little question

[Cedric]

Litlle question for the staff ...
I'd like to know how they cou,nt points coz i think i shouldnt be number 1, i played less tourneys than Don and Vladaczv, so i was asking myself if there was no mistakes, just in case ... thanks in advance for ur answers !

[Cedric]

ahem, no responses ??

[Rob ITST]

Ooops, sorry.

I need to look at it closer, but I think it's correct.

Even though you didn't play as many tournaments, you won most of the ones you played (especially the important ones). Only a certain number of tournaments are counted towards you ranking. You happened to play almost the exact number of tournaments that can be counted, so all of yours counted, while many of Don's and Vladaczv's didn't.

I would have to look it up to explain it exactly, but we use the same syatem at the ATP for rankings.

[Cedric]

i see, thx for ur answer Rob !

[SlicerITST]

Some additional information:

The ITST Entry Ranking:

The Entry Ranking counts your performance over the last 52 weeks. As above the best 18 perfomances count (4 Grand Slams, 8 ITST World Tour 1000 and 6 best others plus the Masters Cup). The Entry Ranking is used for determining seedings in tournaments. The field of the ITST World Tour Finals is determined using the Entry Ranking.

So thats why you are above your competitors while you played less tournaments. Its indeed the same system as the ATP uses.

[Cedric]

ok mate, ty for the information

[Q. Reese]

I would have to look it up to explain it exactly, but we use the same syatem at the ATP for rankings.

Sorry Rob. I have to share the thought I had about the bolded text from your statement: "Oh no. Rob is going mad with management and suddenly decided to go country on us." I like the sound of that word. Hilarious.

I love it when members make fun of my typos too. I think you pointed out my "why and the world?"

[Don_]

Ooops, sorry.

I need to look at it closer, but I think it's correct.

Even though you didn't play as many tournaments, you won most of the ones you played (especially the important ones). Only a certain number of tournaments are counted towards you ranking. You happened to play almost the exact number of tournaments that can be counted, so all of yours counted, while many of Don's and Vladaczv's didn't.

I would have to look it up to explain it exactly, but we use the same syatem at the ATP for rankings.

first of all Cedric deserved for this no 1 without any doubt and I told him even not to mention anybody about mistake in ranking but of course he had to do that because he is Cedric

but to be clear...
I understand that atp ranking is based on counting limited number of tournaments with higher rankings points and remove smaller points instead of it.
Cedric got points from masters - 2x200 points (2 wins in group) + 400 points (win in 1/2F) + 500 points (win in F) = +1300 points , total 7520 points minus 1300 = 6220 points and I think somewhere here is mistake.
I counted points after group matches and I added Vladaczv +200 points from group winning 1 match and I am sure one thing- in this moment only I had chance to be 1st in ranking "by inch" in case I would win this tournament and Cedric couldn't be 1st if he would won. I mean that +900 points plus Cedric points after group stage didn't give Cedric more than Vladaczv points (including his +200 from this masters ) in this moment. Only chances that ranking is like that now are:
- Vladaczv got points from masters and loses some points from previous tournaments (but I don't think so)
- you added to my ranking points Cedric points (most probable), because I remember that I had chance be 1st exactly by inch like I wrote above
- I made mistake with counting points after group stage (also I don't think so)

[Rob ITST]

I understand that atp ranking is based on counting limited number of tournaments with higher rankings points and remove smaller points instead of it.
Cedric got points from masters - 2x200 points (2 wins in group) + 400 points (win in 1/2F) + 500 points (win in F) = +1300 points , total 7520 points minus 1300 = 6220 points and I think somewhere here is mistake.

I think I get what you're saying, but there's something missing:

The bigger tournaments are counted first, but if you did not play one (or more) of the bigger tournaments, smaller tournaments can be counted in their place.

Cedric didn't play 2 Grand Slams, and he only played 2 Masters - he got to count every tournament he played.

Vladaczv lost by walkover in Wimbledon, giving him 0 points. But because he entered Wimbledon, it has to count. He also received 0 points for 2 Masters and 1 smaller tournament. So, he earned more points, but he did not get to count all of them.

If you click on the points next to each players name on the rankings page, you will see the 18 tournaments that counted (plus the World Tour Finals, if played), and at the bottom, the "non-countable" tournaments.

- you added to my ranking points Cedric points (most probable)

That's almost impossible - we don't add the points manually, they are done automatically by the program.

[Q. Reese]

Cedric also won the Barclays event. Congrats man. You are truly the world's best (well on ITST's end).

[Cedric]

First of all, i created this topic coz i care about Don's opinion and if there is a tiny possibility what he said has a sense, of course, i had to take that in count.
im waiting for seeing what he tought about Robs answer.

[Don_]

hehe
well its simple, I don't know how it happen but during masters (after group stage) I just added to our ranking points from group stage (+400 Cedric, +600 me, +200 for Vladaczv) and later to me and Cedric +900 virtual points (+400 1/2F and +500 F) and was clear that I had chance to be just by inch in front of Vladaczv and Cedric couldn't do that (I don't remember what was difference in points between me and Cedric but I think it was around 200 points)

its easy counting so I don't think I made mistake but I didn't think that Vladaczv can get no points from this tournament (or get points from Barclay's and some other tournament's points were removed istead of it) so I guess it may be a reason

[Rob ITST]

If you have any doubt, just look at the points pages:

Cedric > CLICK
vladczv > CLICK
Don_ > CLICK

There you can see all the points earned in every tournament. If you think something is not correct there, then let us know so we can look into it. I want to make sure this is correct, and also that you are confident that it is correct.

[Don_]

well I can't be sure right now because I counted points before updating Barclays finals
I don't remember exactly how much we had points before Barclays but even Cedric told me when we talked after group stage that he have no chance for 1st place... so I guess he counted points too, that's why this is strange


our ranking points after group stage (so I guess all tournaments were updated except Barclays):
me +600 + virtual 900 > Vladaczv +200 > Cedric +400 + virtual 900

it was just like that - however my mistake is always possible, but as you can see it was very easy to count

Vladaczv
Non-countable tournaments
Date Tournament Round Points
03 Aug'09 Legg Mason Tennis Classic QF 0
13 Jul'09 Mercedes Cup R32 0
26 Oct'09 Grand Prix de Tennis de Lyon R16 0

so it looks Vladaczv didn't lose any points after Barclays, so I don't understand anything now

[Q. Reese]

First of all, i created this topic coz i care about Don's opinion and if there is a tiny possibility what he said has a sense, of course, i had to take that in count.
im waiting for seeing what he tought about Robs answer.

No man. I think that is honorable of you. No worries. Congrats on the Barclays win. I also like the fact that, even though you are number one, you are "in the clouds."