Having best year (majors) vs ranking

[TT]

Does not equal.

2012

Murray: best achievement in majors: OG + USO title.... #3
Serena: best achievement in majors: Wimbledon + OG + USO... #4

Maybe atp/wta should count less ranking points from below masters
tournaments? And of course give full 2000 for Olympics.

Azarenka has won 4 titles this year, and is ranked 1. Serena has 6
titles and is 4th...

[reilloc]

Frankly, I can't believe that you're pretending still to be interested
in the sport of tennis since Nadal's de facto retirement. Isn't poker
where you'll stalk him next and wouldn't you feel more comfortable in a
less physical, odds-calculating type of setting?

LNC

[Coach]

OG is not a major, and 750 points is just enough. OG is a below
Masters tournament.

The reason Serena is not ranked higher is because she lost first round
at RG and R16 in Australia. If the GS tournaments and Masters would
account for more ranking points Azarenka would still be #1.

[Ulysses]

TT, just print out dozens of shirtless Rafa photos and self-pleasure
yourself into extinction. Or watch the Rafa-Shakira video and pass out
from ecstacy, but leave the rest of RST alone.

Hark...!! Mommy is summoning you from your basement exile. Heed her
plaintive cries and get the hell out of here. Nadal ain't playing till
2013, if then.

[Ulysses]

I also notice you erased your profile history which clearly shows
1,000+ posts per month, every month for years. Now you miracuously
show only a few posts in 2012! When in fact your entire life is spent
here. Yet another alias, from another invented country, with another
invented persona.

ZZZZZZZ.

[TT]

18.9.2012 2:58, Coach kirjoitti:
> On 17 sep, 20:59, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> Does not equal.
>>
>> 2012
>>
>> Murray: best achievement in majors: OG + USO title.... #3
>> Serena: best achievement in majors: Wimbledon + OG + USO... #4
>>
>> Maybe atp/wta should count less ranking points from below masters
>> tournaments? And of course give full 2000 for Olympics.
>>
>> Azarenka has won 4 titles this year, and is ranked 1. Serena has 6
>> titles and is 4th...
>
> OG is not a major, and 750 points is just enough. OG is a below
> Masters tournament.

That tells us all we ned to know about your honesty of opinion...

>
> The reason Serena is not ranked higher is because she lost first round
> at RG and R16 in Australia. If the GS tournaments and Masters would
> account for more ranking points Azarenka would still be #1.
>

Serena has done better at majors, no doubt.

[TT]

Pot calling the kettle... get a life. And a shrink, you certainly spend
a lot of time berating me... how small a person you are. Maybe you have
a crush on me? I myself don't care person such as you one single bit. :)

And the reason behind my post count is simple, but you're too dumb to
figure it out. lol

[Coach]

Serena: R1, R16 and two wins
Azarenka: R16, semi, final and a win

What's worth more points you think? R1 and a win or a semi and a final?

[Court_1]

Uly poses a good question though, why did you erase most of your
posting history? I don't get that. Why would a person spend the time
doing that? What are you trying to hide?

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 5:22 am, Coach <dennisreijng...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Serena: R1, R16 and two wins
> Azarenka: R16, semi, final and a win
>
> What's worth more points you think? R1 and a win or a semi and a final?

It's just TT being himself. And you know he's not quite
been all there since the second round of Wimbledon.

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 4:58 am, Coach <dennisreijng...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> OG is not a major, and 750 points is just enough. OG is a below
> Masters tournament.

We know TT would definitely have downgraded OG had Fed won it.

[MBDunc]

Nothing beats 1998 women doubles...

Hingis won 4 slams (two different partners) and was ranked #2 in doubles.

Zvereva was in a runner-up team 4 times (with Davenport) and was ranked #1 in doubles.

Over the years they have toned down a lot the relative points from minor events compared to slams. During 70:ies/early 80:ies ranking points were practically linear compared to prize money. (which caused odditions like Lipton giving more ranking points than AO - also their point giveout structure was a bit odd too which clearly gave finalists relatively a lot more points))

As it is now 100% (slam) - 50% (master series) - 25% (500 event)...then during 90:ies it was more like 100-60-40+...fluctuating a bit as there were quality points in the mix...which caused again some funny numbers like Pioline getting slam win level points from his runner-up at USO 903....

But it has backfired a bit....as now top players play less minor (250/500) events (as it is not worth it and there is not that much of a ranking prize and instead tightened annual schedule+mandatory events cause a risk for exhaustion.)...

But 2012....

Since Serena started her off/on playing (years ago) with hiatuses/injuries/etc her ranking just has not worked...must accept that...

Murray case is more clear...after all he has not had the overall tour succee he has had earlier years - has been more inconsistent 2012...and of course both Djokovic and Fed also have great numbers to show. USO-OG is a great combo but both Djoko and Fed have better case for being #1....after all they have mastered the "brutal knock-out tennis" ;) at Masters series 2012 a lot better than Murray....

.mikko

[arnab.z@gmail]

The poor git could be applying for a job.

[TT]

I erased nothing, they're all still there. I changed email address
because I had to come up with something when changing a news server.

[TT]

For women a slam win is worth 2000 points and final+semi are worth
1400+900 points (for men it would be 1200+720)

However the point of this thread is suggesting that ranking system is
wrong... so Azarenka having more points from slams supports that view.

Slam+OG >>> final+semi
...aka 2 > 0.75

In fact, I think a slam W is better than a f and sf. Especially when
losing that final to Serena. Their h2h btw is 10-1 to Serena.

There is no doubt that just about all tennis pundits think Serena's year
is better than Azarenka's. 2 slams+OG vs 1 slam. 6 titles vs 4.

But apparently you don't. Carry on.

[TT]

18.9.2012 8:19, MBDunc kirjoitti:
> Nothing beats 1998 women doubles...
>
> Hingis won 4 slams (two different partners) and was ranked #2 in doubles.
>
> Zvereva was in a runner-up team 4 times (with Davenport) and was ranked #1 in doubles.
>

Nice example. Clearly ranking points greatly differed from prestige
value... or wasn't that accurate for seeding purposes either.

Wonder if Graf would have been #2 after her Golden Slam...

> after all they have mastered the "brutal knock-out tennis" ;)

Touche! :)

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:48:22 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
>
> Nice example. Clearly ranking points greatly differed from prestige
> value... or wasn't that accurate for seeding purposes either.
>
> Wonder if Graf would have been #2 after her Golden Slam...

Graf was #1 from August 1987 to March 1991.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:19:59 AM UTC+2, MBDunc wrote:
>
> As it is now 100% (slam) - 50% (master series) - 25% (500 event)...then during 90:ies it was more like 100-60-40+...fluctuating a bit as there were quality points in the mix...which caused again some funny numbers like Pioline getting slam win level points from his runner-up at USO 903....
>
> But it has backfired a bit....as now top players play less minor (250/500) events (as it is not worth it and there is not that much of a ranking prize and instead tightened annual schedule+mandatory events cause a risk for exhaustion.)...
>

ATP250 tournaments are essentially worthless for the top players.

> Murray case is more clear...after all he has not had the overall tour succee he has had earlier years - has been more inconsistent 2012...and of course both Djokovic and Fed also have great numbers to show. USO-OG is a great combo but both Djoko and Fed have better case for being #1....after all they have mastered the "brutal knock-out tennis" ;) at Masters series 2012 a lot better than Murray....
>

Murray is a bit thin on big tournament wins. 2 of his 6 titles are ATP250 and
he has many early exits at Masters tournaments.

Federer on the other hand has Wimbledon, YEC, 4 masters and 2 ATP500.

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Serena doesn't play enough; those are the rules. Also, not a small thing,
the rankings cover 52 weeks. Serena barely plays after the US Open;
Azarenka plays through the European and Asian swing and the YECs. And
Azarenka won her first 20+ matches at the beginning of the year. And she
has no bad losses comparable to SW in the 1R at the FO.

Serena only has to play a few extra tournaments, but she doesn't.

wg

[heyg...@gmail.com]

I think when people ask "who had the best year?" they more or less mean "who won the most?" It's easy enough to figure this out by only counting ranking points for tournament wins. Serena would far and away be the #1 player with this approach.

[TT]

18.9.2012 21:05, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk kirjoitti:
>
> Serena only has to play a few extra tournaments, but she doesn't.
>
> wg
>

So what does that tell us about importance of getting to #1...

[DavidW]

TT wrote:
> Does not equal.
>
> 2012
>
> Murray: best achievement in majors: OG + USO title.... #3

No, that would be Federer.

[bob]

well Wim, USO, OG vs AO. just tells us that mid yr rankings are for
seeding purposes, nothing else.

bob

[Coach]

So you really think a final in a major is worth no points? Winning a
tier III tournament is worth more points than that?

[Coach]

It tells us Serena:

-physically can't play more tournaments
-mentally can't play more tournaments
-doesn't give a shit about the rankings

Or a combination of all this.

[Coach]

Serena doesn't play enough tournaments and in the tournaments she
plays she is too inconsistent (losing R16 AO against Makarova and R1
RG against Virginie Razzano). That's the reason why she is #4 and not
#1.

[Coach]

The point of this thread was to award more point for majors and
masters. I just pointed out Azarenka is ranked higher than Serena not
(only) because she has earned more points in tune-ups, but also more
points in the majors.

>
> Slam+OG >>> final+semi
> ...aka 2 > 0.75
>
> In fact, I think a slam W is better than a f and sf. Especially when
> losing that final to Serena. Their h2h btw is 10-1 to Serena.

So please tell me what you think is fair? At the moment WTA points for
a major:

W2000
F1400
S900
QF500
R16 280
R32 160
R64 100
R128 5

>
> There is no doubt that just about all tennis pundits think Serena's year
> is better than Azarenka's. 2 slams+OG vs 1 slam. 6 titles vs 4.

Haha, you sound just like Whisper!

>
> But apparently you don't. Carry on.

I never said this. I just think Azarenka's #1 ranking is justified.

[bob]

she's "computer 4" yet best in world. that's all we need to know.

bob

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <k3ah6r$arf$2...@dont-email.me>, as...@dprk.kp (TT) wrote:

> *From:* TT <as...@dprk.kp>
> *Date:* Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:14:36 +0300

Nothing. It tells us *Serena's* values.

wg

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <e08ba253-48d3-4bb0...@googlegroups.com>,

heyg...@gmail.com () wrote:

>
> I think when people ask "who had the best year?" they more or less
> mean "who won the most?" It's easy enough to figure this out by
> only counting ranking points for tournament wins. Serena would far
> and away be the #1 player with this approach.

Well, no, since that's how the rankings are currently calculated. If you
bring back quality points (based on who you beat and their ranking),
Serena would likely be ahead (and Clijsters would be much higher ranked
than 20). Just adding up points for wins is what's making Azarenka #1.

wg

[heyg...@gmail.com]

I meant that only counting points for tournament wins (ie, only the winner of the tournament gets the points [Serena gets 2000 for the USO, Azarenka gets zero]) probably best represents what people mean by asking "who had the best year?" I'm not saying that method should be officially used for ranking/seedings. But nearly everyone agrees Serena had the best year, and only counting points from tournament wins is one mathematical approach to showing it.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 20, 11:38 am, heyguy...@gmail.com wrote:

> I meant that only counting points for tournament wins (ie, only the
> winner of the tournament gets the points [Serena gets 2000 for the
> USO, Azarenka gets zero]) probably best represents what people
> mean by asking "who had the best year?"

That would be a bad system even for casual, "best year" summaries.
Getting to the final of a slam is better than winning any other
tournament.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

yet I bet if you used this method for this year it would generally match people's perceptions of who had the best year (Serena, then Azarenka, then Sharapova, followed by the rest).