|
Post by DBBN on May 12, 2007 10:06:55 GMT -5
Also, it fucks up the year-end rankings, like in '99 when a RG winner/Wim finalist wasn't on the list at all. Ahhhhhhh! You're right, I forgot about that. I guess because it's Kim, I want her gone. And also I like JJ and Ana and the Chak and Peer and Bepa and such that I want them higher.
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on May 12, 2007 14:14:09 GMT -5
Seeing her drop slowly but surely down, down, down can be equally satisfying...eg, the "LOL Davenport is ranked behind Rezai" feeling.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 12, 2007 14:30:27 GMT -5
The ranking system is there to show how much points players have cumulated in the last 12 months. That a player is retired is irrelevant, in my opinion, so they shouldn't remove retired players.
What if Clijsters change her mind and asks a WC for the French Open? Is she unranked or they give her back her points?
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 12, 2007 14:48:37 GMT -5
Yes, you guys are right. I take it back.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 14, 2007 17:15:58 GMT -5
May 14th, 2007Humungous changes. Vast alterations. And good ones, I think. And more to come this week, it is likely. Justine and the idle Sharapova basically stay where they were at #1 and #2 respectively. Sveta replaces Amelie again at #3 with her Berlin RUP, and by 170 pts-ish too. That's starting to look permanent. Kimmy C, right or not, removes herself from the world rankings. Therefore, Jankovic gains #5, Hingis #6. Hingis, however, will drop like a rock next week as her undefended Rome W points fall off. She may well lose her top ten standing. Vaidisova attains a new career high of #7 (?). Ana's title rockets her from #16 to #8! Safina and Chak gain one spot to round out the top ten this week. Serena sits ominously at #11 and she's likely to rejoin the top ten this week, I think. Petrova's ranking correction ends as she falls #9-#12 after her QF loss to Kuznetsova in Berlin. Now she'll be able to tack on pts for months. Last year, I don't think she won a match after Berlin until wining two at the USO, right? Hantuchova and Dementieva exchange spots beneath them, and Peer rounds out the top 15. Schnyder thrills us all by rising #19-17 after her quality win over Hingis in Berlin. Srebotnik is a top twenty player. Bartoli goes #24-21 by doing something somewhere. The Vak, unfortunately forced to retire for the second week straight, vaults from #53 to #34 with her semifinal run in Berlin. Good for her. I wish her good health for gay ol' Paree! Groenefeld gets some upward ranking momentum for the first time in a while, rising #43-40. MPaperfolding titles in wherever and rises #60-43. Tu 48-45. Zheng 41-48. Azarenka is top fifty at #49. First time? Likhovtseva rallies from #63 to #56. Boring. K-Bond continues to rise, #67-#57. LDL #66-60. Paszek rises #81-78. And she's through to the 2nd round in Rome from the qualies this week, so she'll be continuing to rise. Pin #86-80. The Gajd #95-85. VRP 113-87. Angelique Kerber 115-88. Tatjana Malek 108-92. Is it possible Germany might have a few decent players again? Kloesel 100-93. Zuzana Ond. 117-99. Kremer 93-103. Castano 88-110. Mattek 120-109. Smashnova 91-112. Sprem 105-113. She did beat Daniilidou in Rome today though. Dellacqua 126-117. Arvidsson 118-120. Cibulkova 139-120. She'll be top 100 soon, methinks. Mathilde Johansson 136-123. Klara don't-call-me-Koukalova Zakopaloooza 142-127. Osterloh 156-130. C. Fernandez 135-144. Olga Govortsova 172-155. Who is she? Germany's Andrea Petkovic 163-156. Caroline Maes 233-164. Her win at the 100K Challenger in Rome the reason for the major rise. Big surprise to me that she won there ... Mary Pierce 179-174. And I lose interest. Very intriguing rankings this week, though. I regain interest. What knocked Marta Marrero off the tour? Her comeback got some wind behind it in reaching the Rome 100K final moving her #678-328. Good for her.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 14, 2007 17:24:54 GMT -5
Hingis, however, will drop like a rock next week as her undefended Rome W points fall off. She may well lose her top ten standing. I expect this from the tards at WTA World, and have yelled at them already, but not from you. Hingis loses 300 points from Rome. She is right now OVER 300 points ahead of Vaidisova, so FIVE PEOPLE out of the seven ranked immediately behind her would have to have a net gain of from 20 up to 430 points (that would be...winning the title) for her to fall out of the Top Ten, one of whom is Safina who is defending 210. It's entirely possible that she doesn't lose any ranking spots at all, and this could easily have been gleaned by (1) looking at the rankings and (2) being able to subtract 300 from any number. It's also possible that she drops to 9 or 10, but not likely , and the odds of her actually falling out of the Top Ten, given that that requires something like a Safina def. Petrova final with Serena and Chakvetadze or Ivanovic the losing semifinalists, are practically nil. I'm sorry to be so mean, but I've already had this fight at WTAW and it pains me to see it here.
|
|
|
Post by sasha on May 14, 2007 17:41:10 GMT -5
But, Martina will almost certainly drop out of the Top 10 soon as long as the Obese one plays another tournament. And The Chak has little to defend the next couple months, too. And Nadya started her suckage last year around this time, as well.
Too bad Bartoli couldn't win every Tier IV. Marion in the Top 10 would be so awesome.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 14, 2007 17:45:44 GMT -5
Yeah but it almost definitely won't happen on Monday.
Martina will probably re-retire soon so it's all moot.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 14, 2007 18:08:47 GMT -5
lol, sorry. I plainly did not do the math at all. Just guessing with what I knew (not very much, apparently).
Is a Tier I title only 300 pts? Miami and IW are worth slightly more?
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 14, 2007 18:10:50 GMT -5
And if Hingis gets discouraged and re-retires soon, that would be truly pathetic. Have some heart, Martina.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 14, 2007 18:21:35 GMT -5
Now Tier I's are 430, with IW and Miami 465 or so, due to the points increase which occurred during the off-season.
And I didn't mean to freak out. I pin this on my 11-hour day! 11-hour day!!!!1
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 14, 2007 18:34:52 GMT -5
Now Tier I's are 430, with IW and Miami 465 or so, due to the points increase which occurred during the off-season. And I didn't mean to freak out. I pin this on my 11-hour day! 11-hour day!!!!1 Right.Ok. I thought they were 430 ... I've relly tried to ignore the WTA's ranking changes because inevitably I hate them. By the by, why do they continue to display the Quality Points column?
|
|
|
Post by janie on May 14, 2007 18:35:31 GMT -5
And I didn't mean to freak out. I pin this on my 11-hour day! 11-hour day!!!!1 They've got you doing SEWING now?? I don't get Srebotnik in the top 20, or Tu at 45! What is this world coming to. What's next, Julie Ditty in the top 100? And where is Kirilenko these days? Still in the top 100 somehow? She'll be a good addition to the Hidden World when she gets there, if she's not there yet.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 14, 2007 18:40:11 GMT -5
I think Kirilenko is still top 50, if not top 40 ... but I just glaze over her name now.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 14, 2007 18:55:11 GMT -5
Quality points, who knows. Cos they're retarded.
SEWING! I WISH!
|
|
|
Post by janie on May 14, 2007 19:29:15 GMT -5
I think Kirilenko is still top 50, if not top 40 ... but I just glaze over her name now. Yep, 42. Amazing. Hurley, are you still at work? It's half-time in the Cavs - Nets game.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 15, 2007 1:07:40 GMT -5
They must ditch the Q pts. column.
Hingis' '06-07 is looking lots like Agassi's '98-99 so far ... an RG title would help that comparison. ;P
Believe it or not, Janie, but despite a 7-12 year-to-date record and several Tier IVA first round flameouts, Kirilenko is still #37 in the Race ... so dropping out of the top 100 may not be in the cards this year. She has had the good sense to get her victories at high-point events, winning two in Australia, one in Tokyo, one in Dubai, etc.
Vakulenko ... anybody know what kept her out last season? It's not the same wrist problem she's experiencing now, is it? She didn't play after Wimbledon last year (and before March, either)...
|
|
|
Post by corswandt on May 15, 2007 8:21:28 GMT -5
She [Kirilenko] has had the good sense to get her victories at high-point events That also goes a way to explain Srebotnik's current ranking. She rarely goes very deep into any tournament, but she also never plays down, so those 1-2 rounds she clears are usually worth a lot of points. And she hasn't been injured and missed a big tournament for quite some time now. But right now, she seems to be in a slump, and it's a few QF and SF in TIs in late 2006 that are keeping her ranking up.
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on May 15, 2007 15:22:23 GMT -5
Srebotnik's been top 20 before. Doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is ANGELIQUE KERBER IN THE TOP 100. Has this bitch even played a WTA event ever? She has won Challenger after Challenger and AAARGH STOP PLAYING CHALLENGERS.
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on May 15, 2007 15:24:00 GMT -5
OK I'm looking up her record. She's played TWO - TWO!!! - WTA events this year. SHE LOST IN Q1 BOTH TIMES FIODKDFJSSNDHDJDJDJDDDF
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on May 15, 2007 15:25:39 GMT -5
OK she qualified for Hasselt last year and made 2R via retirement over Oprandi. And lost, guess what, Q1 at Stuttgart.
That is IT. That is her ENTIRE WTA RECORD OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS.
And she's IN THE TOP 100.
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on May 15, 2007 15:26:47 GMT -5
And Cibulkova, who's been fairly active and reasonably successful on the proper Tour this year, still languishes wa below 100.
Kerber will get DA to Wimbledon. Cibulkova will not. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 15, 2007 15:56:01 GMT -5
LOL!
Yeah, Kerber and Malek both squeaking into the Top 100 on Wimbledon DA week is a high point for German women's tennis, but a low point for quality wins.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 15, 2007 15:56:41 GMT -5
I think that is the first ever three-post rant about Angelique Kerber anywhere in the internet tennis world. Kudos to you, lexpretend.
Srebotnik in the top 20 disturbs me not as well. I like her game. It's a shame she never beats anybody ranked higher than she is, but oh well. She really should've put away Davenport in last year's USO R32.
|
|
|
Post by corswandt on May 15, 2007 16:06:52 GMT -5
You got me wrong - Srebotnik in the top 20 doesn't bother me at all. I admire her for never playing down, even though her chances of beating the elite at the upper tier events are pretty slim. Kerber, whose "successes" have mostly been achieved at 25Ks, is #88 on the rankings and #256 on the race, while Cibulkova is #84 on the race and #121 on the rankings
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 15, 2007 16:24:31 GMT -5
Well, that's what you get when you abolish bonus points.
I don't really care, because Ruano getting 200 points for beating Hingis is equally annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 15, 2007 16:32:01 GMT -5
You got me wrong - Srebotnik in the top 20 doesn't bother me at all. I admire her for never playing down, even though her chances of beating the elite at the upper tier events are pretty slim. Kerber, whose "successes" have mostly been achieved at 25Ks, is #88 on the rankings and #256 on the race, while Cibulkova is #84 on the race and #121 on the rankings I didn't think it did bug ya, Cors. Just a general comment from me.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 15, 2007 16:39:39 GMT -5
Well, that's what you get when you abolish bonus points. I don't really care, because Ruano getting 200 points for beating Hingis is equally annoying. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: bring back bonus points, but HALVE THEM. Instead of 100 points for beating #1 (200 in a Slam), make it 50 points for beating #1 (100 in a Slam). It's insane that you get more points for winning Bogota than for winning Auckland. Bonus points are necessary to adequately reward players for their performances relative to the strengths of fields in which they compete.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 15, 2007 16:51:06 GMT -5
My solution:
2 rankings:
One, really really really dumb for the general public for the end-of-year number 1 race, so the media and fans can talk about it.
One mathematically complex but accurate, a tennis version of the Elo Chess rating, that takes account the player you face, the tournament and the round you play. The rating slowly decreases with time instead of removing points 12 months old.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on May 15, 2007 19:10:01 GMT -5
My solution: 2 rankings: One, really really really dumb for the general public for the end-of-year number 1 race, so the media and fans can talk about it. One mathematically complex but accurate, a tennis version of the Elo Chess rating, that takes account the player you face, the tournament and the round you play. The rating slowly decreases with time instead of removing points 12 months old. There's no need to ... appease people, Bagel. I say go with the most "accurate" system. The ATP already found out with the "Champion's Race" how stupid things get with two different ranking systems, one that means something, one that doesn't but is hyped like it does.
|
|