Thread: New World Ranking System!
06-22-2006, 04:30 PM #1
New World Ranking System!
If you like me monitored the world ranking each week , you probably found lots and lots of suprise in this week new ranking.
How come Lin Dan who just runner up in Malaysia Open 2006 tumbling from rank 1 to 3? Or Peter Gade who only reach QF of the same tournament, jump from number 3 to 1 pass Lee Chong Wei who is the champion there?
Or how come Xu Huai Wen who even didn't enter MO2006 become the new rank 1 meanwhile the champion MO 2006 Zhang Ning tumble to no 2?
Don't panic its just new world ranking system from IBF.
The old ranking system is like this:
Example: Nova/Butet from Mix D.
They are the champion of Indonesia Open 2005 , 25-9-2005 and had 5400 points.
This year 4-6-2006 In Indonesia Open they are the finalist with 4590 points.
In Old ranking, Nova/Butet will had 9990 points from this 2 events although the new Indonesia Open 2006 points already in their ranking. The 2005 IO points will be erase after one year from the tournamnet which is 25-9-2006. About 3 months from now.
With this dobel points from the same tournaments but differennce year, Nova/ Butet who didn't enter lots of tournamnets can mantain their number 1 ranking.
But thenew ranking, it will erased the 2005 tournamnet points after the same tournamnet been played in 2006 , regardless if that 2005 tournament are over one year or not.
Thats why NOva/Butet tumbling to number 4 after get cut from Indonesia Open 2005 points.
So the point of this new ranking is IBF encouraged all the players to enter as many tournamnets as possible in one year. And not only enter 8-9 events a year and used the tournaments dates to gain extra points.
06-22-2006, 04:36 PM #2
With the new ranking, China, Indonesia and Malaysian players suffered the most cause most of the players only enter 7-9 events a year.
Lots of them stumble from their rankings after Indonesia Open 2005, Singapore Open 2005, Malaysia Open 2005. China Master 2005 points been erased although the events is not one year yet.
Meanwhile most of the European players gain from this new ranking cause they enter 10-12 or more events a year.
Like Peter Gade who reach number one rank in MS and also Xu Huai Wen rank 1 in WS despite she never won any title except European Championship this year. But she enter more than 10 events in one year, meanwhile Zhang Ning only 8 tournaments.
06-22-2006, 04:42 PM #3
So in order to complete 10 events this year, Nova/Butet had to play 5 more tournaments this year. If Nova/Butet still wanted to hold on in the top 3 positions.
2006 only had 9 more tournaments including the 3* and 2* events.
06-22-2006, 04:45 PM #4
i dont like this new system. world rankings should be based on the number or tournaments you win or how far you get in a tournament, not based on how many tournaments you enter.
does this mean that some player no one ever heard has a possibility of becoming world number 1 if he goes to every single possible tournament?
06-22-2006, 05:41 PM #5
1) I think its very strange to change the ranking mid-year...
2) It seems like to many points are awarded for results in medium (or not the major) tournaments missing many top-ten-players.
Once again it seems IBF is having a clouded intellect?!?!?
06-22-2006, 05:50 PM #6
watheck?! Lin Dan have been #1 for about 3 year in a row now, what a wonderful recorded to be ruined. This will be a whole different ballgame when it comes to time to accumulate points for the olympics. This is a good way of forcing out the top players in the world - ie. the Taufik in hiding, to play more often. I suppose we badminton fans will be treated with more high calibur matches this way. Hope the top players in the world come to Canada or US Open haha
06-22-2006, 05:52 PM #7
Apparently designed to cause a lot of surprise results in coming World Champs.
Really have to be good to fight to the finals and not just depending on good draws and seedings.
Plus a dangerous 21 point system.
Surprise results? Unpredictable? Good or bad?.
06-22-2006, 06:41 PM #8
Originally Posted by Bbn
06-22-2006, 06:45 PM #9
Taufik being #24 in the world... hmmm... that's just not right. I am not a big fan of his, but people new to professional badminton must be confused by the so-called ranking system so bad.
I know Peter Gade is good and he is my favorite, but honestly he should be top 2 or 3, not first.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Tennis' ranking system seems to be able provide the fans a better understanding of which player is better by looking at their ranking despite their form during the match.
06-22-2006, 06:48 PM #10
Originally Posted by jgao_net
06-22-2006, 07:05 PM #11
I strongly agree with all the posts above.
The new ranking system does not actually reflect the best players. The old ranking system at least gives very clear idea who is the best in the world.
06-22-2006, 07:43 PM #12
Originally Posted by joetheshow
06-22-2006, 07:46 PM #13
Let me put this poser to you: How would you encourage the top players to play in more tournaments if all they need to do is play in say 9-10 tournaments a year only?
As a badminton fan... lets say in a country without a 5 star and above tournament. Wouldn't you like to see a 5 star tournament hosted in your country so that you can watch the top players live?
And let's say your country manages to get sponsors for a 5-star event but the top players don't come, what will the sponsors think? They may well withdraw or reduce funding to say 1 or 2 star status.
06-22-2006, 08:03 PM #14
wait a minute. is everyone jumping into conclusion too quickly?
the new changes doesn't mean more tournaments leads to higher ranking. the new system only means that if the same tournament in two consecutive years are less than 12 months apart, the players don't get to keep the points for 12 months.
but notice, it works vice versa, no? if the same tournament in two consecutive years are more than 12 months apart, they get to keep the points for more than 12 months.
it just happens that there are more tournament date shuffling in 2006 as the TC/UC and WC are going on in the same year, that's why some points get discounted.
imho, this does make ranking more unpredictable, but it does not mean more tournaments -> higher rankings. at least not any worse than the old ranking computation.
06-22-2006, 08:38 PM #15
Interesting...confusing with NSS and now ranking issue, what's next? Let's hope we don't see Kooguy on #1
06-22-2006, 09:56 PM #16
New system? I think it's meaningless if a certain tournament is fixed (eg. AE) every year. This system just makes, maybe, a certeain tournament more fixed than before.
06-22-2006, 10:05 PM #17
kwun is right. Most of you are jumping to conclusions. The new system is just a slight tweak to the old one.
That said, I still prefer the old one. I think that what counts is your performance in the last 52 weeks, and should have nothing to do with locale.
By Loh in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 47: 12-03-2009, 12:10 PM
By Foreverlove in forum Professional PlayersReplies: 1: 05-20-2009, 10:25 AM
By Zhao in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 1: 09-08-2002, 04:28 AM
By psichoduck in forum General ForumReplies: 2: 05-02-2002, 10:57 PM
By Cheung in forum General ForumReplies: 7: 04-19-2002, 09:18 PM