From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: 8 Re: ATP Rankings (was: US Open prediction)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:31:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

In article <1992Aug26.131952.19591@cs.brown.edu> PH412000@brownvm.brown.edu writes:
>------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>>|> Something fishy is going on here, without a doubt.
>>|> --
>  [Ann Dolce writes:]
>>  Don't forget that the men's ranking only counts their best 14 results.
>>  This may account for the fishy-looking results.

This fact cannot change the rankings in the way they changed.

For example, there are two possibilities with respect to Korda:

1) His title at New Haven last year was one of his top 14 results going in
    to last week.

2) It wasn't in his top 14 (inconceivable, but listed here for completeness.)

If #1, we have 2 possibilities:

1A) His quarterfinal loss at this year's New Haven tournament is still one of
     his top 14 results in the last 12 months, so we have a 1 for 1 replacement
     of New Haven results. In this case, his total ranking points should go
     down.

1B) His 1992 New Haven result is not one of his top 14 results in the last
     12 months. In this case, whatever was his 15th best result a couple of
     weeks ago has moved up, and is the replacement for his victory at New
     Haven a year ago. Obviously, he would be losing points in this case, too.

On the other hand, if #2 above is true, then neither his 1991 nor 1992 New
Haven results would affect his ranking, so his ranking points would be
unchanged this week from last week.

Yet, he went up in points, and up in ranking position.

Similar analysis holds for Becker, who did worse this year at Indianapolis
and moved up in points and ranking.

The reverse logic holds for Lendl, who did better this year at New Haven than
last year, but lost 9 points and 2 ranking spots.

>Yes, no a doubt there is something wrong with the points. There is no
>way that Korda's other 14 results are *all* better than his title at
>Volvo. Lendl played poorly all year till lately and this one has to be
>one of his best 14. By the way, the seeding at Hamlet may have confirmed
>that since Lendl is seeded 3rd and Korda seeded 4th.

The seeding at Hamlet was determined before this week's rankings were
released. There is always a one week time lag, because new rankings come
out on a Monday, and the next week's tournament starts on the same day, and
they want to have pairings drawn up a day or two in advance. Last year, for
example, Lendl was seeded lower at the U.S. Open than his ranking, because
his victory at Hamlet was after the U.S. Open pairings were announced.

The rankings that were posted, if correct, would determine the U.S. Open
pairings this year. I'm going to call the ATP office to enquire about
these numbers.

My theory: There are 52 weeks on the computer, and 52 weeks plus 1 or 2 days
in a year (plus 2 days in 1992, a leap year.) Eventually, the week numberings
change. So, New Haven and Indianapolis might have been in week #35 last year,
and week #34 this year. In that case, Becker dropped to #9 a week ago, and
Lendl moved up to #7, because Lendl made the finals at Cincinnati, and his 1991
New Haven result dropped off the computer, while Becker did not play at
Cincinnati, and his 1991 finals showing at Indianapolis dropped off. The
next week, Becker adds a semifinal showing at Indianapolis, while his Long
Island week from 1991 drops off (he either did poorly, or did not play, at
Long Island in 1991.) Hence, Becker gains this week. Meanwhile, Lendl adds
a semifinal loss at New Haven, but his victory at Long Island (Hamlet) from
1991 drops off, hence he loses 9 points.  The reason he only loses 9 points
is because Hamlet is a smaller tournament than New Haven, and he played more
highly ranked players at New Haven this year and got more bonus points than
he got at Hamlet last year.

It's a theory, anyway.  But, if ATP does this, it means you lose points on
the computer before you have a chance to defend them, and it even affects
your seeding at a grand slam event. But, if they did not do this, the starting
dates of tournaments would have to move up every year, which cannot happen
for long. If Cincinnati started on August 10 this year, next year it would be
August 9, then the 8th, then the 7th, then the 5th (1996 is a leap year),
etc. But, the adjustment only comes every 5 years, and 1992 just happens to
be that year.

Whoever invented this darn 365 day calendar year is obviously to blame. :-)

Now that I think about it, I'm not going to waste a phone call to the ATP.
Checking the ATP media guide, I see that Long Island ended on Sunday, August
25, 1991, but on Sunday, August 30, 1992. This year is obviously the year
that the adjustment is made.

To avoid huge swings due to grand slam points dropping off before you can
defend them, they just don't ever release rankings during the first week of
a grand slam event, because there are no sanctioned events that conflict
with the U.S. Open and end at the end of the first week of the Open. So,
Edberg will unofficially lose his 1991 US Open points during the middle of
the 1992 Open, but no rankings will be issued on that basis, so it won't
matter.

What is interesting is that the people who did well at Schenectady and Long
Island in 1991 have already lost those points, and they now can pick up
big points by doing well this week. Lendl beat Edberg at Long Island,
and beat McEnroe in the semis. Stich beat Emilio Sanchez to win at the
Schenectady tournament in 1991. They have all suffered in the rankings
this week, but can really jump next week as a result. Won't help their
U.S. Open seedings, though. Stich, for example, has dropped to #11.

Sorry to ramble on......
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)