Just seen the ladies & mens rankings. Well done to both Ricketts & Atkinson in NY, but how come Ricketts has jumped so many places after one tournament win, whereas Atkinson has stayed put, despite a win in the same tournament and despite her numerous recent successes over the current no.1? I don't understand.....

It could be because Ricketts had to beat 3 players seeded above him (Nos 9th, 5th, 3rd), before beating the number 1 seed in the final. That is a lot of upsets, whereas Atkinson was seeded to get to the final, so cuased no major upsets by either reaching the final or beat Linda in the final. Just a thoery.

An intelligent suggestion but the rankings don't work like that. It doesn't make any difference who a player beats - only how many ranking points they've acquired in the last 12 months (or, more accurately, their average number of pts per tournament). The number of ranking pts a player gets from a tournament depends upon two things: how far they get (of course) and how financially valuable the tournament is (i.e. the richer the tournament, the more ranking pts it will carry).

Maybe a tournament Atkinson did well at a year ago has fallen out of her ranking calculation, whereas I don't think Ricketts played in the TOC last year due to injury, so he doesn't have any points to lose.

Correct on both counts. Atkinson actually won two tournaments in Feb last year (including a big one in Qatar when Grinham only made the semis), so although she gained more points than Grinham for this year's TOC, she lost more points than Grinham as a result of Feb '04 dropping off the radar.

Shouldn't the PSA and WISPA consider changing the ranking system to what the tennis tour does? A player should get more rankings points for beating players ranked above him / her. Based on simply how far a player gets in tournament is crazy - Ricketts gets just as many points for beating Lincou, Shabana, Nicol and Willstrop than if he beat me, my mother, my grandmother and her dog. On current form, Ricketts should be higher than 6, rankings should reflect the standard of the players currently, not the consistancy of the players stretching over 12 months.

PSA and WISPA have the same type of ranking scheme as the tennis tours. It works on points accumulated by result in a tournament, not against the other player. It may not be the best way, but ATP and WTA seem to like it.

The tennis tour ranking system in based on who you play - not how far you get in a tournament. A player who beats the number 1 player in the world would get the same amount of points regardless if it is in the first round or the final. The squash rankings should go the same way.

you have no idea mate, it's where u get to in the tournament.

It is not based on who you play, it is based on your result and how major the tournament is. Very similar system to squash. Every system has flaws, this has proven to be by far the least flawed system.

Wobbly Pop - if you need the facts go to:http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/entrysystem/entrypoints.asp

The WTA is done on how far you get in tournaments and depending on the size of the tournament how many points you get. But they also reward Bonus points depending on who you beat, whether they are higher or lower than you in the rankings, e.g. you get 100 for beating number 1, then 90 for 2, and then they section it after that. Beating the number 1 in the world would therefore be accounted for. This would be a good idea in squash i think because it wouldn't require a big change and would give the players recognition if they have a big win.

It wouldn't make sense to determine the rankings based on who you beat. A top player can have a very bad day and lose to someone ranked outside the top 100, in a tournament. That shouldn't make that person get such a huge rise in the rankings, as the top player would have been far more consistent for the year. The current ranking system is good, it is based on consistency.

If a no.100 player beats a no.5 player it shouldn't go unacknowledged either. Fluke or not, the no.100 player should be rewarded - the tricky question is how??

Another thing I noticed which is related to my original one - Ricketts withdrew from the tour in Jan 2004 to rejoin again in Aug, but his ranking only dropped by 4 places during those 7 months of recuperation. Admittedly there's less tournaments, but the other PSA pros did play a small number of tournaments during the summer.

most of you guys have no idea what you are talking about. The system is right how it is, it's all about consistency. Anthony probably only dropped 7 spots because he did well in the 4 months that he wasn't injured, i think he won dayton last year.

There should be some recognition for beating people higher in the rankings than you, but the rankings should also reward consistency. Its a tough one, but I think it should be ammended slightly to acknowledge good effort!! I was at the British Nationals this year and Alison Waters was supposed to go out in the 1st round but she got to the final beating players that were well above her in the rankings. Surely she should get some bonus points or something??!!!

You do get bonus points -- instead of losing in an early round you move on to later rounds and get more points from the tournament.

The big problem in my opinion is that a big win will fall out of your ranking calculation after a year, which can lead to a big drop in rankings without any current activity. You can solve this by using an exponential average that considers all past results, but weights them at an ever decreasing percentage as time goes by. Many financial calculations are done this way.

Your first point is absolutely correct, although I do quite like the idea of a player getting bonus points - in addition to the tournament points - as an extra reward for beating a highly ranked player.

However, your second point sounds like a way of keeping Peter Nicol in the top 10 for the next 20 years! I can think of one current top 20 player who would probably like the sound of your suggestion, though - no names mentioned, of course!

With an exponential average depending on how you weight past results they can actually get diminished very quickly. It mostly would serve the purpose of eliminating past results more smoothly than the current system.

Just replying to one of the previous posts. The British Nationals do not award WISPA ranking points. So Alison Waters wouldn't recieve any reward for performance. Only some of the lower-ranked players take a few minimal points from the Nationals.