Ittf stupiiiiiiiiiid ranking

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Oct 2016
966
1,012
2,596
It is not about money alone.
Take an eye at Hungarian Open this January 16-21. CNT planned to send out 13 male players to play senior singles event (CNT does not have money issue), but very likely 2 (FZD and Xue Fei) can attend because the upper limit of the event is 290 players (male + female). A player ranked 300+ (like Wang Chuqin, Yu Ziyang) has very little chance to enter the event.

13 players !!! Wow !!! Are ML XX FB ZU Yan An LJK.ZJK being considered by CNT for hungary open ??
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,024
1,960
3,016
13 players !!! Wow !!! Are ML XX FB ZU Yan An LJK.ZJK being considered by CNT for hungary open ??

No, none of them were on the CNT list announced on Dec 14, 2017.
http://www.ctta.cn/xhgg/qttz/2017/1214/163713.html

An association can put 6 players in entries first and have others on waiting list for a tour event. CNT planned to sent FZD (#2 in Dec 2017 under NEW ranking system which is used for seeding at 2018 Hungarian Open), Wang Chuqin (#387), Liu Dingshuo (#310), Xu Chenhao (no WR), Yu Ziyang (#387), Xue Fei (#214) and put Zheng Peifeng (no WR), Niu Guankai (#982), Ma Te (no WR), Zhou Qihao (no WR), Yan Sheng (no WR), Song Xu (no WR) and Sai Linwei (no WR) on wailing list.

As I explained, there is an upper limit of how many players can attend a tour event, 290 for 2018 Hungarian Open for example. Anyone above without WR will not be able to attend and anyone ranked 300+ has to get lucky to attend at the end.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
It is not about money alone.
Take an eye at Hungarian Open this January 16-21. CNT planned to send out 13 male players to play senior singles event (CNT does not have money issue), but very likely 2 (FZD and Xue Fei) can attend because the upper limit of the event is 290 players (male + female). A player ranked 300+ (like Wang Chuqin, Yu Ziyang) has very little chance to enter the event.

yes but hungarian open is small potatoes its not qatar kuwait or german open. there is not a perfect system and in my eyes this system is better. ML and FZD will eventually go 1,2 if they play up to their level no matter what other players do.

Lets not miss the big picture here, having inactive players who keep their high ranking is definitely more ''unfair'' than the current system. Players or National teams with no money dont have much chances anyway.

The current ranking system will be accurately evaluated in a long term period and after some adjustments have been made.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Apr 2012
422
123
794
The current ranking system will be accurately evaluated in a long term period and after some adjustments have been made.

If everyone agrees that previous system wasn't perfect and nor is its replacement, then why not test it in juniors circuit and U-21 and fine tune it before launching like this.
 
This user has no status.
It is not about money alone.
Take an eye at Hungarian Open this January 16-21. CNT planned to send out 13 male players to play senior singles event (CNT does not have money issue), but very likely 2 (FZD and Xue Fei) can attend because the upper limit of the event is 290 players (male + female). A player ranked 300+ (like Wang Chuqin, Yu Ziyang) has very little chance to enter the event.
and yu ziyang> xue fei and chuqin
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
If everyone agrees that previous system wasn't perfect and nor is its replacement, then why not test it in juniors circuit and U-21 and fine tune it before launching like this.

u cant achieve perfect. define perfect first please...how do you perceive it? perfect,at least for me, at this situation is keeping everyone happy and a fair rating system for all. which is impossible. the current rating system is better than the previous, at least that is my opinion

There is no viable reason for ittf to do that kind of tests , they wanted more active play to make TT more enjoyable, the reason they did it is to force players to attend pro tours which is a good thing for viewers and more viewers are attracting more sponsors.

Everyone was complaining about the whole ITTF agenda and now that they change the system they complain again before the new system has even started to apply in time and before we actually see its value. After 3-4-5-6 months ma long or fzd will be still no1 and if they play up to their level ...so no harm done. People give too much attention in ratings and rankings, its just an indication of a players value, nothing can beat result number in terms of who is good player and who is not.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,261
6,232
15,308
Read 3 reviews
yes but hungarian open is small potatoes its not qatar kuwait or german open. there is not a perfect system and in my eyes this system is better. ML and FZD will eventually go 1,2 if they play up to their level no matter what other players do.

Lets not miss the big picture here, having inactive players who keep their high ranking is definitely more ''unfair'' than the current system. Players or National teams with no money dont have much chances anyway.

The current ranking system will be accurately evaluated in a long term period and after some adjustments have been made.

You do know the latest "old system" does have a "remove from ranking list" due to inactivity for 4 months (or 3, can't remember)

Your points stays, but inactive player is not in the ranking list
but when they play, the points are used for seeding

So i'm not sure why you say inactive keeps ranking positions
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,261
6,232
15,308
Read 3 reviews
If everyone agrees that previous system wasn't perfect and nor is its replacement, then why not test it in juniors circuit and U-21 and fine tune it before launching like this.

Good idea
ITTF should employ you!!!

I guess same applies - why they didn't test the poly balls for 2 years in juniors before changing the whole world and found out huge QC and under supply (only 1 of the 5 factories was ready based on ITTF rushed schedule)
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,310
17,764
44,372
Read 17 reviews
You do know the latest "old system" does have a "remove from ranking list" due to inactivity for 4 months (or 3, can't remember)

Your points stays, but inactive player is not in the ranking list
but when they play, the points are used for seeding

So i'm not sure why you say inactive keeps ranking positions


Because using their points for seeding makes the loss of ranking inconsequential.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,261
6,232
15,308
Read 3 reviews
Unfortunately that's not the primary objective and I can understand that. There are only few countries which are willing and able to organize such event (see Swedish Open with almost empty hall, so few spectators that average German Bundesliga match has much better atmosphere then final in Stockholm - where do you think the event would have better price money and spectators?) and there are only some regions where is potential to growth which can be boosted by subsidized event boosted with ITTF money (that's ITTF's language, I personally don't agree that doing ITTF Tour Grand Final in country like Kazakhstan will help anyone except ITTF staff who got sponsorship from somewhere). As far as I understand ITTF isn't really rich organization, no comparison to UEFA/FIFA/ATP or any professional sport league in big country... Maybe I'm wrong but I'm definitely shaking when hearing that all should be equalized by quotas and who doesn't have money (and sometimes even interest) will just get them from bottomless pot:)


Hosting tournaments cost the local organization a lot of money
ITTF's contribution isn't much
Cape Town was on the world junior circuit before, but it is silly to through so much money hosting it, as those money is better off for developing talents.
I didn't even go and ask how much was spent on WJTTC 2016, I believe it is a big some of money

Also, there is no incentives for many national players from less funded countries to take part
A lot of my friends from few countries take part in 2 to 4 events in a year - due to financing.
Even though some of them are good enough to walk away with a medal in those events (ie juniors or u21), but the prize money for those events are a joke.

Take Sweden for example - you get USD1000 for making Round of 16.....
heck, the players hotel bill + entry fee is more than USD1000
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,310
17,764
44,372
Read 17 reviews
And isn't that the same fuss that everyone is complaining about now?
have an unseeded Ding Ning and Liu Shiwen is not making ranking inconsequential?

The people complaining don't want to give the new ranking a chance. I am not complaining - I don't believe ranking should necessarily tie to player strength.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,261
6,232
15,308
Read 3 reviews
The people complaining don't want to give the new ranking a chance. I am not complaining - I don't believe ranking should necessarily tie to player strength.

If ranking doesn't tie to player strength, what should it tie too?

With Rain and my comparison on 1, or 2 or 3 other threads, it already proofs that you can be R16 every time for 8 events, and ranked higher than a number 1 for 5 events. So this to me isn't a true ranking by performance results, but rather by participation result
And less than 10% of pros are able to play in 8 events or more in a year, this isn't just a CNT issue, so to say players must play more is really not as simple as it seems

Also as I said over and over, the looser ratio point being awarded is way too high
If ITTF believe it is a good ratio to have, they should up the looser ratio prize money too

for the ones that don't know
point award for looser is 90% of the winner
So if you come number 2, you get 90% of number 1

but with prize money - it is half only
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,310
17,764
44,372
Read 17 reviews
If ranking doesn't tie to player strength, what should it tie too?

With Rain and my comparison on 1, or 2 or 3 other threads, it already proofs that you can be R16 every time for 8 events, and ranked higher than a number 1 for 5 events. So this to me isn't a true ranking by performance results, but rather by participation result
And less than 10% of pros are able to play in 8 events or more in a year, this isn't just a CNT issue, so to say players must play more is really not as simple as it seems

Also as I said over and over, the looser ratio point being awarded is way too high
If ITTF believe it is a good ratio to have, they should up the looser ratio prize money too

for the ones that don't know
point award for looser is 90% of the winner
So if you come number 2, you get 90% of number 1

but with prize money - it is half only

It should be tied to recent player performance in the ranking system. Djokovic may or may not be a top 10 player but since he has not played, he doesn't deserve the ranking. Ding Ning has not played enough to deserve the ranking.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Aug 2017
1,069
505
2,458
Everyone has valid points for and against the new and old systems.

u cant achieve perfect. define perfect first please...how do you perceive it? perfect,at least for me, at this situation is keeping everyone happy and a fair rating system for all. which is impossible. the current rating system is better than the previous, at least that is my opinion


I could try to define the "perfect" rating system if I may. Imho the rating should strictly correspond to the level of the player, not his activity. Cause that's in essence the meaning and definition of the World No.1 -the best current player. Period. If he doesn't play because he has a flu or doesn't want to and still can beat everybody, he is still the best, that is -the first (No.1) player in the world. The incentive to play should be managed by the price money. You want to earn, you go to play :) .

As I said, this in my opinion could be the "perfect" system. And we know it doesn't work particularly well due to the lack of funds. Unfortunately in current system everything is upside down now. If you want to be "the best" (No.1) you don't have to be the best, you must be one of the best and the most active.

So ITTF did something to improve the situation. I just wish it didn't make such radical changes, when the best player Ma Long is 7 and Ding Ning is 21. Actually that's not how it is in the real world.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,310
17,764
44,372
Read 17 reviews
Everyone has valid points for and against the new and old systems.




I could try to define the "perfect" rating system if I may. Imho the rating should strictly correspond to the level of the player, not his activity. Cause that's in essence the meaning and definition of the World No.1 -the best current player. Period. If he doesn't play because he has a flu or doesn't want to and still can beat everybody, he is still the best, that is -the first (No.1) player in the world. The incentive to play should be managed by the price money. You want to earn, you go to play :) .

As I said, this in my opinion could be the "perfect" system. And we know it doesn't work particularly well due to the lack of funds. Unfortunately in current system everything is upside down now. If you want to be "the best" (No.1) you don't have to be the best, you must be one of the best and the most active.

So ITTF did something to improve the situation. I just wish it didn't make such radical changes, when the best player Ma Long is 7 and Ding Ning is 21. Actually that's not how it is in the real world.

No major sport or tour does it this way for the obvious reason that it devalues the tour. When someone can remain inactive for a year and still maintain their seeding/ranking, it has its own issues as well. There is no reason he can't be asked to earn back his ranking.

Even in prior years the best player by popular opinion or by major titles wasn't always the highest ranked player. Ranking systems can have different purposes. And even when they have high seedings to Boll in the Olympics, what happened? Or to Dima in WTTC, what happened?

This system will be more accurate if players play in it. Around this time last year when the system was first announced Boll was #44. Then what happened?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UpSideDownCarl
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
Everyone has valid points for and against the new and old systems.




I could try to define the "perfect" rating system if I may. Imho the rating should strictly correspond to the level of the player, not his activity. Cause that's in essence the meaning and definition of the World No.1 -the best current player. Period. If he doesn't play because he has a flu or doesn't want to and still can beat everybody, he is still the best, that is -the first (No.1) player in the world. The incentive to play should be managed by the price money. You want to earn, you go to play :) .

As I said, this in my opinion could be the "perfect" system. And we know it doesn't work particularly well due to the lack of funds. Unfortunately in current system everything is upside down now. If you want to be "the best" (No.1) you don't have to be the best, you must be one of the best and the most active.

So ITTF did something to improve the situation. I just wish it didn't make such radical changes, when the best player Ma Long is 7 and Ding Ning is 21. Actually that's not how it is in the real world.

I get your point but the ''best'' current player must always prove it on the table. Rankings were made in order to have seedings for tournaments, thats why I always said ranking and rating is just an indication. The world champ or olympic champ ''title'' is far more meaningful title than just being no1 because u won pro tours where not everyone gives his best and not always the best participate or put 100 % effort

magnus carlsen in chess was for 2 years the world no1, broke kasparov's rating record but it meant crap to him and the rest of the world also, because he couldnt prove it on the chess board . He was the best when he became the world champion

I get your point though, but I see many people neglecting that ma long 7 and ding ning 21 is just temporary. So the whole fuss is for nothing imho, they will get their deserved rankings eventually
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
You do know the latest "old system" does have a "remove from ranking list" due to inactivity for 4 months (or 3, can't remember)

Your points stays, but inactive player is not in the ranking list
but when they play, the points are used for seeding

So i'm not sure why you say inactive keeps ranking positions


Yeah i dont meant inactive for 3 or 4 months consecutively but we saw many times big players not only the chinese to participate in specific events (and almost never participating in small pro tours)just to keep their rating high thus a good seeding for upcoming world cup or world champ. You do have a point though about participation (r16 8 times gets better points than no1 5 times) but we never saw that happen so far even with the old system. no player has the motive to participate in 8 events so far and now they are forced so maybe ITTF should adjust the point allocation, which Im sure it will happen if things go way out of hand.

in the end if a world cup or champ started tomorrow, isnt it ma long or fzd the favorites for the final? ITTF decision to do it now 3 years before olympics is smart because they have a chance tons of time to balance the new system.

personally i got sick and tired watching big pros playing pro tours like its practice, its boring uninteresting and degrades the sport from a viewer's pov. t2apac was a great success because every set and point mattered in the overall score so ITTF forcing big players to participate and play better in every pro tour is a good thing. I hope im not wrong , my last two cents we should wait the next few months and then we will have a clear picture if the new system is better,same or worse...its just too early to judge right now
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,024
1,960
3,016
DN did not have WR in Nov 2017 due to 4-month inactivity. Her hidden ranking points were higher than the actual #2 Chen Meng. She played Swedish Open and ended up 2nd place losing to Chen Xingtong thus her Dec 2017 ranking is #3. Chen Xingtong jumped from #33 to #10 in Dec 2017 because she beat much higher ranked ZYL and DN in Swedish Open.
If the purpose of ranking is for seeding, why not ask first what is the purpose for seeding? Why not randomize all players? A good ranking system can predict match results right with higher chance. We call #33 Chen Xingtong beating #2 DN last Nov a big upset, this year we will expect upset caused by #21 DN If she can revenge #10 Chen Xingtong.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,310
17,764
44,372
Read 17 reviews
DN did not have WR in Nov 2017 due to 4-month inactivity. Her hidden ranking points were higher than the actual #2 Chen Meng. She played Swedish Open and ended up 2nd place losing to Chen Xingtong thus her Dec 2017 ranking is #3. Chen Xingtong jumped from #33 to #10 in Dec 2017 because she beat much higher ranked ZYL and DN in Swedish Open.
If the purpose of ranking is for seeding, why not ask first what is the purpose for seeding? Why not randomize all players? A good ranking system can predict match results right with higher chance. We call #33 Chen Xingtong beating #2 DN last Nov a big upset, this year we will expect upset caused by #21 DN If she can revenge #10 Chen Xingtong.

But no one said the purpose of ranking is for seeding. It is one purpose of ranking but not the only one. Sometimes, ranking just measures performance in certain events over a period.
 
Top