Dimitrij Ovtcharov The New World Number 1!

[Takkyu_wa_inochi]

TT becoming ridiculous

 

[jawien]

Seeding needs to be accurate
now our beloved world tour seeding is based on participation [...]

I read the discussion between yoass and RidTheKid and I thought it was maybe not that important, because these anomalies would occur only in the beginning when the new ranking is introduced. After some time they should stabilize.

But man! 2250 for winning a Platinium and 900 for making it to the 32 of a normal event ... this is insane. And Tony's Table Tennis calculations ... I don't know how it works out but there is a danger that players like Ma Long will be under ranked permanently, and this is no good for sure.

 

[RidTheKid]

Well they can easily make the dream come true instead of trying to create obstacles for China. I'm Swedish and we certainly have a fine TT history but I simply love China and their dedication to the sport, it's admirable and should be commended. It's up to the other countries to come up with ways to beat them in the tournaments, not winning because all the chinese beat the chinese. We beat China 1989 in what is called "The feat". It was an amazing accomplishment. Why? Not because China was bad, I'll tell you that.

One might wish so. Yet that to me that is a pipe dream. The accuracy of the seeding, after all, gets (in)validated only by the results — and these results are very much dependent on the seeding. A tainted feedback loop.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

I read the discussion between yoass and RidTheKid and I thought it was maybe not that important, because these anomalies would occur only in the beginning when the new ranking is introduced. After some time they should stabilize.

But man! 2250 for winning a Platinium and 900 for making it to the 32 of a normal event ... this is insane. And Tony's Table Tennis calculations ... I don't know how it works out but there is a danger that players like Ma Long will be under ranked permanently, and this no good for sure.

Yep
He is 3000 points behind Dima
and if ML gets 2000 and Dima gets 1300, ML will need 700x5 to catch up or until old points fall away

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Well they can easily make the dream come true instead of trying to create obstacles for China. I'm Swedish and we certainly have a fine TT history but I simply love China and their dedication to the sport, it's admirable and should be commended. It's up to the other countries to come up with ways to beat them in the tournaments, not winning because all the chinese beat the chinese. We beat China 1989 in what is called "The feat". It was an amazing accomplishment. Why? Not because China was bad, I'll tell you that.

I thought the USATT and Rating Central method of measuring players rating point is fair based on win/loose.
So such seeding is a good reflection of players level for seeding

IE if no name player beats Ma Long in R32 and looses in R16, he only gets 1350 points - which is also not fair for gaining so little point for defeating a top champion

 

[yoass]

IE if no name player beats Ma Long in R32 and looses in R16, he only gets 1350 points - which is also not fair for gaining so little point for defeating a top champion

Yes, an adaptive scoring method in which you supply a base ranking for new players, gain points upon wins in proportion to the difference in ranking and conversely lose points upon losses in proportion does make some sense. We actually use such a system.

Even in that system, opportunities are inequal. If I encounter Ma Long, I stand to lose nothing (the difference in ranking is that big) but have a very small chance of gaining a lot. That just might happen, a strike of lightning during the match or somesuch catastrophe would do that. More realistically, if I encounter a beatable opponent I get to win points, while someone at my skill level that keeps bumping into the near-immortals doesn't.

 

[rainneverever]

The major problem of the new ranking system is the difference between results is way too small. Runnerup gets 0.9x of points of winner, SF gets 0.8x of points of winner, QF gets 0.7x of points of winner. While for tennis (ATP), runnerup gets 0.6x of points of winner, SF gets 0.36x points of winner, QF gets 0.18x of points of winner.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2016/07/ITTF-World-Ranking-description-2018-final.pdf

 

[jawien]

The major problem of the new ranking system is the difference between results is way too small.

If the new system really works this way, than - Yes, you are exactly right. Basically what it would come down to is that everybody have to be present at every Platinium and Normal event (I don't know about Challengers)? I hope Ittf made sure it's possible to participate so much in pro tours for every country? Otherwise the ranking system might be just inaccurate.

[Just assert myself, I don't know specifics, only what I read from you]

 

[brokenball]

I don't like this new system. Ratings Central is better. The new system seems to award points for just doing well many times. The more you play the more chances you have to win points. It would be simpler to just add up the money won by each player over the last 6 months or year.

Do these points ever get reset or do you lose points that were won after a period of time?

A very long time ago I use to play competitive bridge. 'master points' were awarded on a scale based on the number of players and how you placed. Some people that played for a long time accumulated enough points to be call masters but they weren't that good. They were 'masters' only because they played a lot.

It seems to me the new ITTF rating system is like that.

On top of that I have never liked single elimination tournaments. There should be round robins. Sometimes #2 in the finals is not better than #3 but #2 and #3 don't get to play because they are seeded in different branches.

Personally, I don't care. If I were a pro I would only be interested in the money. You can't spend ratings.

 

[piligrim]

this new system is prevent Chinese player to be all on the top, so that they might play each other at the last 16 or 32, so that some other country players have chance to get into the semi or Final, this will get more people to come to watch, otherwise it will be all the time Chinese players in to the last 4, it could be boring and less people come to watch.

if other country players want to get to semi and final they just should practice and get better. but why to work hard if you can change ranking system and became number 1 without win anybody

 

[Loopadoop]

brokenball said "You can't spend rating."

If you have a good rating, it should enhance your value to: manufacturers for endorsements, clubs for league play, other potential monetary gains.

 

[Suga D]

But it's not the true picture of who's best if Ma Long beats Fzd in the round of 16 while Apolonia journeys to the semis because of easier matches. That is not something that is fair. Who wants to see Germany vs Jamaica in the final of World Cup of football? No one will the take the system seriously. If you're a less skilled performer you shouldn't get to the final because of the system, but because you earned it by beating the more skilled ones. The system should be in favor of no one simply put.

Nah man. Just read Xylit´s post again.
You should see the ranking list as what it is: namely WHO WAS MOST SUCCESFUL LATELY
The ranking list doesn´t tell who is the bestest of the best. So to find out who is the best player of them all there is a tournament called WTTC, and maybe even Olympics.
But with these tournaments it´s hard to tell who has been the MOST SUCCESFUL.
And if the ranking list would be able to display that it would make above mentioned tournaments like WTTC a bit obsolete (at least to a degree) How many best players can there be? And what would be the purpose of having the ranking list then...

Think about it!
[Emoji6]

Forget about "'#1 = best player in the world" but rather see it as "#1 = most succesful player of the last year" and everything is fine and uncomplicated. In a few months no one cares anymore.

Exactly. Thank you.

TT becoming ridiculous

I don´t remember you being so negative...

 

[jamesmith]

in this case , it should not have seed players. Just put everybody in the draw to see who plays who

 

[jamesmith]

I don't necessarily agree. Yet when at a high-level tournament I always tend to think the same thing.

And that is: in a pool of strong players, every game played in the main tournament has the characteristics of a final. We still get to see these games being played, and I don't see much difference between Ma Long playing Fan Zhendong in the round of 16 and the same playing the final.

I have this penchant about not caring for winning or losing all that much, that may be why (to me) is is of little consequence which games happen in which phase of the tournament. That being said, the randomness now introduced might help stir up things a bit. Somehow I got the idea that the somewhat despondent, timid attitude I think I see when opponents encounter one of the Golden Generation has lessened somewhat. We noticed, or perhaps I imagined that, a change came over the players after Timo Boll ousted LGY and ML; as if suddenly the players started believing they had a chance to win, gained a bit more confidence, a change in mental attitude that actually closed the gap. A bit.

If the new system makes players believe they have fighting chance, than they just might really have one every now and then. That would be a beneficial side-effect to a flawed system. I think.

In this case it should not have seed players, put everybody in the draw to see who plays who

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

When Waldner won the 1997 WTTC Singles title, I think he was ranked #5.

I do think some people are thinking about the WR as something different than it is.

And if a player wins tournament after tournament and plays in World Tour events consistently, they will end up #1.

In other words, the reason Ma Long is not #1 is that he has not played much since China Open in June and has been injured over the last few months.

Therefore, if ML returns to his form of the last few years, he will be #1 again soon.

If not, it will be FZD.

So, the current WR, despite the change in method for calculating, the real reason the top CNT players have slipped in the standings is, at least to some extent, related to them not having played much since JUNE 2017. 6 months of relative inactivity is a lot in one year.

In any sport, a great player who is inactive and then plays and does not perform well, their ranking will likely drop. If not, the ranking system is not actually working properly.

To take back the top spot, it is okay if the player has to earn it.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

When Waldner won the 1997 WTTC Singles title, I think he was ranked #5.

I do think some people are thinking about the WR as something different than it is.

And if a player wins tournament after tournament and plays in World Tour events consistently, they will end up #1.

In other words, the reason Ma Long is not #1 is that he has not played much since China Open in June and has been injured over the last few months.

Therefore, if ML returns to his form of the last few years, he will be #1 again soon.

If not, it will be FZD.

So, the current WR, despite the change in method for calculating, the real reason the top CNT players have slipped in the standings is, at least to some extent, related to them not having played much since JUNE 2017. 6 months of relative inactivity is a lot in one year.

In any sport, a great player who is inactive and then plays and does not perform well, their ranking will likely drop. If not, the ranking system is not actually working properly.

To take back the top spot, it is okay if the player has to earn it.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

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

Example 1
Ma Long 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 2 plays 8, 6 of them looses in final, 2 of them looses in SF = 15750 points

Player 2 tied world ranking number 1 with Ma Long
world ranking number 1 is a now a joke, no?

The major problem for the new system is that LOOSER can win more than the winner
With the old system, it also took away points for non participants (points expiring)

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Good info Tony. The CNT players will have to enter more events.

A few months of CNT taking 6 of 8 quarterfinal spots and all 4 semifinal spots should have CNT in top 6 spots soon enough. [emoji2]

But it is true. The system sounds flawed. But the best players will have the top spots when they are fully back in action.

And my point about Waldner was, he didn’t need to be ranked #1 to be the best player.

Also, in 2009-2010 during that period when ZJK was not in the top 10, people who understood TT knew he was still one of the top 5 players in terms of real skill level. Maybe top 2.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Good info Tony. The CNT players will have to enter more events.

A few months of CNT taking 6 of 8 quarterfinal spots and all 4 semifinal spots should have CNT in top 6 spots soon enough. [emoji2]

But it is true. The system sounds flawed. But the best players will have the top spots when they are fully back in action.

And my point about Waldner was, he didn’t need to be ranked #1 to be the best player.

Also, in 2009-2010 during that period when ZJK was not in the top 10, people who understood TT knew he was still one of the top 5 players in terms of real skill level. Maybe top 2.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

imo ranking is only for seeding for next tours, or world champs or olympics
1 to 4 seeding needs to be accurate
5 to 8 needs to be accurate
9 to 16 needs to be accurate

imagine when Ding Ning faces 1st seed and LSW faces 2nd seed due to them being unseeded due to the new system
If it was Chinese player at 1st and 2nd seed, then I think the world won't complain

Based on 2017 world tour schedule
https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/02/wt-mens-singles-standings-aft-swe.pdf
https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/02/wt-womens-singles-standings-aft-swe.pdf

In your top 10 mens, only 1 player played more than 8 events in 2017
In your top 10 womens, only 3 players played more than 8 events in 2017
This isn't a CNT problem, this is a world tour scheduling problem as a lot of these events are kind of pointless or even difficult to follow

you get 6 platinums and 6 world tours
It will be silly for any top 20 player to go to challenger series

Here is the schedule:
Seamaster 2018 World Tour Platinum

• Qatar Open, Doha: 8-11 March, Qualification 6-7 March
• German Open, Bremen: 23-25 March, Qualification 20-22 March
• China Open, Shenzhen: 31 May – 3 June, Qualification 29-30 May
• Korean Open, Incheon: 19-22 July, Qualification 17-18 July
• Australian Open, Gold Coast: 26-29 July, Qualification 24-25 July
• Austrian Open, Linz: 8-11 November, Qualification 6-7 November

Seamaster 2018 World Tour

• Hungarian Open, Budapest: 18-21 January, Qualification 16-17 January
• Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong: 24-27 May, Qualification 22-23 May
• Japan Open, Fukuoka: 7-10 June, Qualification 4-6 June
• Bulgaria Open, Panagyurishte: 16-19 August, Qualification 14-15 August
• Czech Open, Olomouc: 23-26 August, Qualification 21-22 August
• Swedish Open, Stockholm: 1-4 November, Qualification 29-31 October

As much as your international events, you get your domestic events, injuring/recovery and other activities
Based on 2017 participants, you can see 8 events of the above 12 is not just something as easy to say "players will have to enter more events"

I guess if the prize money is like tennis, it could be different (players source of income is more domestic TT than international TT)
Also, bulk of the 8+ participants are Japanese, we all know they have endless funding due to Tokyo OG.... once that budget is gone, good luck for ITTF to try and promote 8+ participation from everyone

 

[TTHopeful]

You have given me a new look on the new system thanks tony. Carl it sounds terrible now doesnt it . . .

 

[tropical]

I asked if tennis/badminton have a similar system. Someone said yes but apparently they don't. Something is wrong with ITTF hard heads!