PDA

View Full Version : Wasn't the biggest joke ever Davenport being #1 in 2001


buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Capriati won the Australian Open and the French Open (SF at the other 2). Venus won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open (SF at the AO, 1st round at the FO). And yet, Davenport was #1 with SF at the AO, n/a at the FO, SF at Wimbledon, and QF at the U.S. Open.

Jen was 56-14 that year, with 2 GSs, 3 overall titles, and great play at all 4 GSs. Lindsay was 62-9 with 7 titles, but she did just okay at the Slams.

This year, Henin-Hardenne won the AO, but didn't play much. Same with Sharapova (b/c of the rules) at Wimbledon. And Kuznetsova and Myskina were very inconsistent.

tennisIlove09
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:24 PM
No. Why? Cause at least she had won majors before. That's nothing compared to Kim and Amelie, IMO. BUt whatever. the rankings are just that...rankings. It's just a number ;)

bandabou
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:27 PM
And she might do it again this year..

buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:27 PM
No. Why? Cause at least she had won majors before. That's nothing compared to Kim and Amelie, IMO. BUt whatever. the rankings are just that...rankings. It's just a number ;)

I never really understood the 'never won a Slam' vs. 'won a slam' thing. Sure, Lindsay won Slams in 1998, 1999, and 2000. But she didn't win a Slam in 2001, when she was ranked #1. So, what, someone deserves #1 more if they won a Slam in the past, although not this year, than someone who has never won a Slam, but who had a better year?

buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:29 PM
And she might do it again this year..

Yeah, but this year is a bit different. For a variety of reasons, we have 4 different Slam winners, none of whom had great overall years. Davenport, who had just an incredible summer, would deserve #1 just as much if not more than any of these players. But in 2001, we had 2 players with 2 Slams each, and Jen had a great overall year, especially at the Slams.

Joana
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:30 PM
Apart from those 2 Slams Capriati only won 1 title that year, and after Wimbledon she wasn't playing that well, and she had a really bad indoor season.
Venus didn't play much that year, and she had that 1R loss at RG. She didn't play at all after USO.

Lindsay didn't win a Slam, but she went on a winning streak during the indoor season, and reached the YEC final when had to withdraw due to injury. She was able to reach the #1 because nobody was really dominating that year. True, Jennifer and Venus had a better year Slam-wise, but Lindsay used her chance to stockpile a huge number of points in the last 2 months of the year. After that, WTA decided to give away more points at Slams so it wouldn't happen again. :lol:

buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Apart from those 2 Slams Capriati only won 1 title that year, and after Wimbledon she wasn't playing that well, and she had a really bad indoor season.
Venus didn't play much that year, and she had that 1R loss at RG. She didn't play at all after USO.

Lindsay didn't win a Slam, but she went on a winning streak during the indoor season, and reached the YEC final when had to withdraw due to injury. She was able to reach the #1 because nobody was really dominating that year. True, Jennifer and Venus had a better year Slam-wise, but Lindsay used her chance to stockpile a huge number of points in the last 2 months of the year. After that, WTA decided to give away more points at Slams so it wouldn't happen again. :lol:

Yeah, but when you go W, W, SF, SF at the Slams, win another tournament, and have a pretty solid year otherwise, it's tough to lose #1 to somebody who missed a Slam and went QF, SF, SF in the others.

I Love Maria
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Davenport is actually a WINNER. So no, it is not a joke for her to be number 1!

bandabou
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:47 PM
Thing is that Lindsay plays a lot and on the two surfaces that you can win the most points happen to be her two best surfaces.....and then you get things like her being no.1 without even reaching a major f.

buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:57 PM
I guess my points are these:

-This year, none of the GS winners, either a) won more than 1 Slam, or b) did well at all 4 Slams.
-In '01, Capriati both a) won 2 Slams, and b) did well at all 4 Slams.

-This year, Mauresmo did well at all 4 Slams.
-in '01, Lindsay didn't even play the FO.

Andrew.
Sep 13th, 2004, 08:58 PM
No. She won seven titles and ended the year with a 15 match win streak.

buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:00 PM
No. She won seven titles and ended the year with a 15 match win streak.

Well, technically, she withdrew in her last match of the year, and I still don't see it. 7 titles, SF, SF, QF, n/a at the Slams does not equal 3 titles, W, W, SF, SF at the Slams.

Leo_DFP
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:09 PM
She won seven titles that year.

griffin
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:12 PM
The biggest joke to me is people wanting to tweak the ranking system because they don't like the result (which happened after Lindsay finished #1 in 2001, didn't it? or did people just make noise about it?).

It's not perfect, and I'm not opposed to seeing it change, but the perfect system doesn't exist.

faboozadoo15
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:14 PM
lindsay said it best herself "it's not my fault Jennifer didn't play well in anything BUT slams or that Venus won two slams and didn't do much more than that."

buscemi
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:20 PM
lindsay said it best herself "it's not my fault Jennifer didn't play well in anything BUT slams or that Venus won two slams and didn't do much more than that."

Let's see, in addition to the Slams (W, W, SF), Jen:

1) won in Charleston over Hingis
2) made 4 finals (losing to Seles, V. Williams, Mauresmo, and S. Williams)
3) lost in 5 SF
4) lost in 3 QF
5) lost in 1 R16 and 1 R32

That's a pretty damn good year.

cartmancop
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:30 PM
I don't think the rankings really mean anything. To me its more about who brings their best tennis to the big matces. Even though Mauresmo is now #1, do you think she will all of a sudden begin dominating Justine, Venus, or Serena.... I doubt it. I think the best tennis players are those who peak @ the majors & bring their 'A' game to the tournaments that really matter. If someone can win every tier 1 of the year but chokes in the GSs, they aren't deserving of the title of best player, no matter who it is.

bandabou
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:40 PM
One thing I know......Lindsay hasn´t been close to being the best player on the tour since ´00...but she´s consistent and doesn´t lose to players she isn´t supposed to lose to.

Helen Lawson
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Sorry, but the biggest damn joke ever was when I gave that tour de force career-making performance as a drunk in a musical with lots of 40's melodrama in a great noir and I lose Best Actress to a broad who played a maid who ran for Congress and had a light-hearted romance with Joseph Cotten!

Crazy_Fool
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Let's see, in addition to the Slams (W, W, SF), Jen:

1) won in Charleston over Hingis
2) made 4 finals (losing to Seles, V. Williams, Mauresmo, and S. Williams)
3) lost in 5 SF
4) lost in 3 QF
5) lost in 1 R16 and 1 R32

That's a pretty damn good year.
Her year fell away after RG, it was solid but nothing special.

I'm not sure Davenport getting to number 1 was a bigger joke than Kim getting to number 1, Amelie getting to number 1, or Hingis being number 1 years after she won a slam. But thats the ranking for you ;)

Loughyunijen
Sep 13th, 2004, 09:52 PM
lindsay deserves to be number one at the end of this year for sure.......2 semi finals and 6 tournies so far! Shes definately been the best person on the tour this year.....on an overall perspective.....she's had a very good constant year.......which is far more than any of the other players this year. Be t injury or whatever that has kept them out........they were out and not playing.........thus this year lindsay deserves to be number 1 at the end of the year........and i have no doubts in my mind that she wont be!