I just wanna give my last comment on this subject because I think I finally managed to put into words why I find this current scoring the best lol, even though this thread isn't very lively anymore...
I think this system determinates who is a better player than who(in a month) the best because it doesn't put as much emphasis on playing a lot of matches, as the suggested ones do...say a player has a head to head of 10-10 against the n.1 player, and other player has 0-0(because they haven't played any matches). Some may say a head to head of 10-10 against the n. 1 is better than 0-0, but in my opinion, it really isn't. And that is because, the other player hasn't played any matches against the n.1, so how do we know if they played 20 matches the head to head wouldn't end up 10-10 also? So instead of rewarding playing a lot too much and getting many 1 set wins, the system rewards actually being a
better player, determined by the head-to-head ratio. So, h2hs of 11-10 and 1-0 are the same in value because playing tons shouldn't be rewarded too much, if we want as realistic rankings as possible.(but of course it's nice if players
play a good amount so the real h2h will be more accurate, certainly 11-10 tells much more than 1-0, which could end up 10-0. But, we don't know until players play. lol This is a really minor flaw in the scoring though imo, as mostly
there are no small 1-0 head to heads).
Now a player might still feel annoyed he/she doesn't get any points for winning many sets off the n.1 for example, say he/she has a losing h2h of 10-20 against n.1, and another player has 0-30, and yet neither gets any points! Surely it
doens't seem very fair at first glance, as the first player has won 10 sets off the n.1 and the other none. But it really isn't that simple. See, if the player who won 10 sets from n.1 is that good, and he is the only player who have
that many wins against the n. 1, certainly he should have winning h2hs against all the other players as well, yes? He/she should be the n.2. What if not, what if the player has losing h2hs against lower ranked players, yet is the only
one with wins against the n.1? Which should have more emphasis, the sets won off the best player or losing h2hs against lower ranks? I think the h2hs, as the whole thing is based on h2hs anyway. In other words, your 10 set wins againts n.1 won't mean much until you have proven to be better than all the players who haven't won any sets from n.1. Now if you prove this(have winning h2hs against other players), you will certainly become n.2, and at this point your 10 set wins against n.1 will have a real meaning even if you haven't directly gotten points from them before. You can now strip points from the number 1 by narrowing the h2h even more, or maybe even turn it into your favor, and possibly become n.1.
In my opinion, all this makes a lot of sense. I don't see many flaws in the current system, except the fact that some h2hs might not be as accurate as other due to lack of matches between two players, but it hasn't been much of a problem yet and in any case it's a really minor problem, especially when compared to the many problems the other scoring systems suggested in the poll will cause, which will lead to far more unrealistic rankings than the current system.
Hopefully anyone bothering to read this got the point of it all lol and is satisfied with the main fundamentals of the current scoring. Smaller things can always be changed if someone has good ideas, but to totally change how it works at this point is not a good idea because these are clearly not as good scorings imo.