The following paper was given at the Squash Australia AGM 2001 in Brisbane. It was presented by WA Squash

National Player Rankings

This paper presents an option to develop an Internet compatible player database that can be produced nationally.

A Valid Ranking System

Cross-pollination

Any ranking system needs varied sources of results to produce reliable rankings. Processing pennant results only can skew rankings as a player may only play in one position in one grade for a number of seasons.

Until the last couple of years the only results that were being processed in WA were pennant matches played in the Perth metropolitan area. We now process all tournament results to improve cross-pollination of results. WA is about to process the results from the Internet based competition in Perth and we have already begun to receive the results from some in-house competitions. The processing of in-house results has been assisted by an enhancement to our Pennant Software that allows multiple automatic result processing from pre-formatted spreadsheets.

A country volunteer further enhanced the process by designing a result processing spreadsheet that contains a macro capable of allowing straight forward result processing.

Country

The processing of in-house match results has enabled us to broaden our geographic base to include country players. The important step in this process is developing a relationship between the playing ability of the country players and the established rankings of the metropolitan competition. This process has been facilitated with some country players having experience in the Perth Pennant competition. Once we established a couple of country towns patterns began to emerge that we have been able to use for other country towns.

Where to from here?

WA has been approached by a number of states that are interested in replicating our system. I have spoken to the Executive Director of the WA Sports Federation who feels the best opportunity for expanding this system is to submit a proposal to the ASC for funding. I have obtained costing that estimates the national implementation at around $50,000 to $70,000.

The timeframe for implementation would be 3 months from the date of approval.

The beauty of the proposed system is that each state maintains its own database and results. The results are consolidated at a national level giving players a state and national ranking that can be easily displayed on your state's web-page.

Example 1: "A thrashing looks likely!"

Before
Player A: 200 ranking points
Player B: 150 ranking points
Points Difference: 50
Probable Outcome: 3:0 Victory to Player A

After

From Example 1 we can see that only a victory by Player B (the distinct 'underdog') over Player A will affect the ranking points of either player. Player A is considered so much better than Player B that it's impossible for Player A to gain any rankings points from this match. Likewise, no points can be taken from Player B for losing to Player A.

Example 2: "The clever money is on Player A"

Before

Player A: 170 ranking points
Player B: 150 ranking points
Points Difference: 20
Probable Outcome: Victory to Player A

After

From Example 2 we can see that since Player A is expected to beat Player B, only a small amount of points are awarded to Player A if the expected victory occurs. Relatively 'big points' are only gained or lost in the event that Player B unexpectedly beats Player A.

Example 3: "Could go either way"

Before

Player A: 150 ranking points
Player B: 150 ranking points
Points Difference: 0
Probable Outcome: Victory to either player

After