Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

Should BWF change its present world ranking system?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by Loh, Sep 26, 2009.

  1. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,586
    Likes Received:
    293
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    I agree no system is perfect.

    LCW is WR1 because he participates in more tournaments than many of the other top players, particularly LD, within the time period specified by BWF. And he did well in most of these, I'm sure.

    Most will agree that LD is the best player right now although he is ranked not WR1 but a few rungs below at WR4 or WR5 perhaps. It seems more appropriate that he should be WR1 to reflect his true standing so that he will be the top seed in the tournaments he participates and not now when he normally gets a lower seeding and has to face off LCW even before the semis. If these two are the top two best players in the world, they should be seeded 1 and 2 and placed in different halves in the draw. Then we can look forward to a more exciting finish.

    But how to devise a ranking system that both reflects the true ability of the player and be fair to all professionals? What is wrong with the present BWF system? What is the present system in the first place?

    LD does not play in all the SS tournaments and LCW is going to follow suit soon. In a relatively short time there may emerge a new World No.1 in the absence of these two top players if one or more of the other current top 10 players participate in many more tournaments than either LD or LCW. These will then distort the seedings again and the better players may be knocked out sooner than expected as LD and LCW may have to meet again in R2 or QF.

    Therefore what do you think the BWF should consider if they need to devise a better system for world ranking purposes?

    Should they:

    1. Disregard the time period, or cut-off time like a player's performance only during the past 12 months or more?

    2. Extend the time period to cover 2 years or longer, for example? This may neglect the player's current form!

    3. Consider only the player's result in the last 5 or 10 tournamanents he participated, so that a player like LD who may not have taken part in many SS tournaments or those that carry ranking points, but did well in many of them, will still retain their accumulated high points.

    4. Limit the time frame so that a player who has scored very high ranking points but who did not play in tournaments during the year for various reasons like injury, marriage, pregnancy, etc, will not continue to enjoy a high seeding? Neither do we want to see a previous champion like PG or WCH having to play in qualification matches once they have recovered from injury and are ready to compete.

    What other considerations do you think should be added or deleted?
     
  2. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Just my 2.25 cents..

    ..ah what da heck...:p

    Here are my inputs on these questions:

    1. But how to devise a ranking system that both reflects the true ability of the player and be fair to all professionals?

    Answer: We can not because as we can see, a player like LD's calibre can easily be a WR#1 if he participates in more tourneys. However, there's no mechanism which will enforce or penalize him if he doesn't join tourneys.
    If we want to see a ranking which reflects a true ability of a player and be fair to all pro, then, IMO, choice no.3 is the closest.
    Also, what do you mean by "be fair to all professionals"??..

    2. What is wrong with the present BWF system?

    Answer: it's not wrong if its purpose is to provide a ranking system used for tournaments. Flawed, yes, but it depends what the person is looking for.

    3. What is the present system in the first place?

    Answer: not too sure what you're asking?!?!. The current system, i believe, is based on pts accumulated by how far a player finishes in tourneys. More like a reward system, the more tourneys a players participates in, the more pts s/he gets.

    4. Therefore what do you think the BWF should consider if they need to devise a better system for world ranking purposes?

    Answer: IMO, choice no.3 is the closest. We'd only take the total no. of points a player participates in and divvy it up by the number of tourneys s/he took. More like we use the "avg-pts-per-tourney" type format. The highest avg pts/tourney will be ranked no.1 and so forth.
    I think it'll come the closest in providing both the true ability of the player as well as it would be fair to all professionals.

    Will this be the cure to all?...i wish..:p
     
    #2 ctjcad, Sep 27, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2009
  3. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Another idea..

    We can also use a system of diminishing effect. The idea is by giving each player 1000 pts @ the beginning of each yr and every subsequent tourney a player participates in, the pts would be reduced based on some assigned numbers, then maybe that would work.

    For example:
    1st week of 2010. Every player is given the same amt of pts.

    LD - 1000 pts
    LCW - 1000 pts. Participates in Korea Open but loses in R16. Then his total pts will be reduced by 100 pts. He would end up with 900 pts.
    CJ - 1000 pts. Participates in Korea Open but loses in QF. Then his total pts will be reduced by 75 pts. He would then end up with 925 pts.

    By the 2nd week of 2010, LD would still remain no.1, but CJ has moved ahead of LCW with 925 pts. LCW would drop to no.3 with 900 pts.
    Something like that.

    But then, here's the catch. What if 30 other players decide not to participate in any tourneys. Then their pts will remain @ 1000.
    Or should we assign some rule which will require players to participate in a minimum no. of tourneys.

    ..aahh, it gets more complicated...:p

    ..is there really a system that's perfect??..:p
     
  4. pralinescream

    pralinescream Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    malaysia
    there is no perfect system in the world but the tennis rankings system seems fairly good.
    why not follow it?
     
  5. drifit

    drifit Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,580
    Likes Received:
    4
    Occupation:
    PM
    Location:
    Selangor, Malaysia
    :eek:
    are sure tennis ranking is good?
     
  6. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,586
    Likes Received:
    293
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Can you summarise their main points? :p
     
  7. Sandy

    Sandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
    Messages:
    12,100
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Jakarta
    Sorry to say, BWF Ranking admin is very bad.
    A lot of ranking points of new players and pairs are wrong, they said because of player id problem.
     
  8. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    Here they are..

    ..i think tennis' own ranking systems are as complicated and imperfect as well..Btw, yes, tennis has 2 ranking systems: WTA ranking and ATP ranking.:p

    Here, i'll just share these 2 links and let you guys read them to get a better understanding:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTA_rankings

    http://www.onthebaseline.com/2009/08/11/the-sony-ericsson-wta-tour-tennis-ranking-system-explained/

    And this one is an article mentioning a few complaints on the WTA ranking system (this one touches the current thread topic as well) :
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92542&page=1
     
    #8 ctjcad, Sep 28, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2009
  9. limsy

    limsy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    22,213
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    kuli
    Location:
    malaysia
    does world ranking is so important to everyone?
     
  10. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    What is the present BWF World Ranking Points System?

    .
    Question: What is the present BWF World Ranking Points System?
    Answer: click here
    .
     
  11. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,586
    Likes Received:
    293
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    What do you think? ;)
     
  12. koo_fan

    koo_fan Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,854
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Shah Alam
    "avg-pts-per-tourney" type format - That was fair. ;). It is, for me.
    Zooming in the shortcomings in BWF system ranking is needed, as the ranking poll is not being well-accepted. It would be fair to all professionals, when public are not questioning their position in world ranking. (impossible, huh? it will never be perfect ).

    I second this suggestion. Hope it'll work better than before.
     
  13. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    I think..

    ..this link is more relevant to the current BWF World Ranking system:cool::
    http://internationalbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=11639

    ..maybe Loh might take some time to read & compare both BWF and ATP world ranking systems..and could give us some kind of feedback or overview of both of them..;)
     
  14. Jonc108

    Jonc108 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Badmintonshire
    elements of a good system...

    there are the following questions to be asked regarding a ranking system:

    1. the points allocate to level of achievements in each competition shall be the basics of ranking points. what would be the fairest way to allocate the points? is the current 9200, 7800 and 6840 to winner, runner-up and semi-finalist in super-series a fair reflection of the achievement?

    2. should there be extra bonus points if a lower ranking player defeat a higher ranking player?

    3. which points should better be used for the ranking? the average points achieved per competition or accumulated over many competitions?

    4. what should the ranking period? 2 years (like golf)? 1 year (like current system and tennis)? or a customised system (like snooker, have world ranking for 2 years achievement, and a provisional ranking for the current season)? [my own preference is the 2-year system golf and snooker system which more accurate in reflecting the achievement and minimize the short term impact due to minor injury, marriage, etc, that may take a player out of competitions for 1-2 or 3 months, so people is still convinced that Woods is No.1 even he rested for a few months due to injury recent years).

    in my own opion, the current system lacks consideration on the above, and therefore resulted in people's impression that it does not reflect the true ability of a player that the general public perceives...
     
  15. Jonc108

    Jonc108 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Badmintonshire
  16. drifit

    drifit Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,580
    Likes Received:
    4
    Occupation:
    PM
    Location:
    Selangor, Malaysia
    of course important!
    if not, there will be no debate/discussion regarding Lee Chong Wei. :p:D
     
  17. LD rules!

    LD rules! Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    TW, SG, HK
    no.3 is the best as it takes into account the players current form and thier recent results and also would allow players who had to miss tournaments through injury marrige etc. And would show the true WR1 not the one who is playin the most tournaments
     
  18. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    The World Rankings are more important to the players than to their fans

    .
    For Badminton, the World Rankings are more important to the players than to their fans.

    If we were to talk about the lower ranked players, we are talking about whether they are granted entries to participate in certain tournaments.

    If we were to talk about the higher ranked players, we are talking about their seedings whenever they participate in a tournament.
    .
     
    #18 chris-ccc, Sep 28, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2009
  19. Deathsticks

    Deathsticks Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose
    tennis ranking is kinda simple

    the players get points by playing tournys
    diff tournys give diff amount of points
    grand slams being the highest
    players only gain points
    and never lose points

    and i think they gain points by matches?
     
  20. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    I thought abt this y'day..

    ..what if BWF were to implement 2 different ranking systems.
    One would be for the overall WR (which they can use something close to Choice #3, avg-pts-per tourney format w/a required minimum no. of tourneys, say a min. of 6 SS tourneys is required to be ranked).
    And the other would be just for the seeding purpose (they can use the current system, by accummulating pts from tourneys).
    But then, i can see a player like LD still not competing in as many tourneys as required.:p
     

Share This Page