Talk About Tennis 2.0

If Sakkari is over-ranked, why then does she have more points over the past year than the players ranked below her?
The rankings are based on results. And results are the best measure we have of one's ability.

Once again - 'potential' means absolutely nothing. In terms of feasibility, it is entirely useless and insignificant. If a given player is said to have 'great potential', but their results are poor, what then is the potential worth? Nothing!

The only legitimate argument I can see for claiming a player is over-ranked would be a case like Raducanu - where her ranking was 95% based on the result of just ONE tournament. Once the points from that tournament were removed, she fell far in the rankings (it may have been a record for the number of positions a player has fallen from one week to the next).
With a player like Sakkari, her ranking is based on many tournaments.
I therefore cannot consider Sakkari as being over-ranked.

Krejcikova is probably the most under-rated! Impressive wins over Bencic and Kontaveit to take the Tallinn title...

I don't think she is under-rated. I personally took it for one of our contests, but it was at the time in which she was playing very poorly. She gave me almost no points.
Over rates: how about Anisimova? Another player that I took for Green Acres and delivered nothing, and one player we have been waiting to deliver. And are still waiting. At least I am.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:33 pm I don't think she is under-rated. I personally took it for one of our contests, but it was at the time in which she was playing very poorly. She gave me almost no points.
Over rates: how about Anisimova? Another player that I took for Green Acres and delivered nothing, and one player we have been waiting to deliver. And are still waiting. At least I am.

She must have been still recovering then...from Covid etc...wecan never tell...

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:33 pm I don't think she is under-rated. I personally took it for one of our contests, but it was at the time in which she was playing very poorly. She gave me almost no points.
Over rates: how about Anisimova? Another player that I took for Green Acres and delivered nothing, and one player we have been waiting to deliver. And are still waiting. At least I am.

See, that is why I don't play any of these games, it would interfere with my sheer enjoyment of tennis..ofcourse, my various random predictions do, too but I can still enjoy the tennis when my prediction turns out wrong, which is often, ofcourse...

"Parity"

Juan José @jjvallejoa

Djokovic got to 10 total Big Titles held at the end of 2015, too: 3 Slams, 6 M1000s (something I'd be shocked if it happens again) and the YEC.

A very interesting stat.

After knocking on the door for most of the year, Taylor Fritz has finally cracked the top 10, moving up to 8 this week.

Gauff and Sakkari move into the top 5 this week, at the expense of Sabalenka and Kontaveit, who dropped all the way to 17. Kudermetova moves into the top 10 for a career high ranking of 9.

There was a claim recently in another thread that WTA is "graying". It's certainly true in ATP, but it it really true for women as well? So I had a look - are there more 30+ players in the top 100 or more 22 and under?

Over 30 (oldest first)

Kaia Kanepi (37)
Tatjana Maria
Shuai Zhang
Victoria Azarenka
Alize Cornet (retiring soon)
Petra Kvitova
Madison Brengle
Sorana Cirstea
Alison Riske
Irina Camelia Begu
Rebecca Marino
Petra Martic
Nuria Parrizas Dias
Simona Halep
Camila Giorgi
Qiang Wang
Magda Linette
Karolina Pliskova
Viktorija Golubic
Shelby Rogers

So exactly 20% is 30 or over as of today. Another 3-4 will get there by the start of the next season

22 and under (youngest first)

Linda Fruhvirtova (17)
Linda Noskova
Coco Gauff
Emma Raducanu
Qinwen Zheng (20)
Leylah Fernandez
Diane Parry
Marta Kostyuk
Camila Osorio
Amanda Anisimova
Iga Swiatek
Xiyu Wang
Elisabetta Cocciaretto
Kaja Juvan

14% of the top 100 are very young. Indeed a slight advantage to older players, but nothing huge. Particularly considering that there are 11 (!!!) young players in the 100-125 range.

To see if it's greying we'd have to compare that to sometime a few years ago Not that I'm telling you to do that though.

I would think we can agree that careers are lengthening. Players are staying in the tour longer, thanks to better training and keeping their bodies in better shape.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:15 pm I would think we can agree that careers are lengthening. Players are staying in the tour longer, thanks to better training and keeping their bodies in better shape.

Is that true, or are players simply remaining at a higher level while ageing today, as compared to 30 or 40 years ago?
Connors and Navratilova both had very lengthy careers - though they obviously didn't remain at the top level as they aged. Borg retired at 26 - but who else retired early back in that era? McEnroe deteriorated, then retired in his early 30s, I believe...

I don't think that careers are necessarily lengthening now - I think maybe it's just a case of there being more players remaining at or near the top level as they age today versus in the past.

Money should be considered, as well, in this equation. There is obviously a lot more money in the game today than there was 30 or 40 years ago - not just prize money, but also endorsements, etc. And so players can afford to retire much earlier today than in the past. Is that happening overall? I'll leave it to the statistically inclined to do that research, if they so choose.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 4:15 pm I would think we can agree that careers are lengthening. Players are staying in the tour longer, thanks to better training and keeping their bodies in better shape.

Definitely all that - and also the power of the "new normal." In the past, it just wasn't done. Now it is, so players (and their teams) adjust their own expectations accordingly, and how they manage their careers and lives.