It's Official | Dimitrij Ovtcharov is the New World Number 1!

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Mar 2014
1,496
1,756
5,221
Read 3 reviews
Timo boll's new update in FB . He told how he think about new ranking :D

Screenshot_20180102-181557.jpg
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Dec 2017
1,144
619
2,637
Ding Ning 21? This joke is not funny.

For now yes, but after a while it should normalize. I guess the power houses of tt will make sure to have 8 WT being played by their best players and everything should be fine.

We already had a deep discussion about it in another thread ("Dima number 1 ..." something like that). Although Tom'sTableTennis had in my opinion, a valid concern how this system will affect lower ranked players who don't have enough time or money to participate even in 6 tournaments a year ...
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
the new ranking system will eventually balance and the pointless nagging will stop. I dont see any unfair treatment, and forcing players to attend pro tours is a good thing. Its only ''unfair'' for those who cant afford it but, they couldnt afford it anyway.

As ridiculous as it sounds if ding ning is #21 it was also ridiculous to have kreanga inactive in top 20 or crisan in top 30 just or any other guy who does not play yet he keep his ranking. in grand slam tours nothing will change all the countries and players will find out the formula needed to have a good seeding. which if course does not matter as we all saw many surprises but it gives the favorite a psychological relief of knowing that they wont meet strong opponents early
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Jun 2017
330
219
552
There needs to be a way to merge the China Super League results with the ITTF results. Chinese players are killing themselves at a world level, it should count for something. Other serious national leagues should count for something, at least as approved sub-leagues. Personally, I'd like to see the regions in China treated exactly like national associations in ITTF, with Opens for each one. Of course that would mess up their plan to keep Japan out of their circles. (sounds like a Frank Ji project).
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,271
17,732
44,271
Read 17 reviews
There needs to be a way to merge the China Super League results with the ITTF results. Chinese players are killing themselves at a world level, it should count for something. Other serious national leagues should count for something, at least as approved sub-leagues. Personally, I'd like to see the regions in China treated exactly like national associations in ITTF, with Opens for each one. Of course that would mess up their plan to keep Japan out of their circles. (sounds like a Frank Ji project).

That's not how professional tours are built, that is how rating systems for performance measurement are built and the goals are different. Anyone can track player strength by putting results into Ratings central. But what we don't want to see on a tour are how strong the players are - what we want to see are the best players playing regularly and being compensated for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OhWell and JST
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,024
1,960
3,016
Yep. I added China Open and gave ML 2 results instead of 1. My logic behind the last 6 months, having nothing to do with the ranking system, was to show that ML did not play very much in the second half of the year. Even if you add the results in June, he has very close to nothing.

And as far as I am concerned, there is no reason to worry about the new world ranking system for quite a while.

But it is true, in hiding the last 6 months of ML's results behind a chart with ML, XX and WCT, you were obscuring facts rather than cherry picking results. Still, you like to do both. :)

Carl, in China and US, we consider June the FIRST half of the year, not the SECOND half. And the last SIX months of a year (when the conversation started on Jan 1) are July to Dec. Maybe your country uses a different calendar; that's OK. Do you realize 2017 WTTC and Japan Open were also in June when you said "Even if you add the results in June, he (ML) has very close to nothing." Please correct your statement to "the last 6.5 months" or "add the results in late June" before accusing me of "cherry picking" (still no idea of cherry picking what...)


When I first put the numbers of 2017 singles wins/win % of Top 10, I did not even try to draw any conclusions (which I will in the next paragraph). As you asked about the results of last SIX months of WCT and ML, I listed WCT 4 events (R32/QF/R32/QF) and ML 1 event (3rd place). I added XX in comparison because these 3 played the least among TOP 10 and XX just played 1 more match than WCT and ML. Then you jumped on China Open/the last 6.5 months/late June thing... Well, fine, WCT did better than ML in China Open 6.5 months ago in "late June" (SF vs R16); but 3rd place in World Cup is no worse than R32/QF/R32/QF. To be frank, it won't help your argument if you add the results of whole June (the last 7 months) because ML was winner/winner of WTTC and Japan Open and WCT QF/R16.


Now let me discuss what the 2017 singles win/wins% tell, combined with 2017 results for WR. (1) Players do not have to win a lot to get higher rank. WCT did the worst among top 10, only 11 wins out of 21 and 52%, worse than #9 Simon Gauzy 22/34(65%) (whose results of last SIX months: runner-up/R32/SF/4th place/R16/R16) and #10 Kenta Matsudaira 16/27(59%) (whose results of last SIX months:QF/R16/runner-up/QF/R16/QF/R16). (2) Players do not have to play a lot to get higher rank. XX played only 22 matches and got ranked higher than #6 Koki Niwa who played 38 matches. ML's rank is an outlier here because he has only 7 eligible results (one does not need to play a lot but has to play enough for 8 eligible results). If he had attended German Open or Swedish Open, he would get 563 or 450 points just walking over the 1st round. He did not need to win and did not even need to play to become higher ranked than Koki Niwa and WCT. That's the real caveat of the new ranking system. The point gaps between results are too small; the system does not reward better results.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,271
17,732
44,271
Read 17 reviews
Timo Boll would have been world ranked 47 or something had this system been implemented in January. He is now world ranked #3. He played more this year than he ever has. Why isn't anyone discussing that? Why are we all focused on Ma Long who played less this year than he could have, low enough to miss the Grand Tour finals which he is the record holding winner of?
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,257
6,221
15,288
Read 3 reviews
Now let me discuss what the 2017 singles win/wins% tell, combined with 2017 results for WR. (1) Players do not have to win a lot to get higher rank. WCT did the worst among top 10, only 11 wins out of 21 and 52%, worse than #9 Simon Gauzy 22/34(65%) (whose results of last SIX months: runner-up/R32/SF/4th place/R16/R16) and #10 Kenta Matsudaira 16/27(59%) (whose results of last SIX months:QF/R16/runner-up/QF/R16/QF/R16). (2) Players do not have to play a lot to get higher rank. XX played only 22 matches and got ranked higher than #6 Koki Niwa who played 38 matches. ML's rank is an outlier here because he has only 7 eligible results (one does not need to play a lot but has to play enough for 8 eligible results). If he had attended German Open or Swedish Open, he would get 563 or 450 points just walking over the 1st round. He did not need to win and did not even need to play to become higher ranked than Koki Niwa and WCT. That's the real caveat of the new ranking system. The point gaps between results are too small; the system does not reward better results.

I agree ITTF looser point ratio is way too high
How can one loose and get 90% of the point for loosing, where winner gets 100%
then 90 vs 80
then 80 vs 70 etc

If it is say 100 vs 60 then I would say is fair
or maybe max 100% vs 75%

PS, ITTF don't reward prize money 100 vs 90, why they think it is the correct formula in points then?
 
Last edited:
says Spin and more spin.
says Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Dec 2010
16,146
17,685
54,747
Read 11 reviews
See, rain, here, in its essence is the problem. You are still arguing for ML being the best.

Nobody is arguing that.

To correct my data, since that is what you want, as you said, the only tournament ML played in the last 6 months of 2017 that counts towards world ranking was the World Cup.

That statement alone makes my point. In 6 months ML played one tournament that ITTF will count.

I don’t think anyone doubts who the best player in the world is. And how long it takes ML to take back the number 1 spot is entirely dependent on when he is able to attend enough events.

If ML attended 7 events in 2017, 6 of them were in the first 6 months.

Circumstances that were beyond ML’s control prevented him from attending events after the China Open.

I stand by the fact that ML did the right thing by withdrawing from the China Open to protest what happened to LGL. I don’t think he should have been punished. But he was and he also got injured. Two unfortunate circumstances, both of which caused him not to participate in enough tournaments to have the ranking he soon will regain.

My point about WCT getting more points than ML in China Open had nothing to do with him being better. If ML did not protest and withdraw, he probably would have won.

But he didn’t. And his standing up for the honor of LGL and an injury caused him not to play enough in the 2nd half of 2017, in ITTF events to have a higher WR.

And the whole point of this is: you guys who are complaining about the system: JUST GIVE IT A CHANCE FOR A FEW MONTHS. Then we will be better able to see how the system actually works.

The guys who play and do well will rise back to the top. And if someone is inactive for that long, to me it makes sense if their WR drops, even if WR does not represent the players actual abilities.

This stuff just doesn’t seem worth arguing about. Especially with people who don’t understand what they are arguing for or against and just want the better players to be at the top.

Who cares. When ML and FZD play each other in the finals of tournament after tournament, they will very soon be #1 and #2 again.

But I honestly think there is something unfortunate about the fact that there is nobody even close to as good as those two.

For now, the top players JUST have not played enough over the last 6 months for their ranking to reflect anything much different than the new system has.

Let’s just wait and see what happens when the CNT players are playing regularly before judging the new system.

Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
 
Last edited:
says Spin and more spin.
says Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Dec 2010
16,146
17,685
54,747
Read 11 reviews
Based on what ZJK has done over the past year, I think his new rating is about what it should be too. Even if, ZJK playing at a decent level is much better than his WR. He just did not show it over the year.

Whereas, ML was by far the best player for the 1st 6 months of 2017. In the 2nd half of the year circumstances forced him not to play. So there really wasn’t any performance to speak of in the 2nd half of the year.

That is all I was saying.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,024
1,960
3,016
Carl, would you read my post before you argue with me? If there is a language issue then ask me to clarify. It sounds like you don't bother to try to understand my points.
I did not say the ranking system is bad because ML is not ranked #1. Tony and I and others have discussed a lot of the new ranking system. How it fails to distinguish good and bad results and how young players ranked 300+ may not get any chance to play senior events to improve. There are real problems of the new system and it is not sth that ML not being #1. And in my last reply, I pointed out the possibility that ML can walk over to get higher rank (under old system, he will get penalty by doing so like China Open; no penalty under new system). It is not fair at all and do no good to the sports. That's why I call it caveat of the new ranking system.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,271
17,732
44,271
Read 17 reviews
Based on what ZJK has done over the past year, I think his new rating is about what it should be too. Even if, ZJK playing at a decent level is much better than his WR. He just did not show it over the year.

Whereas, ML was by far the best player for the 1st 6 months of 2017. In the 2nd half of the year circumstances forced him not to play. So there really wasn’t any performance to speak of in the 2nd half of the year.

That is all I was saying.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
Again people forget when Dima was complaining about this system because it would have ranked Boll 44 in the world or something. Timo played enough to get ranked #3. Dima is not complaining about that anymore.

Now we have Ma Long fans complaining because their man cannot remain #1 playing once every 4 mths...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ping fun
says Spin and more spin.
says Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Dec 2010
16,146
17,685
54,747
Read 11 reviews
Carl, would you read my post before you argue with me?

I like that you are saying this. I think you just like to argue. I’m done. You didn’t understand anything I said and are telling me I didn’t understand you. Your arguing style is really just too funny.

But I will leave it. You aren’t going to understand what I said. And you will respond with an amazing amount of unrelated verbiage that has nothing to do with what you said that made me ask you to show the results of ML and WCT for the last 6 months of the year.

But I suppose you didn’t complain that they have almost the same number of points and shouldn’t. And you didn’t present a graph with results from ML, XX and WCT for much more than the last 6 months. And you didn’t present that in a chart.

But it doesn’t matter that my simple point, when you were complaining that ML should not have almost the same number of points as WCT was that, in the last 6 months of 2017 WCT played a few more tournaments. That was my point. And I have NO IDEA what else you are arguing about. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2016
1,024
1,960
3,016
Anyone who has ever taken a look at ITTF ranking website will understand my chart in post #12 immediately because I just kept the most important info from ITTF website. And anyone who understands the new ranking system will not care about the results of the last six months at the first place because it is about the last 12 months, although I still listed the results of last 6 months in post #12 to answer Carl's question in #11.

http://results.ittf.link/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=list&listid=69&Itemid=206
Click "Details" and try to see by yourself. Count how many events players of your interest attended. Do some simple maths. If you cannot, just let it go or check out the thorough discussions done in other threads in this forum. I hope people who want to discuss or argue with me have some knowledge about the new ranking system and know why some people in this forum think the new system problematic.
 
says Spin and more spin.
says Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Dec 2010
16,146
17,685
54,747
Read 11 reviews
Anyone who has ever taken a look at ITTF ranking website will understand my chart in post #12 immediately because I just kept the most important info from ITTF website. And anyone who understands the new ranking system will not care about the results of the last six months at the first place because it is about the last 12 months, although I still listed the results of last 6 months in post #12 to answer Carl's question in #11.

http://results.ittf.link/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=list&listid=69&Itemid=206
Click "Details" and try to see by yourself. Count how many events players of your interest attended. Do some simple maths. If you cannot, just let it go or check out the thorough discussions done in other threads in this forum. I hope people who want to discuss or argue with me have some knowledge about the new ranking system and know why some people in this forum think the new system problematic.

But the point was that ML did not have more points because he did not compete in enough tournaments. And the only reason he did not compete in enough tournaments is because he barely played in the last 6 months of the year.

hahahaha.

Now I am in trouble. hahahaha.

Never try to explain something simple to an irrational women who just wants to argue. How could such a simple point create so much drama.

Uh-oh.....I did it again and I am going to hear a long winded explanation with lots of statistics about something that has nothing to do with the fact that, If ML just played a few tournaments more in the second half of the year, his ranking would be completely different: why? Because he would have played more tournaments. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ping fun
Top