From: kasibhot@usc.edu (Srinivasamurthy Kasibhotla)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Computer rankings-need a repair?
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:29:04 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu



In a previous article posted on this network, I briefly alluded  to
the computer ranking system and how it could possibly lead to some
results  difficult to believe at best, and please let me follow up on
that. I suppose I am rather old-fashioned but I believe that the four
grand slams constitute the cornerstones of pro tennis and hence
performances in them should be clearly reflected in the rankings. But
of late, this does n't seem to be the case any more.I guess this
probably is again the reason why some players avoid playing in all the
4 GS events, stick to one surface and boost up their ranking. This is
most notably true in the case of European and South American clay
court experts. I feel players like that should be compelled to
participate in all the slams and should not rewarded for sticking to
one surface. Let me list a few more anamolies this has led to:

(1). In  the '92 yearend rankings Seles and Graf are separated only by
about 30 points, as Mr. Scott Patano from UT, Austin has observed. But
when you look at their GS displays which shows 3 slams, 1 runner-up
for  Seles as compared to 1 slam, 1 runner-up, 1 QF and 1 DNP for Graf
(and if you throw in the 5th most important title, the Slims final,
Seles won the championship and Graf lost in the first round) the disparity,
it seems, should be much larger. 

(2). Just prior to the US open'91, Graf regained her #1 ranking for a
brief period, before losing it again. At that time, going back by one
year including '90 USO, Seles had won 2 slams, one 3'rd round loss, 1 DNP
and the Virginia Slims final as compared to 1 slam, 2 semi-finals and
1 QF for Graf.

(3). On the men's side it has been even worse. Going into '92 ATP
finals both Edberg and Sampras had a shot at Courier's #1 spot. But
their grand slam performances were not so close; Courier had won 2
slams, 1 SF and one 3'rd round loss; Edberg had won at USO, 1
runner-up, 1 QF and one 3'rd round loss while Sampras was runner-up at
USO, 1 SF, 1 QF and did not play at AO. Easily Courier had the best
year, would n't you say? But imagine, if Sampras beat Courier and went
onto win at Franfurt and claim the #1 ranking for '92. The situation
would have been chaotic and comparable to the college football after
the bowl games.

Clearly the computer doesn't award enough points for a GS win or may
be too many for other smaller tournments. Guess we need to take a
closer look at this. Obviously I am not the first one to raise this
point, Courier responded in the same way when asked about the
possibility of losing his #1 at ATP finals.

Now, to reply to some of Mr. Patano's comments:

(1) Despite her drop in the rankings, Martina still is one of the
premier grass court exponents (including being a strong threat at
W'93) and any win over her at W is a creditable achievement. This goes
for Jen. Cap. too at W'91.

(2) Seles' serve has been getting quite strong, infact she has been
clocked at 107 mph at Slims final in 92, the fastest in the tourney.

(3) I didn't claim Graf will panic and abandon her net game and
topspin backhand at A'93; merely that she has been known to do so in the past.
And you can't gauge her play in these departments from early round
action. She never has problems with lesser ranked ( >15) players.

Finally let me say that, I 've come to know of this network only
recently and very glad about it. As a big time tennis fanatic, it is
so nice to have a lively discussion with other fans and read their
views.

Vasu Kasibhotla
Dept. of EE, Univ. of Southern Cal., Los Angeles