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?

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.

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.

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?

skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:41 pm

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 7:36 pm

skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:41 pm

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?

Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:36 pm

skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:41 pm

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.

JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:53 am

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.

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.

skatingfan wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:30 pm

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?

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:32 pm Yes, we would. Feel free to look them up

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.

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.

skatingfan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:14 am

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.

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:51 pm

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.

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.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:10 pm

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?

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:19 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:10 pm

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: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:52 am

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 am Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?

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.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 am Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?

Omess wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:55 am

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:11 pm Svitolina can beat her. CAN, not "put your money on Elina" for that match.

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?

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.

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 6:33 pm

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.

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

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.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:02 pm

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?

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:35 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 3:02 pm

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

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".

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.

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:31 pm dubs - the legacy of Liezel

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:59 pm

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:31 pm dubs - the legacy of Liezel

haha! The throat, right? Terrible accident. Fantastically entertaining reaction, though.

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".

Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:00 am It's got to be Jennifer Capriati.

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:56 pm Hingis was 15 when she won Wimbledon and just turned 16 when she got to the top 10, I believe

Suliso wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 1:05 pm

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:56 pm Hingis 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.

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?

JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:17 pm Will we have a new #1 on the women's side now?

Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:21 pm

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.

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?

WTA (12): Osaka, Pegula, Wang, Zhang, Zheng, Hsieh, Fernandez (?), Li, Doi, Hibino, Diyas, Zhu

ATP (4): Nishioka, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Kwon

Also there was a promising Korean player few years ago who has disappeared (injuries?). Can't recall his name now...

dave g wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:19 pm

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?

WTA (12): Osaka, Pegula, Wang, Zhang, Zheng, Hsieh, Fernandez (?), Li, Doi, Hibino, Diyas, Zhu

ATP (4): Nishioka, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Kwon

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.

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.

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?

WTA (12): Osaka, Pegula, Wang, Zhang, Zheng, Hsieh, Fernandez (?), Li, Doi, Hibino, Diyas, Zhu

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:48 pm I knew about Leylah-Annie's parentage but not about Pegula.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:56 am

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:34 pm

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.

Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:13 pm Pliskova held on a bit longer than I expected,

JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:32 pm

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.

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.

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

JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:40 pm

JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:32 pm

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

atlpam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:37 pm

JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:40 pm

JazzNU wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:32 pm

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.

ti-amie wrote:

Seriously when will these rankings be made right?

patrick wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:30 pm Disagree on Sabalenka as she does well outside Slams

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.

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.

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.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:21 pm

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

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.

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?

varactor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:09 pm Career Slam stats for the Big 3 after Wimbledon:

Federer: 20 W, 11 F, 15 SF, 12 QF, 11 4R
Djokovic: 20 W, 10 F, 11 SF, 9 QF, 5 4R
Nadal: 20 W, 8 F, 7 SF, 9 QF, 6 4R

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?

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:17 pm Problem is that the method for calculating ranking points change from time to time...

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!

skatingfan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:35 am

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.

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.

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.

1. Barty 6281
2. Krejcikova 3968
3. Sabalenka 3889
4. Pliskova 3542
5. Swiatek 2681
6. Osaka 2641
7. Muguruza 2431
8. Jabeur 2305
9. Gauff 2255
10. Pegula 2102

Few notables: #15 Kerber, #21 Kvitova, #23 Svitolina, #25 Bencic, #29 Azarenka, #31 Serena, #35 Andreescu, #41 Halep

Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:18 am Major changes in the rankings:

ATP

Rublev 7 --> 5
Thiem 6 --> 8
Auger-Aliassime 15 --> 11
Carreno Bust 12 --> 16
Opelka 24 --> 19
Dimitrov 18 --> 29
Harris 46 --> 31
Alcaraz 55 --> 38
Davidovich Fokina 32 --> 44
Wawrinka 33 --> 49
Coric 39 --> 51
van de Zandschulp 117 --> 63

WTA

Osaka 3 --> 5
Krejcikova 9 --> 7
Sakkari 18 -->13
Gauff 23 --> 19
Andreescu 7 --> 20
Brady 14 --> 21
Raducanu 150 --> 23
Fernandez 67 --> 28
Azarenka 19 --> 32
Serena 22 --> 41
Martic 32 --> 42
Putinstseva 33 --> 44
Stephens 66 --> 54
Konta 47 --> 66
Cornet 56 --> 71

JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:21 pm Raducanu up to 23 in the rankings without having played a tour level match yet

Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:28 pm

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.

Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:28 pm

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Suliso wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:18 pm

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.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:18 pm

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.

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.

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.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:48 pm Fernandez reached 3R at Cincy.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:18 pm

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.

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.

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..

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:48 pm
Twitter doesn't allow editing of Tweets but I laughed at that too.

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:25 pm

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.

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.

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?

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:44 pm
Wait what? When did this happen?

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

atlpam wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:21 pm

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.

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:44 pm I won't doubt Novax asking for his ranking to be protected.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:11 pm

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:44 pm I won't doubt Novax asking for his ranking to be protected.

He doesn't believe in protection...

skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:08 am When did Cam Norrie get so high in the top 20? He's the 12th seed at the Australian Open.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:39 am Remember he won Indian Wells. That's a lot of points. He made a good push at the end of the year.

Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:21 am What rankings are you referring to with Kenin at #91 and Osaka at #98?

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

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:11 pm

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?

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.

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

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:06 pm

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.

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.

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.

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

Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:53 pm

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

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?

mick1303 wrote:Because last year AO was in February.

Suliso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 7:28 pm 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:

Barty
Swiatek
Collins
Ostapenko
Keys
Kontaveit
Sakkari
Krejcikova
Badosa
Halep

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.

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.

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?

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?

3mlm wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 10:01 pm

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.

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;)

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

the Moz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:27 pm

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:44 pm

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:34 pm

I thought you got a PR if you were coming back from injury but I guess I thought wrong.

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...

Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:01 am

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.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:37 am And now Iga's record vs all current top 10 players + everyone she has lost to in the last 52 weeks

Badosa 1-1
Krejcikova 2-0
Sakkari 2-3
Sabalenka 1-1
Kontaveit 3-2
Pliskova 1-0
Collins 1-1
Muguruza 0-1
Jabeur 1-2

Overall against the top 10: 12-11. Relatively few matches, though.

Bencic 1-1
Ostapenko 0-3
Kasatkina 3-1

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 4:21 am

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:55 am

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.

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?

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?

mick1303 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 6:31 am

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 2:10 am What's this about Sakkari being ranked #2 in time for RG?

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.

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.

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

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:31 pm

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

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.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 8:10 pm Jabeur seems to be playing like the true #2 at the moment

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 8:37 pm

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.

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.

Liamvalid wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:33 pm Only ONE slam title between the worlds top 8. That’s just nuts

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:26 pm

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.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 11:22 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:26 pm

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.

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.

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

Liamvalid wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:05 am

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 11:22 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:26 pm

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

JazzNU wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 6:52 pm

Liamvalid wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:05 am

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 11:22 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 8:01 pm

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.

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.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 1:09 pm

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: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:51 pm Could be almost 4,000 points, right?

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.

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?

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?)

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.

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?)

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:08 am

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.

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:07 am Reshuffling would be very unfair to lower ranked players.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ashkor87 wrote:4 slams!

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:53 pm

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:56 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:53 pm

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't Miami impress you at all?

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...

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.

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?

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.

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...

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'?...

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?

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

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 ..

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm For me, anything Larry Ellison’s name is on is stained.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:44 pm Player of the year not being the same as #1 for the year? I guess?

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.

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:26 pm

I have nothing against Pegula but how is she ranked this high? Am I missing something?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:21 pm

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:22 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:22 pm

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:46 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:22 pm

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?

patrick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 4:56 pm If Shelton makes SF, special exemption is possible

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?

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:21 am Current 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

11 Cori Gauff 2647
12 Daria Kasatkina 2635
13 Belinda Bencic 2635
14 Leylah Fernandez 2534
15 Karolína Plíšková 2477
16 Simona Halep 2415
17 Jeļena Ostapenko 2302
18 Barbora Krejčíková 2134
19 Veronika Kudermetova 2090
20 Victoria Azarenka 2016

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:15 pm

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..

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.

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.!

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:04 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:01 pm

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 7:27 pm

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.

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.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:48 pm

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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...