I am grateful to the FFT and Ranking Commission for their reply. It would have been helpful if this courtesy had been extended to Marion Bartoli.

As I understand it, the FFT did not return Marion’s call when she sought an explanation the week previous.

As for the reply itself, it doesn’t really help to demystify the process of ranking classification, or the outcome reached by that process.

The decision of the ranking commission endorsed by the FFT would have been made many weeks in advance of the WTA tour season concluding. This is in part because according to their own assessment structure;

The year covers 12 months from early October to late September.(1)

In September 2008 Marion held a significant lead over Alize Cornet in the WTA rankings. The WTA use a rolling 12 month system of assessment, so how can it be that the FFT’s 12 month ranking shows a completely different hierarchy from the WTA hierarchy over the same 12 month period?

Perhaps it’s because,

The parameters used for establishing the classification - scales, standards, pyramid - are set each year by the Federal Commission. (2)

This sounds to me like we’ll make up the rules as we go along.

In his reply Mr Damiens writes,

French classification is based on results over the year; victories on best, victories in tournaments and grand slam runs, Fed Cup and Olympic Games.(3)

The WTA use the same criteria and arrive at a different result from the FFT over the same Oct 2007 to Sept 2008 time period.

Could it because the amount of points awarded by the FFT differs from those awarded by the WTA in certain competitions such as the Olympics. Mr Damiens doesnt disclose. As I see it this is the only way that Alize Cornet could be appointed, or should I say coroneted, French number 1.

Marion didn’t play for France in Fed Cup or Olympics, and we all know why that is(4). Marion fans wont be looking for FFT autographs anytime soon.

It is clear that there is a human component involved in determining FFT ranking that does not exist with WTA ranking procedures. The WTA process is computer based. The FFT process is committee and computer based. WTA rankings can sometimes be complicated but fairly logical. The FFT method however seems more like alchemy.

How can it be that Tatiana Golovin is ranked 4th in the FFT national ranking when she hasn’t played for about six months and is 3-5 for the year. Golovin is around 250 now in the WTA ranking, yet according to the FFT she remains ahead of eight out of the eleven Frenchwoman currently occupying the WTA Top 100. Golovin like Alize Cornet is of course a good player, she has had injury, but that is not the point.

The FFT and regional associations may justify these decisions to themselves by their own methodology, but the decision to remove Marion Bartoli from the position of national number 1 and appoint Alize Cornet does nothing to alter the widespread impression that French tennis officials were less than comfortable with Marion Bartoli as the best French player of recent times.

Look no further for evidence than the effusive announcement on the FFT website on the day that Classement 2009 was released; “’Cornet Power’, Mauresmo’s amazing 7 years as French number 1...

But nothing about Marion. Not a word.

Judge for yourselves.

Footnotes:

(1).
http://www.fft.fr/cms/GetDoc.asp?Type=5&ID=4868

(2).
http://www.fft.fr/cms/GetDoc.asp?Type=5&ID=4868

(3).
http://marionbartoli.blog.co.uk/2008/10/23/a-reply-from-the-fft-4920177

(4).
http://marionbartoli.blog.co.uk/2007/12/20/non_means_non~3468207

00:15 28/10/08