View Full Version : Yearend #1

Oct 22nd, 2001, 05:08 PM
Now it looks like Lindsay has a real shot at it.
Particularly, winning next 8 matches - i.e., winning Linz and Munich practically guarantees it to her. And if that would happen, I'd think that she would be the player who really deserved #1, because she'd end up winning 9 titles in this year, by far more than anyone else..

Crazy Canuck
Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:01 PM
Not sure if your trying to start something here or not...<br />REgardless... yes, if Lindsay ends the year number one she will deserve it. Whoever accumulates the most points over a 52 week period deserves to be number 1. Period.

Ys, I DO find it odd however that you consider Jenn, holder of two slams this year, to be a "weak number one", and Lindsay would be "deserving".

While I don't disagree Lindsay would be deserving, I disagree withyour reason, which contradicts itself in both cases.

Personally I hope jenn finished number1, but if she doesn't, I'll give LIndsay her deserved props for being the top ranked player in the world. (its worth noting that even if she doesn't get it now, she has a good chance by after Oz).

I wish you could do the same for Jenn.

Crazy Canuck
Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:02 PM
That post was just riddled with typos...<br />But I am far to lazy to fix them <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> sorry

(reason, should be reasoning though)

Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:15 PM
actually if lindsay wins linz and munich she will have 8 not 9 titles,and yes i do think she will have deserved it but looking at the number of tournaments a player has won doesn't anything,even lindsay said that if she were to finish the year number 1 that the press would eat at her because she didn't a grand slam,besides unless capriati does absolutely horribly at the chase it is most likely she will finish first.

Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:30 PM
um, not wanting to get drawn or anything, but ys you say it like 'all Lindsay has to do is win Linz and Munich'. That's no mean feat. For any player.

Linds is on a hot streak atm, no doubt. Linds has a shot, but I'd make Jen the overwhelming fave to hang on through yearend.

Also: personally, I feel that even if linds did win Munich, Capriati would still be my bet for the #1 this year (as in the #1 player/ranking/yada yada).

Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:40 PM
Capriati had plenty of chances to prove that her two Slams were not an incredible fluke. I think, it was a fluke, at Aus Open everyone underestimated her, at French Open two contenders who were given the biggest odds of winning it befoer the start - Williams and Mauresmo lost the first round, and Capriati didn't have to play a single player who's done anything on clay this year. Four last rounds - Shaugnessy, Serena, Clijsters - who have never done anything on clay, and Hingis, who forgot how to play after her loss to Clijsters at IW. So she had plenty of chances to prove that that was not a fluke, but she failed to win a tournament after French Open. Lindsay, on the other side, had very solid year winning tournaments on nearly monthly basis ( in csae she played in that month ).<br />In June I was saying (and not only me ) that Capriati will be deserving #1 if she keeps winning. She didn't.

Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:51 PM
I am a HUGE Lindsay fan but if she gets to number 1 I don't think she fully deserves it. Yes in some ways because of consistency and managing to win title after title but she didn't win Slams and I always seem to think the players who win the slams are more deserving of the Number 1 ranking. As much as I hate yo admit that seeing as I don't care for Venus or Jennifer.

Here's a quote Lindsay said, <br />"Mathematically, I don't know if it is possible for me to finish the year No. 1. It isn't my goal. Having not won any Grand Slams this season, if I were to become No. 1, you guys would barbecue me."

lol! And they would too!

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Viva ]</p>

Oct 23rd, 2001, 04:15 PM
ys, thanks for expanding on your point, cause it clears things up for me!

I get what you're saying: Capriati needs to keep winning to maintain her momentum and her ranking. I thoroughly agree there. But, even given Linds' current good form, Capriati is consistently getting to finals and semi-finals. I think Capriati deserves the #1 player more than anyone else on her current record. More than Venus and more than Lindsay.

And if I hear again about weak draws, I mean c'mon, is that Jen's fault? I think that Jen was - lucky is the wrong word - fortunate to win Oz and RG perhaps (for the reasons you've suggested), but she still did it. Weak(er) draws don't matter, because whoever you are and whoever you're playing, you still have to go out there and win 7 matches.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: thefreedesigner ]</p>

Crazy Canuck
Oct 23rd, 2001, 06:22 PM
ys: how can you say a player winning TWO slams in a row is a fluke?<br />That is the most idiodic thing I have EVER heard. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about tennis, should know that you can't fluke two slams! (or any slam for that matter..anyone who wins a slam deserves full credit for it).<br />The two players who were picked as faves going into the French Open, were simple not good enough to win it this year. Jenn was. She beat Serena, who on any surface is one of the top 5 players. And spare me the garbage about how Serena wasn't prepared...she routinely isn't prepared (in the traditional sense) and still wins! <br />Hingis on clay, is one of the top 3 players on clay. She has been to the French Open final twice, and in the semis a couple times to boot. Beating her on clay at Rolang Garros is something that a select few lay claim to: Mary Pierce, Iva Majoli, Steffi Graf...all eventually winners! And Monica, a 3 time winner, one of the beat EVER on clay. Do don't try to make it sound like beating Hingis on clay was an easy draw!

Back to Oz.... Jenn had a forgettable start of the year in the tune ups, and nearly got upset in the first round by Nagyova (spelling?). Then she quietly made her way through the draw, where she ran into long time nemisis Monica Seles and beat her in a slam for the first time EVER. Then she runs into Davenport, who had been playing well by they way, and was the defending champion...straight sets. Then she players Hingis, who is in her fifth straight final and KNOWS how to play on the rebound ace. You mean to tell me that was easy?

Ys.... suggesting her slams were flukes is almost as idiotic as the people who suggest that all 5 of Hingis' are <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . It also shows a complete lack of understanding for the womens game.

Jenn has accomplished more this year, than you ever will in your life, so why don't you get over youself already?

Crazy Canuck
Oct 23rd, 2001, 06:25 PM
I do agree that in order to maintain her ranking she will have to keep winning and being consistent.<br />Mind you, she has been consistently reaching semis since the French Open. However, people fail to notice this fact, and keep implying that she is losing in the first round again...<br />She is being as consistent as Hingis was this year when she kept her ranking, except Jenn has two slams to back it up (I hope Hingis can again some day too <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ).

However, now that people can't pick on Hingis for being number one, they pick on Jenn.


Crazy Canuck
Oct 23rd, 2001, 06:30 PM
errmm...I realize I was a little ah..bitchy in those posts.<br />But I get very angry when people try to take away from a players accomplishments.<br />I fail to see what is so wrong with someone elses life they have to pick apart at others..<br />So I get quite emotional.<br />Sorry to those who I may have offended in the process, but thats how I feel.

Oct 23rd, 2001, 07:02 PM
It is so fun to watch you get going, Becca.. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

>>> It also shows a complete lack of <br />>>> understanding for the womens game

Now, that's where you are expert, huh? Wasn't that you always saying that your specialisation is ATP? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

>>> Mind you, she has been consistently reaching >>> semis since the French Open

Do you know how many semis has Anna K. reached last year? I wonder why she is not #1.. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Oct 23rd, 2001, 07:03 PM
At least Davenport recognized how silly it would look to be a #1 without a slam on your current resume. If she wins the Aussie in January though,<br />LD deserves it.

If Lindsay wins this week, will she get to #1, or only close? It makes a difference because the next points to come off are last year's Philadelphia event, where she made the finals or won.

Oct 23rd, 2001, 07:09 PM
This is the Chase Championship Ranking from Jannack site as of 10/23, could someone tell me if the Advanta points are already factored in for the top 4.

01 J.CAPRIATI....... 4772 0 4772 01<br />02 L.DAVENPORT...... 4173 1 4174 02<br />03 V.WILLIAMS....... 4128 0 4128 03<br />04 M.HINGIS......... 3946 0 3946 04

Oct 23rd, 2001, 07:37 PM
The math is pretty simple, Davenport needs to win Linz and Munich. If she beats anyone other than Capriati in the final of Munich, she will be #1. If she beats Capriati in the final of Munich, it might all come to who collects more bonus points on the way.

Davenport is currently 598 points behind<br />If Davenport wins Linz beating Bedanova, Testud, Tauziat and Henin, it will give her 333 points and that will reduce difference to 265 points. If Davenport beats Capriati in the final of Munich, that win alone would give her 227 points, reducing the gap to mere 38 points. Can Davenport earn more than 38 pints more than Capriati on her way to Munich finals? It is not impossible.

Oct 23rd, 2001, 07:48 PM
Does Davy still get to #1 if Jen loses in the semis at Munich?

Oct 23rd, 2001, 07:56 PM
yes, of course..

Oct 23rd, 2001, 10:11 PM
I do hope Jenny ends the year at number 1, she surely deserves.

By the way, do the weeks of inactivity of the tour count as weeks at number 1. I mean, from the end of November, throughout December and the begining of January, nothing happens on the tour, but if Jenny is number 1 year end, do those weeks count towards her total weeks at number 1?

Hope someone can clear that up for me!

Brian Stewart
Oct 24th, 2001, 04:10 PM
Yes, the offseason counts toward weeks at #1.