Serena ONLY 7 after beating #1, #2, #3?! - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:02 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In an Iglo in Canada
Posts: 4,404
                     
Serena ONLY 7 after beating #1, #2, #3?!

Yes, I realize she only plays about 10 events a year. But still, come on, she is the best player in the world.
She has beaten Jen now THREE times in a row, Martina three times also, and finally beat Venus.


She must have added amazing quality points, right?
Anyoneknow how the quality points work or anything, thanks.
And how far is Serena off from grabbing the #6 position?
CanadianBoy21 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:10 AM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Williams Rulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Venus!
Posts: 20,610
                     
Talking

Don't worry, Serena has no point to defend up to RG... her ranking will rise during the clay court season... She should be in the top 5 or 6 at least by the time RG comes

VENUS
Serena
Lindsay Jelena Maria

Mary : Monica : Svetlana : Sania : Jennifer : Amelie
Roddick : Grosjean : David : Djokovic
Williams Rulez is offline  
post #3 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hitlum
Posts: 8,050
                     
Serena has only 9 tournaments computed in her ranking, if you expect her to be # 1 with that

She got a total of 325 round points and 265 quality points for a total of 590 points. That's more than what Kim Clijsters got for getting to the final of the French Open.

Her total after Nasdaq is 3,271 points. # 6 Monica Seles has 3,314, # 5 Lindsay Davenport 3,350, # 4 Kim Clijsters 3,421 and # 3 Martina Hingis 3,730.

In addition this is the breakdown of Serena's point (easy with only 9 tournaments )

French Open: 162
Wimbledon: 240
Los Angeles: 62
Canadian Open: 423
US Open: 818
Munich: 503
Sydney: 139
Scottsdale: 334
Nasdaq: 590
Fingon is offline  
post #4 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:15 AM
I'm so current, I'm tomorrow.
 
AjdeNate!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The City by the Lake.
Posts: 49,163
                     
She added 590 total points this week (including round & quality). She had to defend 112.
She is 43 points behind #6 Monica Seles.
(Seles is playing Bausch & Lomb and Family Circle Cup and Italian Open and is defedning -0- points from all of those).
AjdeNate! is offline  
post #5 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:18 AM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Williams Rulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Venus!
Posts: 20,610
                     
Talking

It seems that Serena's tournaments have a great amount of quality points in them...

Unless Serena wins the US Open, there is no way she can defend her US Open points... unless she is not seeded in the top 8 again...

VENUS
Serena
Lindsay Jelena Maria

Mary : Monica : Svetlana : Sania : Jennifer : Amelie
Roddick : Grosjean : David : Djokovic
Williams Rulez is offline  
post #6 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 217
           
We know the rankings don't truly reflect which player is really the BEST player on tour; otherwise, Venus would have obtained the #1 ranking prior to 2002 and Serena's ranking would reflect either #1 or #2. The number of tournaments a player plays shouldn't determined whether she is the BEST. Testud, Shaughnessy, and others play close to 30 tournaments; look where they are!! Because they play so many tournaments maybe they should be #1 by now.
theultimateone is offline  
post #7 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:28 AM
I'm so current, I'm tomorrow.
 
AjdeNate!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The City by the Lake.
Posts: 49,163
                     
So, if Monique Viele plays let's say the AT&T Cup in Canada and beats #1 in the final, and for good measure, beats another top 10 player and another top 15 player, then plays no other events all year then she's #1? I'm just curious how this is suppose to work.
AjdeNate! is offline  
post #8 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:33 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hitlum
Posts: 8,050
                     
Quote:
Originally posted by theultimateone
We know the rankings don't truly reflect which player is really the BEST player on tour; otherwise, Venus would have obtained the #1 ranking prior to 2002 and Serena's ranking would reflect either #1 or #2. The number of tournaments a player plays shouldn't determined whether she is the BEST. Testud, Shaughnessy, and others play close to 30 tournaments; look where they are!! Because they play so many tournaments maybe they should be #1 by now.
And how would you calculate the rankings then? in an objective way?

you say that Serena deserves to be # 1 or 2, well, that's your opinion. I am not saying I agree or disagree with that, that's irrelevant, even if I agree, it's still an opinion

I am sure there are people that right or wrong think that Lindsay Davenport is the best, others think Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati and so on.

So, how would you decide who the number 1 is? remember you are not the owner of the truth (neither am I). You can't build a ranking based on your perception of reality, you need objective guides for that and the only objective guide are results.

Serena Williams has only played 9 tournaments, has done great on them but there isn't any guarantee she would do as well if she played more, you can believe it, I can believe it but unless she does play more, that's only speculation and you can't build a ranking based on speculation.

Plus the comment that Sandrine or Meghann should be # 1 based on the # of tournaments is at best stupid. They are behind Serena, and they have never been ahead of her (at least in the last 3 years), so, what's the point with that comment?, if the ranking system rewarded only number of tournaments the would be # 1, but they aren't are they?, that only shows how little you know about it, the players that are ahead of Serena not only have played more but have also won tournaments or gotten to finals, you know?
Fingon is offline  
post #9 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:35 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In an Iglo in Canada
Posts: 4,404
                     
umm, Seles.

Serena has won Canadian Open, got to Us Open finals, won Chase Championships, Scottsdale, & Miami.

Those are some huge tournies, and they are still on her ranking.
Yet, She is only 7.
What has Monica won that is sooooo important, and yes I mean the whole tourny.
Consistency is rewarded, Quantity of Quality. Yet, Everyone knows Serena is the best player.
She has beaten Jen two times this month!
Also Martina Hingis two times this month!
And Venus!

No, she should not be #1, because she has won no slams in one year, so not the most amounts of points, but she should be at least #5.


Thanks by the way for people that did calculations.
CanadianBoy21 is offline  
post #10 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,707
                     
All I can say is the ranking system SUX!
MaRKy MaRk is offline  
post #11 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 02:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,115
                     
serena no doubt played the best tennis this month! the key word is MONTH because rankings are based on 52 weeks. In January Martina Hingis won Sydney, had four match points at Oz and then won a Tier I Tokyo so she should have been #1 according to your thinking.
treufreund is offline  
post #12 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 03:14 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In an Iglo in Canada
Posts: 4,404
                     
And I agree Martina was #1 in January
Venus in February
& Serena this month, but can't count out Jennifer either for January
CanadianBoy21 is offline  
post #13 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 03:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,115
                     
Maybe she will get player of the month then. Serena deserves not Hantuchova since Serena had two titles to just one for Daniela. Also Serena had tougher opponents.
treufreund is offline  
post #14 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 03:27 AM
I'm so current, I'm tomorrow.
 
AjdeNate!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The City by the Lake.
Posts: 49,163
                     
Quote:
Originally posted by theultimateone
The number of tournaments a player plays shouldn't determined whether she is the BEST.
This is the reasoning I was questioning. You don't have to be such a jerk and there is no reason to degrade Monica. I've never said her name in this thread til right now, so why do you have to bring her into this? I was just questioning this posters logic and not at all making any reference to Serena, Jennifer, Venus, or Monica. There's not reason to get all nasty and hatin' on Monica - she has nothing to do with this thread.
AjdeNate! is offline  
post #15 of 50 (permalink) Old Mar 31st, 2002, 03:32 AM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 8,179
                     
the ranking system definitely needs some reworking b/c its very bad (and no, i have no suggestions):

A) Martina Hingis held the #1 spot way (way, way, way) too long w/o winning a major event
B) Lindsay Davenport (even though she's my favorite) never should have been #1 at the end of 2001 (see A)
C) Venus Williams is clearly the best player in tennis w/ the best win percentage and has not gotten to the #1 spot until very recently and it was a brief stay
D) Serena Williams is ranked #7 - enough said
E) Players such as Alexandra Stevenson who beat Capriati in a match get just as many pts. as Venus Williams does for beating the same Capriati in a match - isn't just a little ridiculous that an "on" player ranked in the 30s (or something) gets just as many quality pts. as someone ranked #2 for beating the #1 player? not that neither of them don't deserve it, but alexandra definitely deserves a bit more for her efforts

the ranking system encourages, no, it requires frequent tournament play. however, if it was based on win percentage, it would be much more clear who the top group would be. the problem w/ that is that it takes away from the amount of tournaments the players will compete in. also, the quality point system really needs some reworking, b/c its a little unfair.

that's my two cents

Lindsay Davenport - Anna Smashnova - Lisa Raymond - Sandrine Testud - Paola Suarez - Amelie Mauresmo - Virginia Ruano-Pascual - Nadia Petrova - Chanda Rubin - Cara Black - Tathiana Garbin - Anne Kremer - Monica Seles - Fabiola Zuluaga - Maria Sanchez-Lorenzo - Amanda Coetzer - Rita Grande - Meghann Shaughnessy - Magui Serna - Nathalie Dechy - Kim Clijsters - Elena Tatarkova - Maria Sharapova - Alicia Molik - Julia Vakulenko - Elena Likhovtseva - Anastasia Myskina - Emilie Loit
Mikey is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome