ATP & WTA rankings

[Cuckoo4Coco]

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.

[ashkor87]

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.

[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.

[meganfernandez]

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

[3mlm]

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.

[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.

[ponchi101]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

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.

[meganfernandez]

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.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

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.

[ti-amie]

[Cuckoo4Coco]

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.

[meganfernandez]

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?