National Rankings

[Bigdog]

Having read posts on this website for some time I thought I'd have a stab at actually contributing - so go easy!

Just wonder what people's thoughts are on how the English rankings work. For me there seem to be two problems:

1) You seem to score too many points for losing in the first round of a big tournament like an elite
2) You need to play at least 8 tournaments before you are placed realistically.

This seems to aid players (like myself) who enjoy travelling to different cities and playing different tournaments. However recently my ranking has become so unrealistic that I'm starting to get fed up of the usual 'I can't believe you are seeded so high' comments week in week out.

I would have thought that there would be a fairer system that addresses the above problems which still encourages players to play tournaments.

Do tournaments have discretion to seed how they like or do they have to go off the rankings.

Thoughts?

[alansd]

I think that on the whole the ranking are resonably fair but as with any system there are ways to work it to your advantage. Most people know to take them with a pinch of salt especially when you see guys like Constable or Archer in the lower reaches of the doubles figures and I think archer is even down at about 100 now, I only know that because he is about 2 places behind me. I am perfectly aware that if I were ever to stop on court with him he would batter me without breaking sweat and wouldnt expect any tournament commitee to accept me above him purely on rankings. So cases like this there is an obvious disparity. I think at the nationals last year both constable and edge were seeded despite bot even having a ranking to get into the tournament nevermind being in a position to get seeded but it was very clear they deserved to get in
I think that the Satelittes are a different situation though because you will always have a local player who is in with the commitee who could get a slightly better draw through being seeded if there was more discretion.
In these situations the only fair way to do it is by rankings and if people cant be bothered to travel to tournaments then they have no right to be seeded above those that do. If they really deserve the seeded place then somply beat the guys or girls that are above them and it will soon turn round. I have noticed this particularly with Tony Gibson this year. He has been unseeded and gotten to the quarters of the Middx and won the Hants. If anyone can be arsed to check I am sure his ranking will reflect this.

[Bigdog]

Fair comments - however if, using your example, Tony Gibson were the top player and he draws the top seed first round (who lets say is the second best player) then this seems quite unfair on the seed.

I agree on the whole though - that you should just get on with it and play whoever you get.

[alansd]

I think more of an issue is for people who cant get into tournaments even though they are better than those that play. This has come up at the wimbledon tournaments, there are several guys who play county 1st or 2nd team but dont want to travel to tournaments who try to play there home events. I know they are better than me, they know they are better than me but I would still get into events in front of them. Is this unfair or simply rewarding enthusiasm!!

[Luncheon]

This season counties have to do the seeding themselves, due to lack of resource at BE.
So Satellites, will be seeded mainly on rankings....thats all the organisers can go on.
In the Lancashire, there was a man (discussed on here) who hasn't won many rounds, being seeded in the mens singles.....however the Lancs organisers probably don't see results, they can only go on rankings and this guy has got up to a certain ranking place.

I agree the rankings aren't a true reflection, but as to seedings and entry....the blame has got to lie solely at BE's door by not doing it themselves......regardless whether they have valid reasons for not doing it.

[FutureChamp]

I agree Luncheon, but the case you refer to is a one-off. The chap has been playing events for several years and if organisers don't know his standard by now then there really is no hope for them. Making him a seed and then seeing him lose in single figures just makes them look bad and the whole seeding a joke.

[Luncheon]

I don't agree with that, they have a policy of sticking with rankings.....on the same basis I shouldn't have been seeded 1 at mixed, I've lost 3 outta 4 times to Armstrong and Grant, yet I'm seeded one on rankings I presume....not right and Armstrong and Grant could and should feel agrieved by it.....but thats the policy the counties are going by.....so it applies all the way down the order....hence Haughton not getting in the draw (although they could have given him a wildcard spot).

So either they have a policy or they don't have a policy and they're backs are covered better if they just stick with rankings......you can't have just one or two exceptions.....also in the end, others should overtake.....I'm sure it won't be long before Armstrong and Grant are ranked and seeded ahead of me!

[alansd]

If I remember rightly there was a bit of common sense used in the seedings, Mark B played and was clearly the best player there even if he wasnt ranked and so was put in as number 1 seed, however in the doubles there were 2 singles specalists seeded for some reason. Not denying they are good players but no way were they better in that event than others there.
I do think that unless there is an obvious exception to the rule, eg Mark C, Mark B or someone of that calibre then the ranking have to be stuck to as a guideline.

[Markymark]

I agree. If people are feeling agrieved at their ranking, then go out and sort it out. Rankings historically favour those who play lots of events, in all sports, but those players shouldn't be punished for that.

Of course, if someone has been out because of injury then that's a slightly different story. But not being arsed to play events and letting your ranking slip is your own fault and you're going to have to accept a few 'bad' draws until your ranking gets pulled back up.

I think England use international results also to determine rankings? In scotland they have the bizarre system whereby only domestic results count. So Alistair Casey, for example is ranked 25th in men's singles in Scotland, but has the highest world ranking of any scottish men's player.

[David69]

It's a disgrace that i've dropped out the top 500 in mens doubles :D

[alansd]

It's a disgrace that i've dropped out the top 500 in mens doubles :D

I saw you play, and I disagree with your last statement!

[BonnyBoy]

The junior rankings are seems to be awful and loadsof people are in ridiculous places but from what I can see as I have been playing seniors for long the senior ranking system works a lot better. Obviously you will always get some people in the wrong place. I dont't understand how paul butler is ranked so high even though he loses first round all the time. It also means he is seeded alot and never fulfills his seeding. How does he get so high?

[richard murray]

Ranking is fair, but they need to only award points for wins, if you enter and loose in first round you should get NIL point, that would change peoples points, bet you would see lots of zero points and 8 games played

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

I disgree.

If your lose in the first round, you should get first round losers points.

If however you enter and don't even turn up, then nil points and a fine.

There seems to be a few cheeky monkeys who make a habit of abusing this loophole.

Certain names in draws that are always odds on not to turn up!

[richard murray]

first round loser points should be lowered as its easy to turn up and just get points

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

also if you get a bye or a walkover and lose in the next round you also should only get first round loser points.

drawing comparisons here to the world ranking points system.

[richard murray]

no you should get negative points, out in first round -20 hahaha, would clear out the ranks 50-100

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

where would that leave you on the ranking then tricky?

just below giblet?

:D

[richard murray]

above as I havent played any so I would be on 0

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

haha

good response!

[gjsims]

The rankings are largely inaccurate once you get outside the top twenty or so at mens singles and doubles and mixed, and outside the top ten or fifteen at ladies singles and doubles. The lower reaches are more about the number of and which tournaments a player has entered, rather than games they have won. After a year of travelling, and maybe even winning the odd first round match, it would be possible to gather eough points to gain entry into the nationals, the elites and the challengers. If you took an average of the first round losers points at those eight events it would place you very high in the rankings of any discipline. This is simply not right and I agree with RM in that first round losers points should either not be awarded or should be set lower, or better still set at a uniform level irrespectiuve of the event. Whether I lose in the first round at the local village tournament or in the first round of the nationals is irrelevant, and in no way an indication of my ability. I know of the odd player who won't enter Satellites as they would almost inevitably lose ranking points by doing so as their ability is not sufficient to get them through enough rounds to match losers points at higher level tournaments.

PS, you all fixed now Richy?

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

thats a good post.

take the other side though....

the same system is there for everyone else to use (and abuse:rolleyes: ) but essentially in the case of a national championships if you don't work from the rankings and delegate an"educated choice" to someone what do you then create? - other problems.

im for both sides of the argument, you play the events you deserve your right to attempt to qualify.
you don't play any events, you don't get a wildcard as a result of a previous result(s)

solutions?

[Markymark]

I'm surprised that it's possible to lose points by playing satellites because you've gained points losing in the first round of other tournaments. If that's true, then that's an anomaly that must be sorted. You should gain a nominal number of ranking points if you don't win a match.

[gjsims]

You don't lose points, you gain 37 points (I think), but assuming you've played 8 events then your average (and therby your ranking) would go down. If you play ten events then only your best scores are counted so one or two low scoring events are irrelevant.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

You don't lose points, you gain 37 points (I think), but assuming you've played 8 events then your average (and therby your ranking) would go down. If you play ten events then only your best scores are counted so one or two low scoring events are irrelevant.


Once your in, your in.
(as long as you keep playing enough events)

it happens at ebu level and will also now happen at super series level that the events have gone 32 draws.

[gjsims]

But that's just the problem isn't it. As long as you play enough events. The number of events you play is at least as significant as your performance in those events. Although, this is not the case as you get near the very top of each ranking list. That would be an interesting question for you scrutineers of the rankings lists - at what point as you read down the list does it begin to lose its integrity as a means of judging the relative abilities of the listed players? It would not be correct to ask that question without submitting at least one opinion of my own - so Mens Mixed Doubles December 2006 - Chris Roe is ranked at 25 but how many of the players ranked up to ten places above him would be confident of beating him more often than not?

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

but then the other side of the argument...

Participation = Revenue.

take the world ranking system where formerly the points total was an average of results gained from the events played.

then it changed to top 10 best results added together.

immediately when this happend there was massive annomlies (spelling?:) ), god you even had Greeks in the top 30 in the world!

What has happend since then, (and it has taken a few years) is that players now HAVE to play events to get a ranking that will qualify them main draw status of events, more players now play further afield and this will continue to happen more often.

Participation is up, revenue is up, options are up.

European events are 100times stronger than they were say 10 maybe even 5 years ago, most having qualifying draws and several with waiting lists.

we are still going to have annomollollys, and potentials ranked higher than maybe they should be.

but the overall winner? BADMINTON!!

:D

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

my point here really is, using that previous post as an example...

if more and more players see the opportunity to raise their ranking whatever it is, top 100, top 75 in england then participation will rise and continue to

[richard murray]

Win nothing and qualify for the nationals, Ive done it, doesnt say much for the ranking.

once your on the van you dont needd to play the sats as you will have enough points to always qualify for challengers and above and the points just keep on rolling.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

your too harsh on yourself tricky, leave that to us!

why should someone who doesn't play any events get in above you?

[richard murray]

its all back to the points for the first round, play one sat and win, lose in first round of 8 sats but still get in, where the logic, you can buy your way in to the nationals

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

heres another question...

do you feel from playing your 8 sats and getting pumped in the first round, that your standard of play has improved, even somewhat or were you totally out of your depth?

the points as they are at the moment will also aid to drive the standard up.

[richard murray]

I agree that its worth playing, but I disagree with the points you get for not achieving anything, how can you have a rank if you never win anything?

Anyone could pick up a racket play 8 sats and get into the top 50-60, you wouldnt even need to be able to play, you could go on court read a paper during service then 42 serves later (as long as they get it in) go home knowing that you could be in the nationals next year having never hit a shuttle.

[alansd]

Do you honestly get that high by loosing in 8 sats?
I have played a few, got through a few rounds in one, a couple of first round losses, and played one of those orbitals and got to the quarters and I am still below 100 in the rankings. If I play a few more will I really get so high?

[richard murray]

yes in singles(might have won a couple, but not many) and I got into the nationals , guess there are more people playing now so harder to get in, can name a couple of other who played singles who did the same

[richard murray]

next year alan just go for sats and above, nationals are uber points (for first round whacking)

[alansd]

To be honest I would rather play decent games in a lower competition that get blasted off the court by Kidd or even worse, lunged by honey or rice!! Doesnt sound like much fun to me!
As I am a sweatyI wouldnt be going for the english nats anyway.
I know the fella you mean though and no its not Chris G as he actually has done resonably well this season.

[Luncheon]

Tricky Dicky....are you not from Sussex? And were the Nationals not played in Sussex when you played......I don't mean to be harsh.....but were you not assisted by having a county wildcard?

[alansd]

Whats your excuse for getting in every year then Chris!!

[Luncheon]

Paying double.....Badminton England.....love a donation accompanying entry forms......if you send double....you get a wildcard!!!!!
Or Entertainment......to see if I'll be the first to be sent off!!!!!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

DELETED!!

Haha, i'll delete that one myself SS!

sorry!

[alansd]

So thats what happened to Dave and me at the elite, I slipped in a few extra quid and got straight in!!

[richard murray]

Tricky Dicky....are you not from Sussex? And were the Nationals not played in Sussex when you played......I don't mean to be harsh.....but were you not assisted by having a county wildcard?

not in this case it was just the ranking

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

come on dicky, dont play tricky with us!

[richard murray]

must have been 41 and as only 32 get in must have been ok, sad but true, guess its a proven case that anyone can get in

[gjsims]

Its true, Rich got in without a wildcard, it was purely on his ranking. I believe the wildcard that year went to Dean George, but I might be wrong. Rich had to contend with a Corby and an indifferent linejudge. He is being a little harsh on himself regarding his performances in Satellites though, it was better than eight first round losses.

Say what you like about the rankings, but you should not be allowed to lose your way into the nationals.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

Say what you like about the rankings, but you should not be allowed to lose your way into the nationals.


I completley agree gj, just feel that the people(s) who generally moan about person(s) making it into the main draw of the nationals, could easily be there if they supported the events themselves and there is a little bit of "whine" in the complaints that always pop up.

If a player like Giblet makes main draw of the nationals, how can someone justify a complaint against him when they dont support the tournaments themself?

Certainly agree that those who are blatantly taking advangtage of the system and regularly not turning up should get punished, fined or points deducted, but again we need the baofe to police this.

(I cannot belive i just supported the giblet!!! - trying to bring back powerplay for some more ironing jokes i say!!)

[alansd]

Chosen one,
hate to piss on your bonfire but the only tournaments Chris lost in the first round of were the elites, other than that he got through at least a couple of rounds of the challengers or the sats he played so the guys you want to make an example of for playing all th events but not winning are.... well we all know them but are not goung to ridicule them since in a years time if I dont play well I could be highly ranked but have made **** progress.
I do understand the how people could be upset how certain people get into big events but its tough to do it.
Having just missed two quarters in sats by 2 points in the third as well as other decent wins I only just managed to get into the cambs for the doubles so still find it strange how losers can get into the nats!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

Bonfire truly pissed on, now how am i going to cook my marshmallows!

:D

[gjsims]

I agree with the chosen1 that the a high entry is essential for tournaments to run. I've played a few poorly supported events and it is not inspiring. So called better players who can't get into the draws they want to should certainly play more events. This point once again raises the issue of contractual obligations from the elite players - they are rarely met and even more rarely enforced. I believe that BE do occasionally crack the whip, I remember Colin Haughton driving all the way down to play the Essex Open about 3 years ago (a miracle in his car) but how often do you see the 'MK elite' do the same? As I understand it they should play a certain number of challengers each year. It would at least give all fifty of them a chance to wear their kit with England on the back more often, after all there are only three Elite tournaments each season, and most of them will never use it actually playing for England.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

"occasionally" cracking the whip is an inherent problem in itself, inconsistency causes confusion and promotes abuse of the system.

ebus and bwf events have got it together a bit now, dishing out 100Euro spankings left right and centre!!

[alansd]

Just read throught Mr Simms post and it is very true that you need a decent size of entry to get the most out of a tournament. The Herts this season is a good example of this. A full draw of 64 in the mesn singles and there cant have been many fewer in thr Mens doubles. It allows you to actually make some sort of progress, winning games before running into a seed. I doubt anyone other than the points hunters will really enjoy getting a bye then a walkover and all of a sudden find themselves in the quarters without having played!!
I have gotten the same results through 2 tournaments this season but enjoyed one far more because I actually got good games from the first round throughout. Instead of a bye, then playing the seeds who were very hungover so couldnt tell what was going on! Then finally getting a good game in the last 16 as happened in another
It just seems that the wrong people are being accused of pot and point hunting!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

yep, some people do get victimised a little and made (poor) examples of.

but then this is badders.com and badders.com thrives on inflamatory comments!

[alansd]

I agree wholly, enjoyed a bit of sparring with wolfie back in the day!! Well a couple of months ago!!
I see him all the tme and he doesnt have a clue I know who he is!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

Ahh the wolf, the forum does miss him. :(

We should start a Badders memorial thread "gone but not forgotten?"

and the likes of Soup and Michael Banks could come along and piss on their graves!


:D

[alansd]

Thats a bit harsh, I dont think I was around the days when those boys were being killjoys!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

alan, I wasn't havin a go at you there hence why your name was not included!!

your the popular victim in this Shakespearean Tragedy!

The chosen one is being nice these days (calm before the storm site support!! :p )

[alansd]

I meant saying those boys would piss on the graves is harsh. Dont worry about me, I have plenty thick skin!!
Anyone here going to cambs this week?

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

I could see Soup pissing on a few graves given the chance!

Screwball!!

Anyway, yes yes, back on topic.

Cambs..... The Chosen One Is just back from Bhutan and doesn't think he will make it over in time!

[alansd]

Where does the chosenone make it to then??
Still trying to figure out who you are. Older generation than myself I think??

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

still trying to understand your queens english there ladybird....

Where does the chosenone make it to then?

[alansd]

I was wondering where you do make it to if you are not going to be at the cambs. What tournaments this season have you been at. Gimme a chance to do some taggart detective work!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

but then i'll risk the mission!!!

the chosen one cannot risk the mission!!!

:D

[richard murray]

Lovely bit of banter for midnight on a Sunday

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

Tricky!!

think ladybird was looking to borrow your colouring pens? you find him on the other thread?

:D

[richard murray]

Just read throught Mr Simms post and it is very true that you need a decent size of entry to get the most out of a tournament. The Herts this season is a good example of this. A full draw of 64 in the mesn singles and there cant have been many fewer in thr Mens doubles. It allows you to actually make some sort of progress, winning games before running into a seed. I doubt anyone other than the points hunters will really enjoy getting a bye then a walkover and all of a sudden find themselves in the quarters without having played!!
I have gotten the same results through 2 tournaments this season but enjoyed one far more because I actually got good games from the first round throughout. Instead of a bye, then playing the seeds who were very hungover so couldnt tell what was going on! Then finally getting a good game in the last 16 as happened in another
It just seems that the wrong people are being accused of pot and point hunting!!

Alan if you have a bye to the qaurters and lose it would count as first round loss

[alansd]

I have never had a bye beyond the second round. But I thought if you got a bye then a walkover it would be classed as a bye then a win so you actually get all the points as if you had played?

[richard murray]

I remember a certain time at the cambridge when only three womens pairs turned up, mmm bye to the final

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

I have never had a bye beyond the second round. But I thought if you got a bye then a walkover it would be classed as a bye then a win so you actually get all the points as if you had played?

yes. all the points squire. good day at the office!

[alansd]

I remember a certain time at the cambridge when only three womens pairs turned up, mmm bye to the final

Similar thing happened at the norfolk this year, there were a handfull of entries for all of the womens events, I think there were only 2 or 3 pairs in the ladies doubles.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

GB tennis player Murray is 1 set all with nadal...

no byes and cheap points in this sport!

:D

[ObiWan]

GB tennis player Murray is 1 set all with nadal...

no byes and cheap points in this sport!

:D

So which side of Murray will win out in this one??
The quality British tennis player or the petulant Scottish schoolboy??

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

2-1 Britain!!

[richard murray]

2-1 Scotland, Henmans out

[alansd]

So which side of Murray will win out in this one??
The quality British tennis player or the petulant Scottish schoolboy??

So when he wins he is british and when he looses he is scottish......this sounds all too familiar!!

[richard murray]

Guess he will be british all the time, using the same logic Henman must always be English

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

So when he wins he is british and when he looses he is scottish......this sounds all too familiar!!

what do i win Obi?

:D

[ObiWan]

what do i win Obi?

:D


Lifetime supply of McEwans Export??

[richard murray]

its only an export because no one in scotland wants it.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

you scottys are always hook line and sinker.

the good things never change!

:D

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

ahhh shame, the scotty tennis player has shot his bolt too early again.

no bottle.

4-0 down deciding set.

[FutureChamp]

Typical Scot - no bottle

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

KERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAASSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! !!!!!

tampon for my bum please Mr Nadal, sir.

:D

[richard murray]

Henwho?:confused:

[alansd]

tampon for my bum please Mr Nadal, sir.

:D

Is that due to the years of excess?? I had heard that happened but never known anyone to be as brave as to admit it!!

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

you tell me ladybird?

[ObiWan]

Now let's be fair.
Murray is a damn fine tennis player but not yet the finished article.
However,in terms of physical conditioning Rafa is in another league.
Murray does look rather desperately in need of a spine donor in these grand slam five setters.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

Now let's be fair.
Murray is a damn fine tennis player but not yet the finished article.
However,in terms of physical conditioning Rafa is in another league.
Murray does look rather desperately in need of a spine donor in these grand slam five setters.

was he faking cramp in the last set again?

i didnt catch the last set.

[ObiWan]

was he faking cramp in the last set again?

i didnt catch the last set.


I was only following the live reports on bbc website.Got the impression he was a spent force near the end,probably mentally as much as physically.He's young,but Nadal is only a year older.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

he could creep up into the top 10 this year, i think it will happen.

will be good to have a Brit back inside the top 10.

[PeteG]

In terms of the tennis, Murray has improved physically, but for sheer fitness I doubt anyone can beat Nadal, which is why Federer struggles with him so much, especially on the red stuff! I don't think Murray has won a 5 set match, certainly not in Grand Slams anyway!!

Moving back to the plot, unfortunately I think counties would have to go on the rankings to some degree or there is the potential to be acused of favouritism. there were plenty of players at Lancashire Open (although I know there was a high dropout rate, sad to say myself included and I'm still trying to recover) who could have been seeded. I think it could have been tough to actually seed 8 and do it completely accurately.

In terms of the "play more get more" arguement, there are several sides to this. People have already pointed this out in terms of buying a ranking and the alternative of people working their way up to achieve their "actual ranking".

In terms of buying a ranking, it is possible to pick your way through the tournaments and travel to the easier, more poorly attended ones to buy a ranking. From there you are more likely to get seeded and (hypothetically) get the easier draws.

The closest the ranking system could probably get to being correct would be to divide points exactly by tournaments played (of course, allowing higher points for the higher graded tournaments), but then you still have the problem of some tournaments being better attended than others. This would possibly mean dropping some of the satellites down to orbital, etc,which may reduce involvement further and mean badminton loses.

The other option is to calculate each tournament based on the standard of players who enter, but multiply it by a standard amount depending on the type of tournament (basically some time-consuming formula for calculating the points the tournament should fairly generate).

In summary, some moderation would be handy and common sense needs applying, but it's always going to be difficult to provide a completely fair ranking and seeding system.

[TheChosenOneReturns!]

good post pete,

the chosen one is a bit slow today on educated responses though.

[gjsims]

If all players were graded following the european (and also the northumberland) example, no tournaments would have to carry ranking points per round at all. You would instead gain points depending on the net worth of the opponents you defeated. That way you could only gain higher points by beating higher opposition. I wonder what effect that would have on the ranking list. The main problem with this system would be relying on BE to crack the whip on the better players. I can just imagine certain selected players saying 'theres no way i'm going to play that tournament, someone good might be there and beat me and my ranking will drop! I'd rather just go out in the first round of the elites and nationals, that way i never have to prove myself under pressure and don't lose out on points.'

[richard murray]

thats how it works in France, you only get points for winning and that depends on how good they are, to tell the truth their national ranking better reflects the standing of each player

[afrayn]

If all players were graded following the european (and also the northumberland) example, no tournaments would have to carry ranking points per round at all. You would instead gain points depending on the net worth of the opponents you defeated. That way you could only gain higher points by beating higher opposition. I wonder what effect that would have on the ranking list. The main problem with this system would be relying on BE to crack the whip on the better players. I can just imagine certain selected players saying 'theres no way i'm going to play that tournament, someone good might be there and beat me and my ranking will drop! I'd rather just go out in the first round of the elites and nationals, that way i never have to prove myself under pressure and don't lose out on points.'

That's certainly a system used in other sports - Golf, for example, weights the field - although this in itself can lead to inequalities. To me, though, weighting the result by strength of opposition would surely result in a more accurate ranking system. I mean, is there really any value to the current ranking system below, say, 100? I can think of people I know ranked outside that who've beaten top 100 players, but also people ranked 400 who would thrash those ranked 200 because they've played in more tournaments.

Surely though, gjsims, under that system if you played and got beaten by a good player then your ranking wouldn't drop as much? The start of it would be tough to implement. Would you back date it, do you think, on available results from the last 2 years or so?

[richard murray]

if you lost you wouldnt get any points

[afrayn]

Ah I should've read that more carefully... perhaps some sort of equation based on points scored in defeat would refine that a bit further? So if I (and this is highly unlikely) got say 12 and 12 against a seed, then that would be worth something?

It's a tricky one, though, and presumably there is a certain element of better the devil you know to the current system.

[andymcg]

sounds like a good time for a plug:

http://www.northumberlandbadminton.org/rankings/rankings_page.shtml

This is the home page for the Northumberland grading and ranking system. We're now in our 3rd season of the trial, and I believe BE is seriously considering adopting this or at least a modified version of this system across the country. As mentioned above you get no points for being defeated but if the person who beats you is a certain number of grades above you it doesn't count towards your average, and it doesn't count towards demotion at the end of the season if the person is even 1 grade higher than you.

[gjsims]

I had already mentioned northumberand in a previous post. Sussex are about to pilot a modified version of that system as we think the system is a rank or two on the generous side. Bringing in the system from scratch is particularly tricky. What we have had to do is grade the tournaments, county and league games and award points for games won within the different competition levels. Once that has run for a year all players in the county can be awarded a provisional ranking and the awarding of points can be switched to being defined by opposition grade rather than competition. The problem is of course how do you award points to players who win in Satellites, etc....but I have a preliminary system for that as well.

The only-awarding-points-for-a-win rule is a good one. Primarily a loss is a loss and no matter how well or badly you did you still lost the match so why should you gain points. The rule used in northumberland protects players when they play two grades above their own. I think it should be at least three grades but that's me being harsh again. The point about not scoring points for losses is very clear. I could represent a county in Premier A, lose all my matches, and outgrade people winning in ICC Division One. This is not equitable. If you lose all your games you don't belong at that level. As a benchmark Sussex will provisionally state that in order to qualify as an A Grade player you should win at least 51% of your matches at Premier B level. OK, stick the knife in...

[andymcg]

Thanks for the info Jamie, I wasn't aware Sussex were getting into this as well. I know Notts are hopefully preparing to use our system at some point soon. I saw you had mentioned us in an earlier post, I just wanted to hopefully get more people interested. Hopefully if BE realise how many people want a system like this they might be more inclined to proceed. Sadly I fear that even if a similar system is implemented tournaments will likely stay as knockouts, which might still deter some people from entering. We feel here that guaranteeing 3 matches per event in a tournament has been a major reason for the increase in tournament participation.

You're probably right that our grades are on the generous side. When we started we allocated people grades according to which divisions they played at in the local leagues. From there we then inputted results for the 2 previous seasons and ran promotions/demotions at the end of each season to arrive at our starting point. Nobody started out above grade B2, its just that over time the better players have made it to A2. It would not be difficult to slide all of the grades down the scale to fit better at national level.

County matches and tournaments are currently excluded from our system - we could not think of a fair way of defining the points available. For example Anthony Clark played in the Northumberland Satellite a few years ago. Should a defeat against him count for someone like me? - probably not I would suspect. But most games in a satellite probably should be counted. We'd be interested to hear what you have come up with for this.

The rule about losses not counting is actually when the player is at least 2 divisions (not grades) above you. Therefore if you are a D2 player only losses against a B2 or better are not counted. I can see both sides to this rule though - it can deter people from entering a tournament targetted at a slightly better grade as their average will be affected assuming of course they don't win!

[gjsims]

Andy, the two divisions thing makes more sense to me, I should have read a little closer. We are also awarding the initial points based on a grading ofwhere players play in terms of the local leagues.

The main differences I'm piloting in Sussex are that ICC matches and external tournaments will count towards the total. As far as the ICC games are concerned they would count just the same as local league games, just that the level is slightly higher (although the top divisionin the Surrey League is probably equivalent to ICC Division Two). Tournaments caused me some difficulties but what I am proposing is that a Satellite first round win is worth x points (I expect to place this around ICC Division Three on average), a second round win is worth 50% more, a third round win is worth double and so on. That way a third round Satellite win is equivalent to a first round Challenger win. This doesn't quite map on to the BE points sytem but it is not far off. Losing in the first round get no points, it is the luck of the draw if you get Anthony Clark, in many Satellites you're equally likely to get some muppetry.

The other primary difference is that the player average is a lot more inclusive. If I am correct Northumberland only counts the top 12 wins per season. Sussex will include the players top 50% of wins in an effort to really get a sense of their whole performance over a season rather than jusge them on their top few matches. I admit that this may have some players thinking they shouldn't fill-in for lower club matches, but even 50% is quite generous. I like the fact that no points are awarded for games two grade below yours. I am also not going to award points to partners of players playing two below their grades, this will stop lower level players courting high level partners in an effort to artificially raise their grade.

Another difference is the absence of a demotion calculation - in the Sussex system this will occur directly from the player average and if it says you're down then down you go. Rather than using the absolute average of the player on the grading scale I have taken a base two log, reducing the large numbers down to a 0-13 scale, simpler for my non-mathematical brain.

It is very similar to Northumberland, just a little harsher. After all I have a reputation to maintain. The main problem I have had, and presumably you will face is you slide the grades up a level, is that their is not enough room at the lower level to adequately express the differences in standard. An option is including an F grade (not ideal), or an extra E grade. Any ideas?

[andymcg]

Cheers for the info Jamie, good to hear other people are trying out systems along the same lines. The main reason we use this particular system is that its based on many years of experience in France, so it was the safe option for us. And of course it was a french player who lives here now that pushed for it!

Just a few points for clarification as I realise the system we follow can be a little complex at times. We have a minimum counting matches total of 12, but it can be higher than this if it gives you your best average. For example, if I've played 14 matches in the season so far. 8 of them are defeats, 2 wins worth 512 points each and another 4 wins at 256 points. My points average would include all of my defeats, then I would add my 2 wins at 512 points and another 2 at 256 and divide by 12. This would give an average of 128. I would then try adding another of my 256 point wins and divide by 13 for an average of ~137. This is higher than before so I ignore the first attempt. I'd try again with my last win and divide by 14. Again this average is higher, so this is the value that is used. With this system it means that its likely wins against much lower standard opposition won't be counted as they would bring down your average. But I agree its possible to make your season with a couple of big wins, which isn't ideal.

Just to play devil's advocate, if you don't award points to players who's partner is 2 grades below, won't that mean if a lower graded player fills in in a league match that the higher players might not want to play with them as they won't get any points? Or have I read that wrong?

With regards to adding another grade, in the Notts pilot they are adding an F grade as they have substantially more players than we have, and the top end is at a much higher standard than here. To equalise the systems we'd have to shift everyone here down by a division or so, which would be simple but I guess some people might not like it. I believe in France they added lots of extra grades at the top end, so you would have A1 A0 A-1 A-2 A-3 etc. Now they have changed the labels completely and have A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 etc.

When are you hoping to start the pilot? Next season?

[gjsims]

Andy were already piloting. I think initially were going to go with A0,A1A2,B1,B2 etc down to E2,F1,F2 and Ungraded. We feel that the top end has to be a high quality benchmark to be meaningful, and there probably won't be any for a while, although Tanya Woodward, Manny Tripp, etc might get and A2. This would of course change if Sussex are relegated as the only method of winning high enough points would be to play tournaments. Just for the record I have graded first round wins at Satellite level at ICC Division 2, Challengers at Div 3, Elites at Prem B and Nationals at Prem A as I think this best represents the average level of opposition you are likely to meet.

Regarding the lower level player filling in for a higher level match - low players can fill in higher level matches and gain points without problem, but when a high level player fills in for a lower level match neither they nor their partner will gain points. SO the dicision to award points or not is based on the level of the opposition relative to the high greade player, not on the partner.