robert b. waltz

Two results: Pierce def. Martinez and Raymond def. Sugiyama.
That means Clijsters will face either Raymond or Pierce in
the Round of Six****. Raymond is down to #30, meaning that
she's worth only 15 quality points.

Which means that, even if Clijsters wins and beats all the
top-ranked opponents possible, she cannot become #1 this
week. Though she will become #1 next week if she wins.

--
In modern reporting, the appearance of objectivity is more important
than telling the actual truth.
-- Paul Greenberg (paraphrased)

steve jaros

... the ranking system dodges a credibility bullet...

--
"Under the proper standard, there is no pressing public necessity
in maintaining a public law school at all and, it follows,
certainly not an elite law school. Likewise, marginal improvements
in legal education do not qualify as a compelling state interest."

- Justice Clarence Thomas, Grutter v. Bollinger

nemanja d.

What's the difference? It's just a matter of time now.

Nemanja

robert b. waltz

What bugs me is, the ranking system is either good or bad, NOT
dependent on whether Clijsters is #1. But it's only now that
we see the possibility of a #1 with no Slams, when the #2
player has three slams, that people start screaming about it.

The ranking system was just as bad last year as this.

And, BTW, Clijsters isn't even CLOSE to being #1 under
the divisor, or any of the other alternate rankings.
Right now, Clijsters is -- #3 under the divisor. She'll
be #2 next week.

--
In modern reporting, the appearance of objectivity is more important
than telling the actual truth.
-- Paul Greenberg (paraphrased)

who's number two under the divisor? Henin?

wg

sakari.lund

Well, yes. Not all of us know the ranking system inside out like you.
So people react when they feel there is something strange in the
rankings.

I think the top rankings at the moment reflect the reality very well.
But if Kim gets to #1 when Serena has three Slams, then I think that
is a little strange. And I like Kim, and I criticize people for
overrating the importance of Slams. So if I think it is a little
strange, it is easy to imagine what many other people think :-)

big benz

why? clijsters wins just about everything other than grand slam tournaments,
and serena has played practically nothing other than grand slam tournaments
(grand slam events will account for half of her tournament total for the year
after the us open). there are a lot more regular tournaments than there are
grand slam tournaments.

i think that your difficulty is due to your desire to overreach in drawing a
conclusion based upon the rankings. if clijsters gets to #1 that would be
"reality", but it doesn't mean that clijsters is the best players in the
world. in fact, you can really only say that clijsters is in a battle for
third best player with henin-hardenne. this business that clijsters is "too
nice" to defeat venus and serena, while routinely pummelling the rest of her
opponents is utter nonsense - clijsters loses to the williams sisters because
they are better players.

sakari.lund

That is where we have a different approach. You have started to get
ready for the situation where Clijsters is #1. Your strategy is "yes,
she is deservedly #1, but that doesn't mean she is the best player.
Whatever the rankings say, Serena and Venus are the best two players".
So then you can always say that, even if they are ranked #97 and #122.

My thinking is that the rankings usually reflect pretty well the real
world, and so they should. If Clijsters gets #1 before USO, that is a
little questionable. So it would feel better if she wins USO and gets
#1 that way.

I used to think she can only get to #1 if Serena is injured a lot or
plays very little tournaments. But having watched Kim and Serena
during the last few months, I think Kim can be a very legitimate #1 in
the near future.

big benz

but i would need some basis for making that declaration, don't you think?
the reason that venus is ranked #4 is not because clijsters and henin-hardenne
are regularly defeating her -- in fact, they have pretty dismal won-loss
records against venus -- the reason why they are ahead of her in the rankings
is because venus doesn't play.

that is the reason why i consider clijsters' and henin-hardenne's rankings
to be legitimate: even though henin-hardenne is prone to cheating, neither
she or clijsters were the reason that venus did not defend titles at the
uncle toby's and bausch&lomb tournaments.

there is an embedded assumption in the ranking system: that being that all of
the players are actually going to want to play at least 17 tournaments. when
that happens, you have an "apples to apples" comparison, and you are in a
better position to draw conclusions about what the rankings say. however,
when some players chose to not play to the ranking system, while the rankings
themselves remain legitimate, it lessens the ability to use the rankings as
an indicator of which players are better than which other players in anything
other than in gross measure. so while it may be difficult to conclude that
the #2 player is better than the #4 player, it probably is true that the #2
player is better than the #200 player.


but winning one tournament still wouldn't change the history of her record
against venus and serena. winning a grand slam tournament would merely mean
that clijsters had one major tournament title, but by itself that fact would
not provide much basis for prediction about future outcomes.


your opinions vascillate wildly on this matter. if clijsters loses big in
the us open, you will be posting again about how clijsters is "too nice" to
be the #1 ranked player. you seem to base your opinions upon little more than
wishful thinking.

I think you mean "one-off" losses. I'll have to argue re Shaughnessy,
though -- VW has lost to her *more* than once.

wg