SquashTalk >Columns > Andrew Shelley > WISPA Rankings in Perspective

WISPA Rankings in Perspective
by Andrew Shelley, WISPA © 2005

The WISPA ranking formula has evolved to what it is over a period of time. And while I wouldn’t presume to speak on behalf of PSA, am confident that there is a similar process going on with the men’s listing.

This evolution is a key facet to the topic, and as you do not cover this perhaps I should give a little background for your readers. The WISPA Board, comprised of players, promoters and administrators, reviews the operation of our ranking system on a regular basis; being aware that there is no such thing as a perfect system, and being on the look out to make improvements if we can.

Atkinson and Botwright at a WISPA event in Dallas, photo © 2005, Debra Tessier.

In recent years we have fine-tuned the rankings in several ways to try to ensure that they are as effective as possible. That is why the divisors (the figures used to divide the total points to gain an average) have been altered, WISPA has innovated Pegged Ranking to help avoid the issues created by long term injury, altered our bandings, changed points values, revised non-scoring options, introduced new categories and so on.

We recognize that there is a balance to be struck in areas such as playing down, most recent / durable form and number of events played, and try to achieve this so that not only there is a fair system that is effective for our members, but also for the promoters who provide the events which are our lifeblood.

You mention, for example, the situation of a player avoiding competition, but then say further on that this doesn’t actually happen. The reason for this is that we set a minimum number of events below which a player is penalized because their total is divided by that figure – currently eight. As a player competes more they benefit from a reduced divisor so there is a very real incentive to compete. A glance at the current rankings shows that all the top thirty five are into double figures for events for the last twelve months, the average being around 13, so there is clearly no case to be made for your suggestion that players could shield themselves from competing in some way.

The idea of giving more weight to results achieved in the last couple of months is certainly one which WISPA has actively considered, but again we come back to balance. There are dangers in this approach in that it may not fairly illustrate a progression of form, can distort positions when a major event which already offers enriched points occurs, and can unfairly magnify a short term drop caused by injury.

I am not sure on what basis you contend that Vanessa Atkinson was dominant since losing to Rachael Grinham at the British Open last year. She certainly won the World Open, but her form, like Grinham’s was patchy. So far this year there have been Atkinson losses to Grainger, Bailey and David; and thus she and Grinham were and are very close. However, that only added to the interest and while we didn’t informally anoint her as world number one after the Texas Open we did point out the combination of results at the following event which would cause her to finish the month in top slot for the first time. She went out early in Qatar and so still remains behind Grinham who won in Doha.

There is, though, one specific area where I think that your suggestions very definitely would work against the long term growth of the Tour and the professional game in particular so should respond. You contend that top players should be allowed to win small events without penalty because it would lead to bigger events in the future.

While players are totally free to enter any event they choose and we have a non-scoring option in place to assist promoters, were the available ranking points not smaller then where would be the incentive for promoters to provide prize funds that encourage the players of the level that they want, can afford, offer promotional value and a return to players? Wouldn’t it also freeze out lower ranked players from competition as the Tour begins to wither? Instead it can be to be that promoters start small, find that bringing WISPA Tour players to their club is a success and use it as the springboard to securing funding to go for a bigger event the following year.

These are a few brief notes, but the main point that I wanted to make is that we are genuinely and continually reviewing the rankings to provide the best listing we can for players, promoters, press and public. The formula is not set in stone, does change and doubtless will in the future.