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?