It has been noted that every year we see players reach gaudy heights by playing a lot, only to see them crash land the next year. They only way to tell if a player is really 'top ten' or 'top five' material, is to see them ranked there year after year. This is a high standard.
i.e. Serena Williams is a top ten player. She's one of the five best players in the world. She's not a top five player. Only one year she's been on the tour has she finished ranked that high. If you don't do it over time, it doesn't count.
Here's the whole top 20, by number of wins, then rank
*The players with less than 17 tournaments owe that to injury. There is no virtue attached to being at the top of the list. It's just means you're injury-prone.
Sometimes the number of wins can indicate something important. Consider
22 05 CLIJSTERS
17 06 MAURESMO
21 07 HENIN
It only took Amelie Mauresmo 17 tours to have the same effective ranking as Clijsters and Henin. To me, that makes it likelier that Amelie will hang around. Also, this is her second or third year in the top ten, so we know she's the real deal.
Maybe Anke Huber is retiring prematurely. Most of the players ranked ahead of her play WAY more than she does.
Martina Hingis is in the half of the top 20 that plays LESS.
Dokic and Shaughnessy are playing REALLY hard for their rankings. Dementieva has done nearly as well in four fewer tournaments. Clearly Elena is the likelier long term top ten presence.
27 10 DOKIC
27 12 SHAUGHNESSY
23 13 DEMENTIEVA
Oct 18th, 2001, 09:05 PM
So what you're trying to really say is how awesome Serena and Venus really are. Playing half as much as the other top 10 players and getting the same if not better results, thus the reason why they pull out of tournaments so often, because they can, and still be the best when it counts (at grand slams).
I really believe that Venus and Serena could care less about being number 1 and 2 in the world. For the past year it has been within reach for Venus and she still hasn't gone for it. But hey as long as you can still make more money from endorsements why play so much tennis.
Oct 18th, 2001, 09:16 PM
Your stars seem to be a little wrong. Venus' and Serena's low number of tournaments are slightly due to injuries, but mainly due to lack of interest, and due to that they do not deserve a better ranking, and all this ranting look quite silly imho.
Let's not forget one VERY important thing. The more you play, the harder it is to keep up the motivation. If you find an excuse to skip tournaments when you're not feeling at your best, you'll of course end up with good chances in the tournaments you actually do play. If you focus only on four tournaments a year, you will have good chances to top your form for them.
I'd say it's very likely that both Venus and Serena would actually have worse results if they played more, since they wouldn't be as hungry. So, I really don't buy this 'Venus'd be #1 if she played more' stuff just yet.
Oct 19th, 2001, 12:21 AM
I didn't get the point of this exercise- plus Davenport and Mauresmo, in addition to Monica, had a depressed tournament total due to injuries- and that really isn't the main reason that Venus and Serena have a lower total. They've never complained about their rankings...
If they played week in and week out many would still complain about them... While I wish they played more, I'm satisfied that they are doing what's in their best interest... After all there's life beyond tennis <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/eek.gif" border="0">
Amazing. You ALL missed the point. Different ways too.
supremeross - What I'm really saying is what I actually said. All being at the top of this list means is you're injury-prone.
smygelfh - I know Venus and Serena both scheduled more than 17 tournaments this year. I also know they both missed some due to injury.
How did any of you get the idea that this was about the rankings of the Williams sisters.
READ THE POST. The WHOLE post.
It compares Henin, Mauresmo and Clijsters.
It compares Dokic, Dementieva and Shaughnessy.
I don't see Venus Williams being compared to anyone. I don't see any questioning of Venus's rank. What would the number of tournaments they play in a year tell you about a multiple GS winner in her prime anyway? This won't tell you much about Venus or Lindsay or Jenn. It might say a lot about Clisters.
What's the point? If I started a thread with, 'the sky is blue', you people would respond that 'Venus's is the truee Venus oesn't care about blue, that why it's a bad color'.
Somebody tell me how to delete the threads I start. This is absurd.
Oct 19th, 2001, 03:24 AM
I am so confused by the stats you posted? Number of wins? And are those tournaments strictly 2001 or 52-week?
And how are we to judge the nature and/or impact of players' particular injuries? Or scheduling? Davenport missed the clay court season, the least inopportune time for her to be injured. Hingis showed up at Wimbledon hurt and paid for it embarrassingly. Mauresmo smartly scheduled her events to minimize injury and somehow avoided some BIG competition. Henin overscheduled her first half of the year because she didn't expect to win as many matches as she did. Then she paid for that and for playing with a somewhat bad foot/ankle and had to sit out for a month. So did Hingis.
And the Williams Sisters schedule their tournaments to avoid eachother, in addition to being injured and outside interests.
They only count the Best 17 for rankings. If you go over that it simply allows the not-so-good results to be thrown out. So Silvia Farina Elia played oodles of tournaments. They only count 17. It's not like all those extra tourneys get added in somehow.
Something to note: At the start of 2001, Shaughnessy, Henin and Farina Elia were ranked much lower than everyone else on the list. Early on, they had to play smaller tourneys and didn't have the advantages of being seeded like the other players. They needed those middling points just to avoid qualifying!