Ranking System - Tournament Bowlers

[JWhitty]

Hi all, my apologies if this has been raised before, I had a search back through but couldn't find anything.

I've heard some mumblings about the way the rankings system works. I'm not in a position to change it, but I AM looking at consolidating a heap of information and I'm interested in knowing how we all feel it should work. Stand back while the can of worms wiggle out.

In its simplest form, earning one point for each opponent beaten over a fixed number of events is quite effective BUT only provides a true indication if all bowlers bowl the same events, eg one person beating a field of 100 twice earns 200 points, and should be higher ranked than one person beating 20 people 10 times right? Well I think so.

So possibly some statistical normalisation; coming 10/100 is an equivalent feat to 1/10 or 2/20? Am I right? Actually the 10/100 is probably even more impressive than the 1/10?

How do we reward the bowler who comes fifth at the only four majors he plays without rewarding the guy who plays them all and comes consistently 20th? Do we in fact even agree that the guy with four solid fifth places is better than the repeated 20th over more events?

So there's the question, how do you determine the better bowler when given a few lists of finishing orders?

 

[jimcross]

Interesting, and valid question. How does the ATP do it? There may well be some, but I've not heard any whinges or complaints ?

 

[Casual Observer]

Doesn't matter what setup you have it will not suit all situations. The current rankings system is a joke due to a number of reasons but no doubt they have been discussed before.

 

[JWhitty]

The current rankings system is a joke

Well that sounds like you might have some answers to my questions, what's wrong with the current system?

 

[Casual Observer]

About the only thing right with the current system is that something exists.

I think rankings points are a joke to start with and are only there to pamper a few people's egos. Not all the good bowlers bowl in ranked events so the whole system itself is a farce and will always be so.

 

[Roysa]

But if the so called good bowlers CO dont bowl how can they be considered for the rankings list.

If the rules on ranking are set out at the start of the year then everyone knows the criteria.

This is a case of unless someone can come up with something better, say nothing.

 

[JWhitty]

I think rankings points are a joke to start with...

Good grief man, give me something constructive to work with...

Let me try from a different angle, how would you make the rankings system work?

 

[Michael Little]

I don't think the current system is probably the best it can be, and the one previous was even worse. One of the half decent things about the current one though is that the rankings are only based on the current tournament results for the current calendar year, not like the previous version of a rolling system. Rankings as far as I can remember, have been quite insignificant in this country, they have provided a false representation of results under previous versions.

Previous versions have included total points by bowling as many ranked events as possible (flaw, not everyone can bowl every event, therefore the best bowlers do not always compete), rolling system replacing previous years points as tournaments roll around (flaw, changing points allocations from year to year, ranked tournaments with full points with bugger all entries, and not everyone can bowl all events meaning you lose points from the previous year if you don't back up again).

It will be interesting to see if the amount of tournaments the rankings will be based upon will change with the increase of ranked events.

In part, it isn't a bad idea to have points based upon field entries, but tournaments where the numbers are decreased and really shouldn't be ranked events, aren't as prevalent now. I understand the principle behind it and it isn't a bad idea, except that tournament entries fluctuate from year to year by a fair bit, so each year, points will be distributed differently each year.

I don't know the solution, it is a hard one to try and be fair, the current system takes the best 4 results out of 6 ranked events, allowing for someone to have 2 bad events and utilize the other 4 for maximum results, plus whatever points they secured for Masters.

I guess regardless of system, to have a shot at winning, you need to be extremely consistent throughout the events calendar.

 

[Michael Little]

About the only thing right with the current system is that something exists.

I think rankings points are a joke to start with and are only there to pamper a few people's egos. Not all the good bowlers bowl in ranked events so the whole system itself is a farce and will always be so.

I don't know of too many of the 'good bowlers' who don't bowl in the current ranked tournaments. Maybe a splattering of bowlers here and there. However, just because not all the 'good bowlers' bowl in ranked events, doesn't mean that the current system or future versions are a farce, bowlers have different motivations for bowling certain tournaments and granted not all care about rankings to go chase points, I think most like myself, just enjoy bowling in a tournament environment and competing to win those individual tournaments and rankings results or standings are a mere afterthought.

This year there are only 6 this year, set to be more next year with a nice wide spread of geographical locations, I have never been to Tassie before and will be looking forward to that.

 

[androooo]

This year there are only 6 this year, set to be more next year with a nice wide spread of geographical locations, I have never been to Tassie before and will be looking forward to that.

And we are looking forward to having the Hobart Cup back on the calender. I just hope the local bowlers will support it, otherwise it will make it difficult to make it worthwhile. Will admit though, I'm seriously thinking of coming out of retirement for that one

 

[Casual Observer]

Until you get all the bowlers bowling in comparable events on comparable conditions and in the same number of events you will always have a faulty system.

I know all those bowlers at the "top" of the list like to think they are the best but the truth is they are not all the good bowlers we have in Australia. So your ranking system which supposedly says who is number 1 and so on is never going to be correct. For example, Belmo is currently listed at 19 on the front page of TB. He probably doesn't really care but if it is up to date it shows how wrong the current system is - like others, he just doesn't bowl events.

If you need to have a system to handle a few peoples egos then set it up to suit them. Much like AMF, you will be keeping your people happy.

 

[Casual Observer]

bowlers have different motivations for bowling certain tournaments and granted not all care about rankings to go chase points, I think most like myself, just enjoy bowling in a tournament environment and competing to win those individual tournaments and rankings results or standings are a mere afterthought.

Something I fully agree with. Only a few people care about the rankings.

I will go a step further than the original question for this post. Do we even need the rankings system?

 

[Michael Little]

Until you get all the bowlers bowling in comparable events on comparable conditions and in the same number of events you will always have a faulty system.

I know all those bowlers at the "top" of the list like to think they are the best but the truth is they are not all the good bowlers we have in Australia. So your ranking system which supposedly says who is number 1 and so on is never going to be correct. For example, Belmo is currently listed at 19 on the front page of TB. He probably doesn't really care but if it is up to date it shows how wrong the current system is - like others, he just doesn't bowl events.

If you need to have a system to handle a few peoples egos then set it up to suit them. Much like AMF, you will be keeping your people happy.

I think in this case Belmo is actually 3rd in the current rankings, the ranking on TB are way out of date, as he has had two wins so far this year and an equal 5th place finish at the Masters. However he is probably never going to figure in the rankings due to numerous OS commitments and therefore is more of an exception to the norm.

I don't know many of the top bowlers in this country who don't compete in current National events, Belmo aside. So in regards to your first sentence, it would be fair to say that at present the majority of top bowlers, already compete in most National events, there aren't any current 'easy' points scoring tournaments where the competition is any easier like there used to be, and that is probably due to there only being 6 current tournaments. And bowlers can use their best 4 events, so everyone has the opportunity over the same amount of events to score points.

 

[Michael Little]

Something I fully agree with. Only a few people care about the rankings.

I will go a step further than the original question for this post. Do we even need the rankings system?

The rankings system at present is used as a guide for national training squad and national teams, but if the rankings system is partially flawed, then national squad/team selection is potentially flawed as well.

And I certainly wouldn't use a rankings system to judge the most talented or best bowlers in the country, but it could be used as an indicator as long as re your previous post, enough bowlers competed in the minimum 4 events to be judged comparatively.

 

[becka_girl]

Until you get all the bowlers bowling in comparable events on comparable conditions and in the same number of events you will always have a faulty system.

I know all those bowlers at the "top" of the list like to think they are the best but the truth is they are not all the good bowlers we have in Australia. So your ranking system which supposedly says who is number 1 and so on is never going to be correct. For example, Belmo is currently listed at 19 on the front page of TB. He probably doesn't really care but if it is up to date it shows how wrong the current system is - like others, he just doesn't bowl events.

If you need to have a system to handle a few peoples egos then set it up to suit them. Much like AMF, you will be keeping your people happy.

If you have a look on tba website, the correct rankings table is listed... I do believe our countries best is at the top of the list

 

[jason_doust]

Something I fully agree with. Only a few people care about the rankings.

I will go a step further than the original question for this post. Do we even need the rankings system?

I'm not a big follower of the rankings personally. (I'll play my second ranked event of the year next week at Australia Cup.) But how else do we measure national performance of players? A flawed yardstick beats none at all. Otherwise, you'd just have any fool walking around cluelessly beating their chest about how good they are, based on nothing concrete and with no way to verify or deny their statements. That's why we have a rankings system. That way, if somebody wants to test their tenpin mettle, there is a mechanism in place. The big reason I bowl in some ranked events is to play on honest lanes. I like to see if I've still got what it takes for "real bowling" from time to time.

Back on topic though, I don't even know how the current system works, beyond there being a set number of events and you get points for where you finish. Can somebody explain the mathematics of it briefly and I can cogitate and maybe even comment? I have a pretty obvious idea, but it's probably pretty much how it works already.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[jason_doust]

Until you get all the bowlers bowling in comparable events on comparable conditions and in the same number of events you will always have a faulty system.

OK, falling back on ABS experience here...

A Census is the most accurate snapshot of Australia's population. But, it's very expensive and takes 2 years to compile, analyse and anonymise the results. Likewise a tournament where everyone competed at once is unwieldy and while it produces a good result, is also fallible to being one weekend's performance. (Census fails here too, but nothing's perfect.) So the Bureau of Statistics runs a Monthly Population Survey (MPS) of 37,000 people across Australia to fill in the gaps between each Census (4 years). It's much more workable and the clever Statisticians in Belconnen can get some remarkably accurate results from that sample.

This is a bit like what the rankings system does. It takes a sample of tournaments from a diverse geographical location (to allow more players to participate) and provides an opportunity for players to compete in this basket of events if they want their performance to be measured against the best in the land. It gives the truest opportunity to be measured up that we have. The only way to know if you measure up is to step up. Otherwise it's just talk.

 

[Casual Observer]

If you have a look on tba website, the correct rankings table is listed... I do believe our countries best is at the top of the list

Anyone who is fortunate enough to bowl in a lot of events and have a heap of points will of course be happy with a flawed system that rewards it and possibly shows a false ranking.

 

[bluey]

OK, falling back on ABS experience here...

A Census is the most accurate snapshot of Australia's population. But, it's very expensive and takes 2 years to compile, analyse and anonymise the results. Likewise a tournament where everyone competed at once is unwieldy and while it produces a good result, is also fallible to being one weekend's performance. (Census fails here too, but nothing's perfect.) So the Bureau of Statistics runs a Monthly Population Survey (MPS) of 37,000 people across Australia to fill in the gaps between each Census (4 years). It's much more workable and the clever Statisticians in Belconnen can get some remarkably accurate results from that sample.

This is a bit like what the rankings system does. It takes a sample of tournaments from a diverse geographical location (to allow more players to participate) and provides an opportunity for players to compete in this basket of events if they want their performance to be measured against the best in the land. It gives the truest opportunity to be measured up that we have. The only way to know if you measure up is to step up. Otherwise it's just talk.

To true Jason.

 

[bluey]

Anyone who is fortunate enough to bowl in a lot of events and have a heap of points will of course be happy with a flawed system that rewards it and possibly shows a false ranking.

Do you have an idea of a better system?