adjustment.
3. Roger Federer – 7,410
Roger Federer occupied the top three positions for the biggest points gaps on November 20, 2006 after he surpassed his two previous best efforts.
Officially Federer was 8,370 points compared to Nadal’s 4,470, but with the 1.9 adjustment, he moves to 15,903 while the Spaniard sits on 8 493.
The Swiss won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open and ATP Finals while he also finished runner-up at Roland Garros.
2. Novak Djokovic – 8,725
Novak Djokovic became the first player to crack 16,000 ranking points during the 2016 season and he also became the first – and to date only – player to have an 8,000-plus point lead over the second-placed player in the rankings.
The Serbian was on 16,540 points on April 4, 2016 as at the time he was in possession of the Wimbledon, US Open, ATP Finals and Australian Open trophies while he also finished runner-up at Roland Garros the previous year.
Andy Murray was a distant second on 7,815 points.
1. Novak Djokovic – 9,025
Not long after his 8,000-point achievement, Djokovic broke the 9,000-point lead milestone as he notched up the feat on May 9, 2016.
He moved to 16,550 points after winning the 2016 Madrid Open while second-placed Federer was on 7,525 points.
At the time he had points from the Italian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, China Open, Shanghai Masters, Paris Masters and ATP Finals from 2015 and the Qatar Open, Australian Open, Indian Wells Open, Miami Open and Madrid Open in 2016.
Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 8:17 am
There have been only 6 men who have held #1 ranking for every week of at least one calendar year: Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Hewitt, Federer and Djokovic. McEnroy and Nadal are notably absent from this list.
For women there have been 6 as well - Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena and Barty. Swiatek could join this list this year if Sabalenka falters and she comes back to play and does better at YEC. I don't think that will happen, though.
You were right. Aryna overtook Iga in the rankings, race, and is in a good position to end the year as #1.
Actually, in ranking as well. Due to very odd WTA rule about mandatory WTA500 participation. Saba is officially #1 since today.
by ashkor87 Apparently the venue of the YEC is not the one they used for 6 Kings..but I am boycotting it anyway so I don't even know why I care..! The men's WTF will go the same way as 6 Kings, the court is fast, Sinner will win
by Suliso Why are you boycotting a tournament in Turin?
by ponchi101 The WTA's YEC is in S. Arabia. As Suliso says, the ATP is in Turin. You can watch.
by ashkor87 I am boycotting the women's yec
by ti-amie
by ponchi101 No big harm being done. I guess.
by ashkor87 Won't be surprised if Djokovic pulls out of the WTF in Turin...not playing Bercy is a sign he doesn't care too much about anything except majors, DC and Olympics..DeM will probably make it then..
by ponchi101 Agree. I don't think he cares about anything but slams now.
But coming into a slam, even if it is his most successful, with no tournament practice is silly. You don't get in shape for 3 our of 5 by hitting with your challenger level hitting partner. Especially a guy that relies on his perfect timing so much.
by JTContinental According to the WTA site, Swiatek will need to defend her YEC title in order to finish the year at #1.
by mick1303
JTContinental wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 8:05 pm
According to the WTA site, Swiatek will need to defend her YEC title in order to finish the year at #1.
This might not be enough. Sabalenka was in the semis last year (with 2-1 in RR stage). She needs to do worse than that in order for Swiatek to overtake her.
He should donate whatever money came with that gift, oh wait it's Thiem, nevermind.
Well I admit I was not aware of this known behaviour
Dominic Thiem on a relief fund for lower-ranked players during COVID: "None of the lower-ranked players have to fight for their lives. I've seen players on the ITF-Tour who don't commit to the sport 100 %. Many of them are quite unprofessional. I don't see, why I should give them money."
by ashkor87 As we all expected, Djokovic has withdrawn from the ATP finals at Turin
by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 12:24 pm
As we all expected, Djokovic has withdrawn from the ATP finals at Turin
I didn't. I thought he was training for them. He passed Roger's 6 last year, but this is still an important tournament.
But not terribly surprising. I gather he wants to be really healed for the Aussie.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 12:24 pm
As we all expected, Djokovic has withdrawn from the ATP finals at Turin
I didn't. I thought he was training for them. He passed Roger's 6 last year, but this is still an important tournament.
But not terribly surprising. I gather he wants to be really healed for the Aussie.
Well, he has said he cares only about the slams and playing for his country....WTF is neither, i guess...not Aussie, Davis Cup if I am reading him right
JTContinental wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 8:05 pm
According to the WTA site, Swiatek will need to defend her YEC title in order to finish the year at #1.
This might not be enough. Sabalenka was in the semis last year (with 2-1 in RR stage). She needs to do worse than that in order for Swiatek to overtake her.
According to WTA site, Swiatek's loss today has clinched #1 for Sabalenka. Even if Swiatek still wins the tournament.
by Owendonovan TT at a career high #5 in doubles!
by ashkor87
Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 3:41 am
TT at a career high #5 in doubles!
She is actually better than that ...!
by skatingfan Fritz moves ahead of Medvedev to secure the #4 spot in the rankings for the year. I though Medvedev was going to drop out of the top 4 eventually, but I thought his lead was secure until next year at least.
by Suliso Neither Medvedev nor Djokovic won any ATP titles this year. Who would have predicted that?
by ptmcmahon I might have predicted the latter.
by Suliso The following players ended the year at their career high:
#1 Jannik Sinner
#2 Alexander Zverev
#4 Taylor Fritz
#12 Tommy Paul
#15 Jack Draper
#20 Arthur Fils
#25 Tomas Machac
#26 Jordan Tompson
#48 Jakub Mensik
#61 Zizou Bergs
#64 Arthur Cazaux
#66 Yunchaokete Bu
#68 Alexandre Muller
by ashkor87 Watch out for Draper and Machac..
by ashkor87 The BJK cup shows, yet again, how meaningless rankings are..Bronzetti beat Linette in straight sets..I imagine Linette is ranked much higher...
by ashkor87 Just checked..38 vs 78
by skatingfan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:59 am
The BJK cup shows, yet again, how meaningless rankings are..Bronzetti beat Linette in straight sets..I imagine Linette is ranked much higher...
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:02 am
Just checked..38 vs 78
Rankings are reflection of a players results over the past year - they are not necessarily predictive of individual match results, nor are they intended to be used that way.
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:59 am
The BJK cup shows, yet again, how meaningless rankings are..Bronzetti beat Linette in straight sets..I imagine Linette is ranked much higher...
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:02 am
Just checked..38 vs 78
Rankings are reflection of a players results over the past year - they are not necessarily predictive of individual match results, no are they intended to be used that way.
Yes, the difference between accounting and finance
by ashkor87 Now that the year is done, what (at the moment) should the rankings be?
Men:
1. Sinner
2. Alcaraz
3. Djokovic
4. Fritz
5. Zverev
6. Medvedev
by skatingfan Djokovic should be #3 based on 2 top ten wins, two finals, and no titles? (Olympics doesn't count in rankings).
by ashkor87 Yes, I considered Olympics..the rankings dont, that is their problem! And anyway is Fritz better ? How?
by Suliso Zverev is better than Fritz. Putting Fritz ahead is just based on indoor hard results.
by ashkor87 Could be, but the h2h is 7-5 in Fritz' favor...also, Fritz beat him at the USO..so not all indoors...
by ponchi101 Since you said rankings, I say Novak does not belong in the top 6. He did almost nothing this year.
But I suspect he has been injured for quite a while. Is he better than anybody other than Sinner and Alcaraz? Maybe. But not enough to rank #3.
And I know we love Muchova. But ranking her at #6 is a bit high. She had a very good USO run. But not much since.
by ashkor87 muchova went to the finals of Beijing...beat Qinwen..forgotten that already?!
by ponchi101 Yes. But that is only on tournament. Not enough to bump her over, for example, Pegula, who won Toronto, and made the finals of Cincy and the USO.
Forgot those already?
by ashkor87 You know my opinion of Pegula...a bit over-rated
by ponchi101 You are talking rankings, this time. Not your concept of "Tiers".
Maybe Pegula is overrated, but rankings say otherwise.
You and I are not going to disagree on how beautifully Muchova plays. And that her injuries have affected her achievements a lot. But, at comparable ages, Pegula has achieved more. With those caveats, but she has.
by ashkor87 If we are talking rankings as commonly understood, all we would have to do is look at the tennis.com website! I am talking about subjective estimates of good the player is, st this moment.
by ponchi101 OH, you are asking me to be knowingly subjective! That's a bit too much for me
by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:28 am
OH, you are asking me to be knowingly subjective! That's a bit too much for me
Why? Do you want my bot to speak to your bot?
by ponchi101 No. I try to keep this sort of rankings as objective as possible. If a player like Pegula has a higher ranking than another player, I will trust the ranking. The system has been fine-tuned for decades, so that is fine with me.
Who is the better player? Well, Muchova certainly has a much more beautiful game, to me. But the results are not there, so I yield to the numerical evidence.
Let him enjoy it a bit.
Let him enjoy it a bit.
.
).
)
)
Taylor Townsend at new career high of 57.
