Dimitrij Ovtcharov The New World Number 1!

I think Tony and I have already discussed in a previous thread on new WR system, how problematic the points spreading among different results and the tournament spreading among months are.


Here is the breakdown of new WR ranking points in Jan 2018. Clearly the new system awards participation over results. Some think the new ranking system suggests who is more successful lately; true in a sense, as ML attended only 6 tournaments in 2017 (he has WTTC team points from 2016 which are valid for 2 years), he is still ranked #7, higher than the rest of players except 7 players. However, look at WCT who is also ranked #7 and KN who is ranked #6, they end up in QF or R16 most of the time, they do not make to final at all and ML has 3 champions . Who is really successful lately?


Koki Niwa： 13155
1.2100 WTTC QF (2017 May)
2.1785 World Cup QF (2017 Oct)
3.1575 Qatar Open QF (2017 Feb)
4.1575 Japan Open QF (2017 Jun)
5.1575 China Open QF (2017 Jun)
6.1575 Austrian Open QF (2017 Sep)
7.1530 Grand Finals R16 (2017 Dec)
8.1440 ATTC SF (2017 Apr)


Ma Long： 13040
1. 3000 WTTC winner (2017 May)
2. 2250 Qatar Open winner (2017 Feb)
3. 2250 Japan Open winner (2017 Jun)
4. 2040 World Cup 3rd place (2017 Oct)
5. 1350 China Open R16 (2017 Jun)
6. 1250 WTTC Team (2016 Mar)
7. 900 ATTC R32 (2017 Apr)
8.


Wong Chun Ting: 13040
1.2100 WTTC QF (2017 May)
2.2000 WTTC Team (2016 Mar)
3.1800 China Open SF (2017 Jun)
4.1785 Grand Finals QF (2017 Dec)
5.1575 German Open QF (2017 Nov)
6.1350 Qatar Open R16 (2017 Feb)
7.1350 Japan Open R16 (2017 Jun)
8.1080 ATTC R16 (2017 Apr)

Yeah. It doesn’t sound good. But I still think we will all know who the best players are.

I mean, FZD gave the New #1 4-0. We do know what that means.

And I am happy to confess that I have not spent too much time worrying about this new way in which ITTF can make themselves look like fools.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

I read the new ranking system, available below:
https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2016/07/ITTF-World-Ranking-description-2018-final.pdf
[Ittf]

Point 3.5 is interesting.
"3.5. The ITTF World Rankings take the best 8 results of the player for the senior ranking and best 6for under 21, junior and cadet rankings."

"Best 8 results" + the point in the team events should count (not sure about the WTTC or WTTTC). Not sure if team events would count as one of those 8??

Might alleviate the thing a little, don't you think?

[Edit]
yeah ... rainneverever, now I see how you counted it. ok.

Awesome, Thank you

ITTF is so anti CNT. Chinese TT federation should increase its influence over ITTF to safeguard its interests and players. Fans love players who are at top of the game irrespective of country . There is no need to artificially increase players rankings.

I might start participating in every possible and impossible event next year and before you know it I'll be the World #1 Ridiculous system! And an insult to the GOAT and China as a TT nation.

RidTheKid said:

I might start participating in every possible and impossible event next year and before you know it I'll be the World #1 Ridiculous system! And an insult to the GOAT and China as a TT nation.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that! Only your best eight results will count, but somehow there's this nagging suspicion that you'll be burned up quite quickly of you fully engage yourself in every possible and impossible event. I think there's a reason why ZJK, still a young man, has a body that already seems to be beyond recovery. Xu Xin seems at risk too, and perhaps Ma Long also.

C'mon folks, the real reason the Golden Three are forced into taking a bow to Ovtcharov is that they didn't participate, not that the system is rigged intentionally to spite the CNT. And why didn't they? Well, some of it is strain-induced injury. Some of that is no doubt caused by the total amount and stress of high-level competition, but in that balance there's also the training load. The real challenge, in the end, might not be who gets to train hardest and fiercest, but who gets the maximum out of training while staying within the bounds of the amount of abuse that the body can take over a longer amount of time.

But it's not just injury. We shouldn't forget, or take lightly, that matter of the player's (and coaches) revolt at the China Open, after which 'severe penalties' were announced. Silence has reigned since then, but we've also seen suspiciously much less of the Golden Three at the significant events, and when there they've seemed strangely subdued, browbeaten. It's only now that XX and FZD are recovering. Somewhat.

drunix80 said:

ITTF is so anti CNT. Chinese TT federation should increase its influence over ITTF to safeguard its interests and players. Fans love players who are at top of the game irrespective of country . There is no need to artificially increase players rankings.

Click to expand...

The moment your SF/QF becomes world number 1
and when your finalist are only world number 5, would be the day that ITTF world ranking loses its credibility

I see this a joke waiting to happen

Since 2018 is WTTTC and have no real effect on how ranking is done
I would love that CNT boycott this by participating equal or lesser than 2017
And give all your "loyal participants" ranked higher and make the ITTF world ranking become ITTF world participation ranking

Tony's Table Tennis said:

The moment your SF/QF becomes world number 1
and when your finalist are only world number 5, would be the day that ITTF world ranking loses its credibility

I see this a joke waiting to happen

Click to expand...

Just to play the devil's advocate: if I see the closing games of the big tournaments, it's all very, very close and extremely high level. The margins are very, very small, and the outcome is decided by a hair's thickness — or even by chance, the match being decided by one or two clipped nets and edges.

If that is true, than the relatively small difference in points awarded to winner, runner-up, losing semifinalists is somewhat defensible. These matches are so, so close — then so should the rewards be.

And if that's so, the WR #5 and #6 playing the finals isn't that ridiculous at all, even if a losing semifinalists becomes #1 in that same tournament.

We all (or nearly all) think ML is the GOAT and FZD the Robin to ML's Batman (with XX being the wiley Joker, of course). Aren't we fooling ourselves here, in our desire to fit the course of sports events into a comfortable narrative?

yoass said:

Just to play the devil's advocate: if I see the closing games of the big tournaments, it's all very, very close and extremely high level. The margins are very, very small, and the outcome is decided by a hair's thickness — or even by chance, the match being decided by one or two clipped nets and edges.

If that is true, than the relatively small difference in points awarded to winner, runner-up, losing semifinalists is somewhat defensible. These matches are so, so close — then so should the rewards be.

And if that's so, the WR #5 and #6 playing the finals isn't that ridiculous at all, even if a losing semifinalists becomes #1 in that same tournament.

We all (or nearly all) think ML is the GOAT and FZD the Robin to ML's Batman (with XX being the wiley Joker, of course). Aren't we fooling ourselves here, in our desire to fit the course of sports events into a comfortable narrative?

Click to expand...

Guess you must have missed this, don't worry, I will repost for you to understand:

Platinum winner gets 2250
2nd place gets 2025
SF gets 1800

Example 1
Ma Long (or who ever your world champion is) plays 6 plat and wins all 6 = 13500 points
player B plays 7 plat and 2nd places for all 7 = 14175 points
Player B is ranks higher than Ma Long

Example 2
Player B plays 8 plat and gets SF in 7 and 8th one looses in R32 = 13725 points
Player B ranks higher than Ma Long

Example 3
Ma long plays and win 7 = 15750 points
Player B plays 8, 6 of them looses in final, 2 of them looses in SF = 15750 points
Player B tied world ranking number 1 with Ma Long
world ranking number 1 is a now a joke, no?


Now to add to that
Example 2 is a player that has never been in a final, but is ranked number 1
Or rather, Example 2 could be 2 to 3 other players, and these 3 are ranked 1,2,3 and MA LONG who wins 6/6 platinum is only world ranked 4
No body has beaten Ma Long, but due the points, he isn't even a top 3 ranked

(PS I know plat is 6 tournaments only, but its the same ratio so I'm using the numbers for total of 8, and ignoring WTTC/OG)

is YOASS is THOMAS WEIKERT in disguise??? just kidding

Tony's Table Tennis said:

Guess you must have missed this

Click to expand...

I didn't miss it, Tony, and it's a good example. And even in this example, I tried to point out, there actually is a conceivable perspective in which the ranking you're presenting as counterintuitive/unfair/ridiculous is an understandable choice.

Your example might be a little contrived, in the sense that you have a single outlier that underperforms simply by underparticipating. In the proposed system, an underlying assumption for valid comparison between players A and B is, I think, that they both actually have at least eight results to take into consideration. You might (and do, of course) argue that participating in eight events is an unrealistic demand, and might be right there. I would say that this does not invalidate the ranking method per se, but that this indicates a few parameters (number of events, length of interval of measurement) might be off. But only time will tell.

I actually think this is an application of game theory, in which agents adapt strategies over time. If ranking is a goal, then players will optimize towards attaining it, choosing qualifying events over others. Yes, all kinds of competitions will suffer.

Players might not optimize and try to serve all masters equally, and take on too much. I think this is what you've been pointing out is likely to happen.

And I share your concerns there. But I don't think it's a simple question of a ranking mechanism fairness in itself, and I do sense a fallacy there; the ranking we've known and grown accustomed to is also unfair, unbased, inflexible, and biased. Yet since we've been taking that for granted for so long and we're getting riled up by a change, we're focusing on the horrors of the new. And in truth, I think there's no ranking system that does justice to that strange platonic notion we like to maintain about who's the alpha of the pack. About who's deserving what. There is no fairness, in the end, and noboby deserves anything. Every tournament is either loaded, or a blank slate providing equal chances, without bias. Is there an inbetween?

There is just way too many scenario that I can type

IE Ma Long plays 6, wins 4 and 2 of them come 2nd place.
You know how many players can push him down the world ranking

Or Ma Long and FZD or Dima playing 7 and wins 4, 2 in 2nd place, 1 in QF or wins 3, 3 in 2nd place, 1 in QF
Lots of players will end up higher for not even winning 1 world tour

IMO if one can't even win a world tour then one can't be number 1 on ranking points from world tour, surely the weighing of number 1 needs to be "number 1"
number 2 is 90% of number 1 points
number 3 and 4 is 80% of number 1 points
now this is favouring the looser not the winner

Imagine your olympic prize money or grand final prize money is the same ratio
I don't think sane people will be happy about it

GF prize money is

winner USD100k
2nd USD55k
SF USD35k
QF USD25k
R16 USD15k

I wonder why ITTF don't use the same ratio to points for awarding prize money, since its a "winning" formula. Heck, both are rewards, no?

yoass said:

[...] accustomed too is also unfair, unbased, inflexible, and biased. Yet since we've been taking that for granted for so long and we're getting riled up by a change, we're focusing on the horrors of the new. And in truth, I think there's no ranking system that does justice to that strange platonic notion we like to maintain about who's the alpha of the pack.

Click to expand...

Of course time will tell, as of now it highly depends on the participation ability. If Ma or Fan will be able to play those 8 tours ... maybe. But as Tony showed with some examples there are reasons to think that it might produce strange results. It will be laughable if Ma Long wins 6 times (the "Big Platinium") and still looses to somebody else who was second all the time and only played one more time.

Someone earlier compared coefficients for different stages of the draw and compared them with the WTA. Huge difference (if in fact it is correct). I remember a discussion in ~2012 about Aga Radwańska she had a final with Serena Williams - she lost, but shortly after that there was a possibility for Aga becoming a #1 without winning even one Grand Slam. To be fair the system itself was not criticized, but the overall absence of leadership in women's tennis.

Anyway it shows that not only in table tennis, there is this feeling that if you are to be #1 you have to do something special - win the major. Otherwise it's meaningless, it's just a reward for participation.

Tony's Table Tennis said:

Imagine your olympic prize money or grand final prize money is the same ratio
I don't think sane people will be happy about it

Click to expand...

I actually would be quite happy to see all participants rewarded equally. For the race is the prize.

Tony keeps on giving these examples where ma long has six events or seven events but not 8. He can't produce one where Ma Long has 8 and the system fails. I wonder why...

The system is not perfect and it might even fail on all fronts but it is better to try than to not do anything. And the fact that a player who was #3 under the old system is #1 under the new system is not the end of the world but some people just see issues all the time with anything the ITTF tries. I agree that there should be a bigger reward for winning, but the ITF also rates all the events not just a max number.

Someone has said that the new system is similar to the one used in Tennis. I am a big Tennis fan but have no idea how the ranking system works there but as far as I know the best Tennis players have always been in the top spots so that does not look too bad to me. Who cares if player X is ranked one or two ranks higher or lower. Who cares if the best player in the world is ranked #1 or if the most consistent player of the last year is ranked #1? Does not matter. You just have to interpret the ranking a bit different now.

Another thing. For me it sounds very ridiculous that it could be too much for a professional athlete to compete in eight major events a year. I know they also have national leagues, world championships and olympic games here and there but we are still talking about professional sportsmen. Table tennis is their life. In professional sports it is absolutely normal that a player cannot play at 100% top level always but rather has to keep his health and body in mind as well.

I agree that the prize money of the "bigger" events should be increased though. But I guess if that was so easy it would have been done already.

In the end only titles matter, not the world ranking you once had.

I find a fundamental flaw in the current system for international table tennis, and I feel that working out accurate rating and ranking systems will not work out until some fundamental changes are made. To me, the fundamental flaw is the huge imbalance between the countries and teams in the ITTF vs Chinese size/structure/culture. One way I think there could be a correction would be to integrate the entire Chinese structure into the entire ITTF structure. It would make China overwhelmingly dominant, but it already is and has been for a long time. There are numerous options for structure, like setting up regional organization in China that functions exactly like having different countries, with for example, having a Beijing Open and a Shanghai Open, and 10 others, open to all ITTF players. If Chinese table tennis remains as it is, it will always dominate in the same way. And this is a political/social issue much bigger than what a handful of table tennis dorks can handle. You can see a tiny reflection of this kind of stuff in the extreme Chinese hostilities against Tomokazu around the internet reflecting hundreds of years of China-Japan conflict. The same is true between China and Germany and England, both of whom have invaded and occupied China in the not too distant past. I truly hope Table Tennis can be a part of a better world where regular people can be friendly and respectful. You may say that I'm a dreamer...

Xylit said:

Someone has said that the new system is similar to the one used in Tennis. I am a big Tennis fan but have no idea how the ranking system works there but as far as I know the best Tennis players have always been in the top spots so that does not look too bad to me. Who cares if player X is ranked one or two ranks higher or lower. Who cares if the best player in the world is ranked #1 or if the most consistent player of the last year is ranked #1? Does not matter. You just have to interpret the ranking a bit different now.

Another thing. For me it sounds very ridiculous that it could be too much for a professional athlete to compete in eight major events a year. I know they also have national leagues, world championships and olympic games here and there but we are still talking about professional sportsmen. Table tennis is their life. In professional sports it is absolutely normal that a player cannot play at 100% top level always but rather has to keep his health and body in mind as well.

I agree that the prize money of the "bigger" events should be increased though. But I guess if that was so easy it would have been done already.

In the end only titles matter, not the world ranking you once had.

Click to expand...

Those world championships and Olympic games count as well. So the number of tour events required is lower in those years than you think. And those events have more points as well for the top performers.

Even with all the possible inaccuracies, it is better to see what happens over time than to shoot this in the foot before it starts. I expect the top players to easily maintain their rankings with 6 events and their two WTTC or Continental events. But even if they don't it is not the end of the world.