I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:08 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
LightWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,548
                     
I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

In order to avoid having a #1 as embarassing as Safina, the WTA should create a rule that states that no player is allowed to be #1 unless she has not won a GS. It's not about maths and adding points, it's about prestige, dignity and credibility. I don't remember -ever- a top male player having made to the top without winning a GS. It would be a good thing for everyone, the public and the players themselves. It would be an incentive to be #1, that way you feel that you've really earned it and you're part of history.
Or change the fucking ranking system, but do something for God's sake !
LightWarrior is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Dubai Love
 
Uranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 52,611
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Marcelo Rios.


Uranium is offline  
post #3 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:10 PM
Senior Member
 
SIN DIOS NI LEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Araucania Indomable
Posts: 13,310
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Ivan Lendl , number one first and then GS Champion

Last edited by SIN DIOS NI LEY; Apr 15th, 2009 at 08:21 PM.
SIN DIOS NI LEY is offline  
post #4 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Senior Member
 
disco_rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 3,271
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

this point is getting boring..................... whenever there is a 52-week rolling ranking system, it will be a possibility of this happening.
you can;t put a rule like that in place (only being allowed to no1 if won a slam), its stupid. the player with the highest number of ranking points should be No.1. simple as.
a 52-week rolling ranking, which is the only way to do rankings, will some time bring cases, like Jankovic, Safina, Rios getting to no1... but in fairness Safina and Jankovic have some big tournament wins in the rankings, with decent slam results, also brings cases like Kafelnikov rising to No.1 when he had lost like 5 matches in a row or something, its just the way it happens sometimes....

Twitter: @disco_rage1
disco_rage is offline  
post #5 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:20 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
LightWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,548
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.
LightWarrior is offline  
post #6 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Senior Member
 
AndreConrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Close to US Open :)
Posts: 4,670
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by nothingfails999 View Post
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.
Very nice crystal ball you have there; I want one ... In your scenario when you don't have a slam you will be #2 behind... who is number one...
Sorry for the bit of sarcasm, but you are taking the ranking system to literally... just my opinion

The best of luck to all tennis players; The game is on!
-Andre
P.S.Well,... special luck to Agnieszka Radwanska, Marta Domachowska, Daniela Hantuchova, Urszula Radwanska
Bally, Rest In Peace!
AndreConrad is offline  
post #7 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:28 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
LightWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,548
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by pockit2006 View Post
this point is getting boring..................... whenever there is a 52-week rolling ranking system, it will be a possibility of this happening.
you can;t put a rule like that in place (only being allowed to no1 if won a slam), its stupid. the player with the highest number of ranking points should be No.1. simple as.
a 52-week rolling ranking, which is the only way to do rankings, will some time bring cases, like Jankovic, Safina, Rios getting to no1... but in fairness Safina and Jankovic have some big tournament wins in the rankings, with decent slam results, also brings cases like Kafelnikov rising to No.1 when he had lost like 5 matches in a row or something, its just the way it happens sometimes....
Who cares about that ? The players you mentioned won't be in ths tennis history books. #1 players should not have just "decent" results in slams, they MUST have good results. Suppose Safina still retains her Berlin points, then reach the FO Open final but - oh surprise - chokes again in the final. She will be the #1 seed at Wimbledon. Even Safina herself would be very embarassed.
LightWarrior is offline  
post #8 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:29 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

This is getting old. You never know what will happen. That's the intriguing part. Who would think a few years ago she was going to be top gun? BTW, it's "unless you have won a slam"
Quote:
Originally Posted by nothingfails999 View Post
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.
apple123 is offline  
post #9 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:43 PM
Senior Member
 
terjw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,440
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by nothingfails999 View Post
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.
Ridiculous. Having been proved wrong as far as the ATP - you now start babbling that a player is not allowed to be #1 if in your opinion the player is unlikely to win a slam.

Caroline Wozniacki

Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Kim Clijsters
terjw is offline  
post #10 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
LindsayRulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 15,351
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

There's nothing embarrassing with having a #1 with 3 Tier I titles + 2 slam finals and Olympics final on her ranking.

The problem is that when they get the top spot, our #1s start playing badly ; Ivanovic last year, Jankovic and Serena this year and now we have Safina already playing like crap even before reaching the top. If Safina was as steady as last year she would definitively deserve the #1 ranking IMO.
LindsayRulz is offline  
post #11 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:49 PM
it's just me against the music.
 
In The Zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 26,541
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Clijsters.
Sharapova.
Hingis.
Mauresmo.
Davenport.
Jankovic.
Ivanovic [would have been #1 even without Roland Garros win].
Safina.

All have been #1 without a slam in their ranking. The system needs to reward the tour events or else the WTA would be meaningless.

Being #1 doesn't mean you will win a slam. You still have to win on the court. Safina is a placeholder.
In The Zone is offline  
post #12 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,507
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

To the OP

Do you really have nothing better to do?
SOA_MC is offline  
post #13 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Senior Member
 
tonythetiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,875
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

I don't understand this topic. Do you mean to say, "you're not allowed to be #1 unless you have won a slam". That double negative you're using is making this topic confusing.

"No other female pop star, not Mariah Carey, not Celine Dion, not Barbra Streisand - quite rivals Houston in her exquisite vocal fluidity and purity of tone, and her ability to infuse a lyric with mesmerizing melodrama." Los Angeles Times
tonythetiger is offline  
post #14 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 08:56 PM
Senior Member
 
bobbynorwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,184
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

The purpose of the ranking system is to determine the seeding at tournaments, not to determine who is the #1, #2, or #3 best player, et al. If a player gets the highest number of points --- regardless of how or where --- she deserves to be seeded first.

Besides, on the women's tour today, any one of the top 10 players could beat any other. This is easy to see by the closeness of their ranking points.

However, if there was a dominant player on the WTA with a 3400 point lead like Nadal's, that's a different story. Obviously that person could be talked about as the world's best player. No such person has this commanding margin on the women's side, so there is no "world's best" currently in the WTA.
bobbynorwich is offline  
post #15 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 15th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Senior Member
 
madmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,951
                     
Re: I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbynorwich View Post
The purpose of the ranking system is to determine the seeding at tournaments, not to determine who is the #1, #2, or #3 best player, et al. If a player gets the highest number of points --- regardless of how or where --- she deserves to be seeded first.

Besides, on the women's tour today, any one of the top 10 players could beat any other. This is easy to see by the closeness of their ranking points.

However, if there was a dominant player on the WTA with a 3400 point lead like Nadal's, that's a different story. Obviously that person could be talked about as the world's best player. No such person has this commanding margin on the women's side, so there is no "world's best" currently in the WTA.
That's probably the most intelligent post I read on these boards, well said and there is not much to add rreally
madmax 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