Looking at the difference between ranking system of ATP and WTA and the implications of the anomaly

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/14365169.stm

Firstly, poor Dinara Safina - I can't say that her slogging style is my favourite type of play, but I do so wish that she had managed to just snag the one slam at least. I think she was broken in many ways by the press and pundits questionning the validity of the No 1 ranking, and I feel so sad for Jankovic who has suffered in this way as well for no other crime than being, like Dinara, the most consistently successful player of a period in the women's tour. Wozniacki is now shouldering the same burden, and so far seems to be coping with grace and humour - but it can't be fun, continually being made to feel that you are usurping a more worthy player (ie a major winner) at the top of the rankings - I wonder how long before the inevitable sniping will begin to eat away at her cheery optimism.

Looking more closely at the difference in ranking points between the two tours, it shows quite an interesting picture because the gap in points between winner, runner-up, semi finalist etc is much more marked on the men's tour and therefore the ranking points are more likely to reward excellence at the sport's biggest tournaments. The much narrower gap on the WTA means that a player who is consistent over the year, in the big tournaments, can much more easily challenge a player who has won a couple of majors for the top ranking spot:

Ranking points for Grand Slam ATP:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
2000 1200 720 360 180

Ranking points for Grand Slam WTA:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
2000 1400 900 500 280

Ranking points for Masters ATP:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
1000 600 360 180 90

Ranking points for Premier Mandatory WTA:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
1000 700 450 250 140

Ranking points for 500 ATP:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
500 300 180 90 45

Ranking points for Premier 5 WTA:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
900 620 395 225 125

Ranking points for 250 ATP:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
250 150 90 45 (? forgot to look this one up!)

Ranking points for Premier WTA:

Winner Finalist Semi finalist Quarter finalist Round 16
470 320 200 120 (forgot to look this up as well!)



Does anyone feel this is largely irrelevant, or do you think that bringing WTA ranking points more in line with ATP points, we might see success at the majors having more significance to the top ranking. Have the points always been like this - sure they are many on here that will know, and if so, is this situation all the fault of the fault of the Williams sisters for being so selective in when and what they will play?

Lastly, sorry about spacing between points so that they are not under correct heading - couldn't sort, though did try very hard!


(top 20 WTA players - 2 best results from Premier 5 tournaments will be added to points from Premier Mandatory and Grand slams

Just done some maths (brain hurts) which probably makes first post more concise and less waffly:

On the ATP tour the runner up in a Grand slam or Masters event is awarded 60 per cent of the points that the winner earns

On the WTA tour, the runner up in Grand Slam or Premier Mandatory is awarded 70 percent of winner's points.

More strikingly still - a male player that loses in R16 of a Grand Slam event is awarded 9 percent of the points of the winner. However, a female player who loses in R16 in the same event, is awarded 14 percent of the points awarded to the winner.

So mediocrity rules in the WTA.

Seems so very appropriate.

The rankings reflect consistency of participation and reaching later stages of tournaments. If that is mediocrity (as per BogBrush), then that is subjective.

http://www.wtatennis.com/page/RankingsSingles/0,,12781~0~1~100,00.html

If winning the slams was considered the only requirement for rankings, WTA could have removed points from all other events, which is not the case.

A counter argument is also possible that making Grand Slam WTA and Premier Mandatory WTA closer in terms of points could address this 'gap'.

Laverfan...

Makes me think that you have taken quite a liking to Wozniacki.....

The ranking of Wozniacki as number 1 player is only challenged by the ranking of England football team as number 6....

A grave pity!

Currently Djokovic is way ahead of Nadal in the rankings (13,155 to 11,270).

Bet Nadal wishes the ATP would adopt the WTA system of ranking points. Just calculated with this system and only including slams and masters this year he would have an extra 740 points. If you add in the points for Barcelona that are due to be added soon the ranking points would be. Djokovic 13,155 and Nadal just 645 points behind at 12,510.

laverfan wrote:The rankings reflect consistency of participation and reaching later stages of tournaments.

Absolutely, and I for one am happy to see Wozniacki rewarded for that consistency and I don't feel that she is not a worthy number 1 or any such thing - according to the system, she is the correct No 1. However, it is a frequent lament of many tennis fans, and it continues to be the first thing the press will ask Wozniacki before any slam preparation. The excuse often given is that the Williams sisters do not rock up to everything they might, but I wondered if there was another contributory factor. It is interesting to note that the ATP tweaked the ranking points in 2009 (just read that on isport blog) to 'weight' the grand slams to avoid having No 1s who had not won a major (it doesn't seem to have been a problem in the preceding years!)

hawkeye wrote:Currently Djokovic is way ahead of Nadal in the rankings (13,155 to 11,270).

Bet Nadal wishes the ATP would adopt the WTA system of ranking points. Just calculated with this system and only including slams and masters this year he would have an extra 740 points. If you add in the points for Barcelona that are due to be added soon the ranking points would be. Djokovic 13,155 and Nadal just 645 points behind at 12,510.

That's a brilliant illustration of the point I was trying to make hawkeye - cheers for the research! Under the ATP system, Djokovic is 1,885 points ahead of Nadal which is very nearly equivalent to 2 slams and really reflects quite well the season they have both had.

As you say, under the WTA system the same players would be 645 points adrift which is approximately the same as winning one 500 and almost reaching the semi finals of a 250 tournament - which would not be a great reflection of the season of both players.

It would be very interesting to see how far up the rankings Ferrer might move this year.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Laverfan...

Makes me think that you have taken quite a liking to Wozniacki.....

The ranking of Wozniacki as number 1 player is only challenged by the ranking of England football team as number 6....

A grave pity!

I am not a great fan of her style of play, but do respect her ability to participate and reach ends of tournaments. If others in WTA choose not to participate in events (and perhaps cannot do it physically anyway), it is their loss.

In the link I posted, Woz has played 23 events, while Serena has played 11, Venus has 12 and Clijsters (current #2) has played 14. Li Na and Safina have 19. The reward for 23 events and getting to later stages of events is the reason for Woz being #1.

There is a male example of Rios who did not win a slam but was #1 for 6 weeks. There are others on the ATP side in this list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players

Look at #17 (Safin) onwards for single-digit weeks. Does it mean they were any less of tennis players? IMVHO, no.

The ranking system, WTA or ATP, is not player-specific and only rewards consistent and good players. There is no perfect ranking system. There have been debates of a weighted or two-year ranking system. The same maladies affect others.

If there is good tennis, let the viewers decide. If rankings were a reflection of popularity, there would be war on the streets.

laverfan wrote:In the link I posted, Woz has played 23 events, while Serena has played 11, Venus has 12 and Clijsters (current #2) has played 14. Li Na and Safina have 19. The reward for 23 events and getting to later stages of events is the reason for Woz being #1.

I am in full agreement with you on this laver and think that Woz would probably be No 1, or in very near contention, because of her consistency if she was scored for points under the ATP system.

laverfan wrote:There is no perfect ranking system

Again I agree, but I would like your opinion on whether in the cases below, the ATP system more accurately reflects the performance this year of two players, than if you scored them under WTA points accumulation?

time please wrote:That's a brilliant illustration of the point I was trying to make hawkeye - cheers for the research! Under the ATP system, Djokovic is 1,885 points ahead of Nadal which is very nearly equivalent to 2 slams and really reflects quite well the season they have both had.

As you say, under the WTA system the same players would be 645 points adrift which is approximately the same as winning one 500 and almost reaching the semi finals of a 250 tournament - which would not be a great reflection of the season of both players.

laverfan wrote:
Look at #17 (Safin) onwards for single-digit weeks. Does it mean they were any less of tennis players? IMVHO, no.

Nor in mine - wonderful players one and all. I certainly didn't want to start this thread to imply that Jankovic, Safina and Wozniacki did not deserve their No 1 - I believe they are all worthy No 1s and I am a particular fan of Woz (her play is a bit bash and bore, but she is such a determined and likeable player)

time please wrote:Again I agree, but I would like your opinion on whether in the cases below, the ATP system more accurately reflects the performance this year of two players, than if you scored them under WTA points accumulation?

time please wrote:That's a brilliant illustration of the point I was trying to make hawkeye - cheers for the research! Under the ATP system, Djokovic is 1,885 points ahead of Nadal which is very nearly equivalent to 2 slams and really reflects quite well the season they have both had.

As you say, under the WTA system the same players would be 645 points adrift which is approximately the same as winning one 500 and almost reaching the semi finals of a 250 tournament - which would not be a great reflection of the season of both players.

1885 points is roughly one slam (2000 points for a slam winner) not two. Nadal has one slam (FO), Djokovic has two (AO, W).

Let me look at the ranking breakdown of both Nadal and Djokovic. Will post shortly.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:Again I agree, but I would like your opinion on whether in the cases below, the ATP system more accurately reflects the performance this year of two players, than if you scored them under WTA points accumulation?

time please wrote:That's a brilliant illustration of the point I was trying to make hawkeye - cheers for the research! Under the ATP system, Djokovic is 1,885 points ahead of Nadal which is very nearly equivalent to 2 slams and really reflects quite well the season they have both had.

As you say, under the WTA system the same players would be 645 points adrift which is approximately the same as winning one 500 and almost reaching the semi finals of a 250 tournament - which would not be a great reflection of the season of both players.

1885 points is roughly one slam (2000 points for a slam winner) not two. Nadal has one slam (FO), Djokovic has two (AO, W).

Let me look at the ranking breakdown of both Nadal and Djokovic. Will post shortly.

OMG, you're quite right - there is a very good reason why I had to retake GCE maths! I think this might be a case of me trying to make the facts fit my theory

Just one more go at trying to avoid having on my face - leaving out the AO win for Djokovic and the RG win for Nadal - these two have played each other in 5 finals, all of which have gone in Djokovic's favour. There is a difference of 800 points between the players at W, and 400 at each of the Masters which equals 2000 points in all. So the ATP scoring more accurately reflects the h2h rivalry between the two this year than the WTA system would. (or 1 slam separates them amongst the blue riband events)

Trying too hard? Yeah, you'd be right

Djokovic Ranking breakdown...

By ATP - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Novak-Djokovic.aspx?t=rb - 13,155


By WTA system - FO SF (900-720=+180), Shanghai SF (450-360=+90), Canada SF (450-360=+90), Cincy QF (250-180=+70), Paris R16 (140-90=+50), Dubai W (900-500=+400), Beijing W (900-500=+400), Basel F (620-300=+320), Belgrade W (470-250=+220) (ignoring DC).

This gives Djokovic +1820 points.

.....

Nadal ranking breakdown...

By ATP - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=rb - 11,270

By WTA system - W F (1400-1200=+200), AO QF (500-360=+140), Rome F (700-600=+100), Madrid F(700-600=+100), Miami F(700-600=+100), IW F (700-600=+100), Canada SF (450-360=+90), Cincy QF (250-180=+70), Shanghai R16 (140-90=+50), Tokyo W (900-500=+400), Barcelona (900-500=+400), Doha SF (320-150=170+), Bangkok SF (320-150=170+) (ignoring DC)

This gives Nadal +2090 points.

The WTA differential is Nadal-Djokovic (2090-1820) = 270+ points, in other words an ATP 250 title. Nadal has London/Queens as an uncountable.

The differential is not that significant, IMVHO.

Please let me know if you see any errors.

Personally I think it is a disgrace!

Women playing tennis! Whatever next?

ps Good effort from time please for revealing the differences in the scoring system in the Mens and Womens game.

Nore Staat wrote:Personally I think it is a disgrace!

Women playing tennis! Whatever next?

I hope we are not getting into a Gender Superiority debate. Perhaps the Queen can help settle it once and for all.

We all know the results of the 'Battle of Sexes', BJKM beat BR hands-down. . Hope no one mentions Karsten Braasch.

Perhaps a new thread on this subject should be started elsewhere.

laverfan wrote:Please let me know if you see any errors.

erm, we both know that's unlikely!

Nore Staat wrote:ps Good effort from time please for revealing the differences in the scoring system in the Mens and Womens game.

Ta bruised ego a little soothed!