Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED

ashrafamer · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:18 am Post subject: ramy,s ranking

it seems to me very strange that ramy in april ranking was no 2 and he got hurghada tournment, and came second in kuwiat both welstrop and guatier did not achieve what he done how come they over come him in may ranking

neil13 · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:38 am Post subject:

He's obviously had good results drop off and no points from the time he was injured where as other players have points from tournaments he missed.

Pass the Stripe · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Re: ramy,s ranking

nyc squash · Prolific Contributor Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 100

The math is what it is, but Ashraframer has a point: judging by the results, the system for determining rankings is flawed. Amr and Ramy are the two strongest players right now. With his own injury problems, Greg's performance over the past few months has declined (he hasn't won a tournament since the BO in September). James has been playing well, but Ramy has dominated him head-to-head.

The only reason this matters is tournament seeding. If Amr and Ramy end up playing in a semi rather than a final because of these rankings, that will be a travesty.

ashrafamer · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject:

sure they taught me mental erithmatic,and they also taught me showing people my opnion in a polite way
what i wanaa say that april rankings should reflicts the accumelated evalution till the end of march (with no reflicts of past)and the mental erithmatic says when you do not participate in a tournment you donot get point other who participate gain points but you donot lose from your accumelated score (ramy was 950 in april went to 744 in may),and you can compare it with tennis scoring,finally admiring an extraordenaly player is not a desease

B.V.D · Newbie Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 7

I think Ramy has had points drop off and that is the reason for him going down in the rankings. Looking at his tournaments played the other day I noticed he only has 8 tournaments ,with points, up on his ranking which is then divided by the 10 tournament minimum. Amazing that someone can still be No. 4 in the world with 2 less tournaments than the minimum.

I can see what you are talking about with the rankings and how it would be bad to see ramy and amr play in the semi's but they can't base rankings simply on who they feel is better or on head to heads. The system they have in place is probably one of the best ranking systems in the world although the old divisor was probably better at 8. 10 tournaments may not look like much in a year but it shows differently. I'm sure injuries have gone up on the PSA after changing the divisor from 8 to 10.

alenvers · Newbie Joined: 05 May 2008 Posts: 2

Yes, the ranking is weird.

Ashour lost (http://www.psa-squash.com/entry/ranking.php?player=T03237&page=history from 2007 to 2008) only to:
- (3*) Shabana (3* won)
- (1*) Darwish
- (1*) Matthew
- (1*) Ricketts

Willstrop and gaultier won tournaments when both Ashour and Shabana were not playing.

I think everybody agree that Ashour and Shabana are the 2 best players of the world (Same level imho). If you extrapolate the points of ashour on 10 tournaments Ahsour is second with 9305. This doesn't match too the reality. I think It's very hard to produce a good ranking system (for the very first place of the ranking for which small changes can produce big consequences). But for sure Head to Head, ashour is winning against both Gaultier and Willstrop.

Stryk9 · Newbie Joined: 01 Apr 2008 Posts: 7

I was a bit surprised about gaultier moving up, but not willstrop, willstrop has been winning hand over fist if im not mistaken (6 tournaments in a row or something?) Ramy has the talent to be #1 or #2 easily, but you still need points.

GOB · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:39 am Post subject:

Ashour was injured and missed the big tournaments at the end of 2007 (Hong Kong, Qatar, Worlds). Then his two big wins in 2007 fell of his total (Kuwait and Qatar) so it is easy to see where his points went.

When Ashour was out Gaultier finished runner up to Shabana.

Willstrop has had good wins this year but they weren't the biggest tournaments for points.

I think the problem with the ranking system is the fact that tournaments sometimes change dates from year to year so points drop off the totals with no way to defend them. Last year there was a Qatar tournament in April (postponed from 2006) but that is not there this year. The players who did best in that tournament have most to lose. Also the BO has moved forward this year.

Calsquasher · Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:51 am Post subject:

They should have rankings protection in squash just as they do in tennis. That way, if a player gets injured (or in Monica Seles' case, stabbed) he/she doesn't get unfairly penalized. Ramy at number 4 just doesn't make sense when he's owned both Gaultier and Willstrop.
_________________
"Drive for show, drop for dough."

Canuck · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Aug 2007 Posts: 123

I must respectfully disagree with those of you who think there needs to be some protection for Ramy and others in his situation. He was mildly injured, causing him to miss a fraction of one season, thus not having enough tournaments to hold his ranking. There were three 5-star tournaments he skipped in early 2008 (Swedish Open, Oregon Open, Canary Wharf), and he could have played a couple of them. I know he played in a non-sanctioned tournament in Barrie, Ontario when he could have been playing in Oregon and collecting the ranking points he would need to hold on to his ranking.

He also knew that he was going to lose a huge amount of point in May 2008 because of his double wins in Kuwait and Qatar last year. So he had every reason to worry about his ranking, but he still chose to play in a non-ranking tournament, because he was able to secure more money by doing so. Can't say that I even blame him for the decision, and I'm sure he accepts the consequences. The ranking system is just fine - it's run on the same principles that govern tennis' ranking system.

Monica Seles was stabbed in the back - while she was in a tournament at the time, it's a stretch to call it a tennis injury. Special circumstances were warranted for her case. In Ramy's case, his injury is directly related to his playing squash, and is therefore a normal part of a professional career in sport. His ability to stay healthy is something that the rankings should measure as well.

When Stewart Boswell got injured, he was out for so long that he had to come back and play in 3-5k satellites before he could get into bigger events, because he had an average of 0.000. There was no ranking protection from him, and he was back competing in the biggest tournaments within three or four months of his return. This really isn't a big deal, and it would be a shame if the rankings were tweaked to give one player a hand up, whether or not he has demonstrated that he really should be ranked higher than he is right now.

seshadri · Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:29 am Post subject:

I think Ramy is less bothered about his ranking than we are. Only a player fearful of playing a particular opponent in the earlier rounds would bother about his seeding. For Ramy, his body is his biggest threat. He would gladly accept a PSA 20 ranking if he could be guaranteed to be injury free for the entirety of a major toutnament.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

bendi36 · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject:

Canuck · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Aug 2007 Posts: 123

Bendi,

Clearly Boswell isn't the 4th best squash player in the world. He can't break the top 10 now, and has lost to people outside the top 15 several times this year. I grant you that he was 4th when he was injured, but clearly it would have been a disservice to the rest of the top 10 to let him come back as #4. It only took Stewart about 6-7 months to get back to being ranked where he should be, which is 13-15 give or take.

He absolutely should not have been given ranking protection, because it was unknowable just how good he was going to be when he came back. He's done well to achieve what he has with his return, but he won't be threatening the top 5 ever again.

He also could have gotten a wild-card to start back at a higher ranked event if he wanted to. The fact is that when he came back (the summer) there were very few tournaments at the time. He could have hopped around the Americas to qualify for one stars, but he decided instead to play some satellites around Australia and New Zealand instead. That seems like financially the better decision. His ranking was high enough to get him into the 5 stars as soon as they started happening again that September. He was not materially disadvantaged by having no ranking upon his return. Now the seeds I can see complaining more than him about having to run into Stewart early in the draw, as it meant they got shafted on the points they were hoping to get, but Stewart had no real reason to complain. He was out for what, 2 years, so to play satellites for a summer upon his return is not too much of an inconvenience.

Run-away-from-danger Boy · Prolific Contributor Joined: 29 Jun 2007 Posts: 140

This also happened to Peter Marshall. He was ranked #2 in the world when he had to have long break because of chronic fatigue syndrome. When he eventually came back on the circuit, he played a few extremely small tournaments in Europe - I remember him playing a $3000 event in some hick town in Germany. He played qualifying. He drew the number 1 seed first round main draw, needless to say he won the event without dropping a game and without having to change his t-shirt for the week. That must have been frustrating for him as well. But he didn't receive any ranking protection back then, either. Nor should he have - that's part of sport, the professionals have to take the lows with the highs.