Talk About Tennis 2.0

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.

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.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 4:02 pm

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...

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:20 am

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 4:02 pm ...

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?

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'?...

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..

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:23 am

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:20 am

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 4:02 pm ...

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..!

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

https://www.universaltennis.com/how-utr-works
Why not UTR? Looks like a sophisticated ELO

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 4:20 pm https://www.universaltennis.com/how-utr-works
Why not UTR? Looks like a sophisticated ELO

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.

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.

At the moment, UTR ranks Nadal 1, Alcaraz 2, Djokovic 3, sounds fair to me!

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/S ... 06/08.aspx
As expected, the Nadal-Ruud match had low TV numbers..is anyone surprised? The RG administrators shot themselves in the foot ..

For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:24 am https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/S ... 06/08.aspx
As expected, the Nadal-Ruud match had low TV numbers..is anyone surprised? The RG administrators shot themselves in the foot ..

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.