View Full Version : Could controversy arise on ranking if...?

Oct 24th, 2001, 04:42 AM
If Lindsay finishes the year as #1? I think she has a losing record against both Williams...2-1 over Capriati but a loss at Major...added to that no GS titles in almost 2 years...Will there be controversy?....Will she REALLY be a worthy #1?

Oct 24th, 2001, 05:56 AM
I would be more comfortable with Lindsay as the number 1, as opposed to Jen. I think Lindsay is the better player.

We all understand why Venus and Serena aren't ranked as high as they should be and the stupid terrorists have f**ked everything else up, so why not the wta rankings?

Lindsay should be number 1 until Venus can get back on schedule.

Oct 24th, 2001, 06:00 AM
I agree with RMC.

Lindsay is better player than Jen

Big Lindsay
Oct 24th, 2001, 06:10 AM
The truth is, we have been spoiled by our great past champions. When Graf, Seles, Navratilova and Evert were ranked #1, they won slams and several other tournaments during the year, and held a winning head to head record over trhe majority of the top 10.

Today, the way they do the points system, the #1 ranking only indicates who is the best over all performer, not the best player. In my opinion Venus is the true #1 player, I don't care how many tournaments she did not play.

Venus won 2 slams, 6 events overall, and holds a winning head to head record over all the other top players ... nobody else does.

Blessings And Aloha
Oct 24th, 2001, 06:36 AM
isnt Venus 1-1 this year agianst Martina. For some reason MArtina plays better when she goes up against Venus.

Big Lindsay
Oct 24th, 2001, 06:40 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Blessings And Aloha:<br /><strong>isnt Venus 1-1 this year agianst Martina. For some reason MArtina plays better when she goes up against Venus.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, Venus is 1 and 1 with Martina this year, but Venus has a winning record against Davenport, Capriati and Seles ... while Hingis does not. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Oct 24th, 2001, 06:42 AM
Lindsay has proven her worth as a No.1 before, thus there will be no controversy if she finishes as No.1 this year. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> It's not something like new to her. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: jomar ]</p>

Oct 24th, 2001, 07:32 AM
Lindsay may get there after Chase Champs but come a week later or so she will lose it again when her points for Philly from last year (400 odd) drop off.

Lindsay hasn't won a Slam this year but she has had a very consistent year achieving highly in nearly every event she played - 6 titles, 2 semis in Slams and finals in other events. Perhaps not the best year but not a shabby year!!!

I just wish Venus would play more - win more - get to #1 so everyone would stop whining about the rankings system! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" />

Crazy Canuck
Oct 24th, 2001, 07:35 AM
If Lindsay finishes the year number one, she will have accumulated the most points over a 52 week period. In which case, of course she would deserve it.<br />The rankings are set up the same way for every single player, and each and every player who gets to number 1 deserves that ranking.

The only confusion that exists, is when people propose the rankings should be based on ability, not just results. I would be thrilled to see someone formulate a mathematical model of such a ranking system, that is not subjective in anyway whatsoever. I don't think it can be done, but woudl be thrilled to be proved wrong.

Oct 24th, 2001, 07:37 AM
As long as Venus isn't #1, any #1 will be controversial in many people's mind.

This will be the case until WTA changes the rankings system to suit the huge majority of people who can't remember more than a couple of months back, or until Venus actually cares enough to play 17 tournaments and prove the thesis of her supremacy right or wrong.

The rankings reflect the best player over the last year. If I go to an arbitrary tournament during a year, who will I be most likely to see in the semis and finals? The #1! Not the 'best' player who decided to stay home that week.

If I want to know who is best at the moment, I just check the final in the last tournament(s).

Oct 24th, 2001, 07:37 AM
The person who ends the year at number 1, is the number 1.<br />No controversy, No bleating from slighted fans....

Oct 24th, 2001, 10:43 AM
The thing before was only 1 woman dominated for long periods

Evert .... then Martina N , then along came Steffi who did brill until being upstaged by Monica who was totally dominant until "that incident" , when Steffi resumed until injury ....... which gave Hingis the limelight.

Now its anyone's guess to who is the best , in a couple of years or so it will be more like the ATP where anyone can beat anyone .

Still in the majors the cream will rise to the top just like it happens on the mens side.

Oct 24th, 2001, 10:55 AM
I can only agree with TBE...

The fact is that all the women who ruled their decade played lots of matches, while these days the topplayers seem to play less tournements.<br />Or at least they seem to be concentrating on the Grand Slams only. That's why the top is getting bigger and bigger. <br />It's clear that Hingis isn't the best player of the world at the moment. But still she was on the first place for so long, just because she played lots of tournements and gathered points everywhere.

So we'll have to wait for a very good player who plays a lot, and then we'll have again a player who can rule her decade...

Oct 24th, 2001, 12:54 PM
i think lindsay would totally deserve it, its not ALL about winning slams, it about doing well at them, consistancy against other top players, and lindsay has been consistant - apart from the french where she could attend, but I reckon if she gets it she deserves it,

Oct 24th, 2001, 01:15 PM
Sorry Per4ever, but the AVERAGE number of events Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Seles played was about 14. If you don't believe me go the International Tennis Federation website. All of this craziness with the computer started with the quantity over quality rankings system introduced in 1997.

Davenport as computer #1 would just make the computer more irrelevant. Hats off to Lindsay for joking about it with the press the other day. If it happens, at least she won't be caught up in the mess like Hingis was.

To most people #1 equals the BEST. <br />Venus was the best player of 2001. Not by a wide margin, since Capriati had 2 slams too-but since Venus won all 3 meetings, she ranks ahead.

Having a slamless #1 is a joke. Period. If only Venus fans thought so, then others such as myself, Big Lindsay, or most of the world's tennis press wouldn't be speaking up. I'll be the first in line to say I think Venus should play more, but that doesn't change the fact that 2001 she proved she was the best player.

Oct 24th, 2001, 01:37 PM
There wouldn't be so much "craziness" over the ranking system if they rewarded EVERYONE for a job well done. For 2 years straight, Venus has been the best player on the tour. There was no competion in 2000, but Jen gave a good go in 2001. Someone said that Jen started the year at #14. She won 2 GS and had wonderful showings the rest of the year. Venus was seeded #5 at Wimbledon 2000. She moved up to #3 after winning Wimbledon. After the 35 match win streak and a Semifinal loss at Aus 2001, she only moved up to #2 briefly. She repeated Wimbledon and US Open, as well as 4 other tournament titles. Only to move backwards in the rankings, #4. Jen's performance in 2001 alone moved her up 13 spots. How the hell is this? Forget that excused of not playing. You don't win 35 straight matching by not playing. She's played 12 tourneys this year, winning 6 of them. The whole system seems shady to me. If Venus had gotten her usual results (before winning Wimbledon 2000), then there wouldn't be a case against the system. I just don't see how you can win as much as Venus does, and not be rewarded for it in the rankings.

Oct 24th, 2001, 02:09 PM
[quote]If Lindsay finishes the year as #1? I think she has a losing record against both Williams...2-1 over Capriati but a loss at Major...added to that no GS titles in almost 2 years...Will there be controversy?....Will she REALLY be a worthy #1? <hr></blockquote>

I don't think so ... If she goes on to win both Linz and Chase (especially if she beats #1 along the way), then she would be deserving of the ranking... Hingisova ended last year ranked #1 without a grandslam although with the most titles, so Lindsay ending 2001 at #1 should not be deemed contoversial IMHO...

After all, this is the way the system is set up, so Lindsay should not be faulted... Knowing the person she is, we all know that she will not be comfortable in that spot having not won any slams this year anyway...

Oct 24th, 2001, 02:34 PM
There are a few glitches in the system and it could use a tweak here or there, but broadly speaking the rankings are fair and whoever is at the top deserves it.

Right now, that is Jennifer. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Oct 24th, 2001, 03:06 PM
Capriati deserved her #1-but it reflects the reality of a few months ago, not now. And while I would argue Venus is the best player now, she hasn't totally dominated either year. Other than Wimbledon,she hasn't done much outside of the United States or off hard courts. No French Open(not even a semifinal yet), no Aussie, no WTA final. She has yet to prove she can win the majors on all surfaces. Until we get another "dominator" there will be some question mark over any #1.

Oct 24th, 2001, 11:07 PM

Oct 24th, 2001, 11:16 PM
INFINITI2001 JUST VIST YOUR SITE,NICE.KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.I WILL VISIT ALWAYS.TO ONE LOYAL WILLIAMS FAN TO ANOTHER.PEACE ONE LOVE. <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" /> <img src="graemlins/wavey.gif" border="0" alt="[Wavey]" /> <img src="graemlins/hearts.gif" border="0" alt="[Hearts]" /> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Oct 25th, 2001, 12:25 AM
I haven't checked everybodys stats (because I can't get back on the bloody site) but looking at Lindsay's, she has managed to reach the quarter finals at least of every tournement she has played I think that is pretty good going by anyones standards (didn't VW and MH get knocked out in the First rounds of grand slam this year)

Lindsay's win/loss is 55-9, No of events played 16 and 64 matches played

<img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" /> <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" /> <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" /> GO LINDSAY

Oct 25th, 2001, 02:15 AM
I doubt Venus could play 17++ events in a year. She seems to injury prone to play 4 weeks in a row which is what you really need to do to get your number of tournaments per year up in the 20's.

Until Venus finds a way to play 20-21 tournaments she or her fans have no right to argue the rankings.

Rules are rules, they ranking system is set out in black and white - minimum of 17 tournaments per year is the standard - if you can't reach that how can you consider yourself to be the best player??

It is a lot harder to be consistent over 20-21 events than it is over 12 (see Venus' total for this year so far!)

Oct 25th, 2001, 05:27 AM
Pisces, did Jennifer take your lunch money or something? <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" />

Oct 25th, 2001, 05:29 AM
I look at the rankings this way....no matter what Jennifer can always say she was #1. I dont care if she loses it this year. She will always be French Open and Australian Open champion...She will always be an Olympic Gold Medalist....Congrats on a great year and Congrats to Lindsay and Venus on great years also...Good luck to all 3...USA!

Oct 25th, 2001, 05:52 AM
How pathetic to use someone's injury against her? What is this -- The Taliban?

Looking back at the injury list this year, I believe we had Martina twice, Lindsay twice, Serena several times, Monica, Anna.... Was there anyone who wasn't injured at all this year? Capriati said she was exhausted at one point, and I think Dokic did the same, as did Henin.

I don't think Venus is any more injury prone than the next lady.

Oct 25th, 2001, 05:55 AM
I just want to say that the ranking is a SYSTEM. And the numbers never say who is the best player. When Hingis remain as the #1 for so long, a lot of people said she didn't deserve it, or worst SHE WAS NOT THE BEST PLAYER.

I think the same is happening now with Jennifer, She had a great start this year, she won two grand slams, and Charleston,and the rest of the year she did nothing. SO.....

I think that VENUS WILLIAMS IS THE BEST PLAYER, even now she is ranked #4, and God knows I want her to play more tournaments, of course, but the real thing is that all the sports journalist say that the best player is VENUS, WHY SO?


Also she is in controversy because of her withdrawls, her father, etc... But I think her game is amazing, she is N# 1, even the ranking shows another thing.

I am tired of talking about it <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: LucasArg ]</p>

Oct 25th, 2001, 07:19 AM
IF Venus isn't injury prone then why has she only played 12 events this year???????

Are you saying she pulls out of tournaments for no good reason and doesn't fulfill her commitment to the tour like a good professional???

cause I am cool with that excuse as well.

<img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" /> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" />

Oct 25th, 2001, 07:42 AM
The reality is folks in order for a player to be number one she has to play the tournaments. That is the reality of the current ranking system even if a player has won a couple of Grand Slams.

Crazy Canuck
Oct 25th, 2001, 09:18 AM
Shane: whoever took pisces lunch money appears to have taken his class as well <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Oct 25th, 2001, 09:56 AM

The Crow
Oct 25th, 2001, 10:14 AM
It's always the same old discussion. Martina didn't deserve it cause she hadn't won any slams recently. Lindsay doesn't deserve it for the same reason (although apparently, there are people now who think Lindsay deserves it more than Martina <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> ). Jencap apparently doesn't deserve despite winning 2 slams.... Venus doesn't deserve it because of playing not enough tournaments.

This discussion is getting boring.

There are a number of ranking systems possible. The WTA has chosen one, the players know all the rules, so the player who has the number 1 right now, was the best during the past 52 weeks and that's it!

Oct 26th, 2001, 10:13 AM
Kudos the Crow nobody could have said it any better.

The ranking system is not changing anytime soon so everybody just needs to get over it.

Oct 26th, 2001, 03:12 PM

Oct 26th, 2001, 03:46 PM
One thing I have noticed is when I joined Sanex in Jan this year, a number of Williams fans, (you included Lucas) went on and on how Grand slams were the only important thing, there fore Venus was number 1....Then Jen won 2 Grand slams, then all of a sudden it was what you did in ALL the big events, not Just Slams...Now Venus has a defended her 2 Grandslams most of you are confused on everything about Rankings, except Venus should be number 1. Venus is number 4, that is where she deserves to be at this stage because of her own scheduling..it is no one elses fault bar her...She will be number 3 next week because of Martina's injury, but do you here Hingis fans whinging about the system? No!, and the reason is quite clear, it is the system that is being used and the correct player has been rewarded for her success over the full year. How anyone can suggest that someone who hasn't/cannot play a full season (And I believe she is yet to do so in her career), and not understand why she is not number 1, seems unlikely to understand Tennis at all.

The Crow
Oct 26th, 2001, 08:18 PM
Thanks Jakeev!

Oct 26th, 2001, 09:43 PM
Lucas-while I do feel Venus is #1 for the year(unless Capriati wins Munich), it wasn't fair to say she's done "nothing the rest of the year" after Paris. She was the only player to make ALL 4 semis in the slams-and her defeats have come against top women. That's not nothing. Venus literally HAS done nothing since the US Open. Last year that wasn't so big a deal because no one else had 2 slams, but this year Jen does. The ONLY reason I'd give Venus an edge is her 3-0 record vs. Capriati this year. All those matches were on hard courts though.

Venus played an entire season in 1999.

Oct 26th, 2001, 10:03 PM
Adrian: I agree with you 100%

LucasArg: What the heck is that"Jen has done nothing after Charlston". Do you follow tennis at all? I don't think so. Shut the hell up buddy!

Oct 26th, 2001, 10:17 PM
Jenifer won 2 Grand Slams and one tournament, so after her succesfully first half of the season, now that she is #1, she did NOTHING...

I like to have friends like you Adrian <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" />

Oct 26th, 2001, 10:41 PM
Venus has played more than 17 tourneys. In 98 and 99, so there. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

look it up if you don't believe me. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Oct 26th, 2001, 10:59 PM
Venus is not that injury prone. Do you remember New Haven and the schedule just before the USopen? Venus played Henin and Capriati on the same day and Davenport less than 18 hours alter. Umm... <br />I think tour officials have to think more about players health, Venus had also had a tough draw. she played a top player everyday. <br />Venus is the tru number one.

Oct 27th, 2001, 07:13 PM
Actually, I really don't care who is #1, #2, or #3 because the players already know the answer to these questions. Take Hingis at the U.S. Open for example, she was ranked #1 while Serena was ranked #10. If and when Serena plays her game, the supposed #1 player has no chance. None! So much for the rankings. Look at the Pilot Pen, Venus defeated the #6, #2, #3 all in a 27 hr period ranked #4. So what do these rankings mean? Nothing other than someone amassed the most points in a 52 week period. But there has always been one unwritten rule in all of sport.....to be the best you must beat the best. That, is what must be inculcated into people's minds and the rankings.

Oct 27th, 2001, 09:43 PM
NOT The Rankinsg Argument AGAIN.

1. It's no use saying "Serena thrashed Martina on X date, so she's the real number one." On date Y Martina thrashed Serena and Venus.

2. The reason why there is so much argument as to who is the REAL No 1 is that we do not have a dominant player at present.

We've been so used to totally dominant Number Ones like Evert, Navratilova, Graf and early Hingis that now, when we have players who can't dominate everybody else in the sport - we get confused.

But that's why we have ranking systems - they are an impartial way to determine who gets the seedings and tournament rankings.

3. ALL players know what they have to do to get the top rankings - if they don't do it they can't complain. Some posters seem to think their favourite player should be ranked higher because they've won more head-to-heads, or they've been more consistent in a smaller number of tournaments. But head-to-head results depend on chance factors such as how particular players felt on a particular day - or how they cope with a certain surface. Rankings are based on a whole year's performance.

Relying on averaging out the number of tournaments actually played would unfairly benefit players who play part-time. Where do you stop? Win 6 out of 8 tournaments and be Number One ahead of someone who played a full season? Not very good for tennis. Players have to prove they can keep up good results over a FULL season to be number One. If they can't do that, the honour of the individual titles will have to be enough.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: xan ]</p>

Dawn Marie
Oct 28th, 2001, 05:21 AM
Controversy will arise no mater what .. PERIOD!

But the bottom line is this: Venus is whipping that ASS!! HA HA. She is breaking records! She won back to back slams.. HA HA! She is winning PERIOD. This is making her happy and me happy.. that #! ranking is what Venus is making it out to be .. NOTHING but a number. She is smart and knows that when she decides to play more that it will come... SHE knows that it is hers for the taking. Venus won 4 slams.. and imho that is a helluva lot better than winng no slams and being #1 for years.. LIKE WHO CARES.

Tennis is a CONSTANT motion.... WE want to see our players /our favs WINNING Slams yearly and huge tier 1's!! I dont think we as fans really give a damn about the #1 rank.. WE WISH for our favs to win SLAMS! the same for them! They would rather have slam wins! And to be honest it wasnt that long ago that Venus was SLAMLESS!!.. so I am so darn Happy that she has 4 already under belt.. HA HA. Venus is doing what is right.. she is WINNING huge tourneys and SLAMS. #1 is just a matter of time.

Fearless Venus rulez and I know you all are SCARED.. HA HA. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Oct 28th, 2001, 05:33 AM
Most of Jen fans has the same atittude as herserlf. She gets mad when she loose, she gets mad when Lindsay say she thinks as a number n#1 when she plays Venus, same as you.

First of all buddies, Jenn did a great season, and probably The HOLLYWOOD WTA gives her the award of the player of the year, because of her past, and how she recovered it...bla, bla bla bla.

ok? She is ranked n#1, THAT IS CORRECT, BUT SHE IS NOT THE BEST PLAYER, OK??????

VENUS RULES WTA <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" />

Oct 28th, 2001, 05:51 AM
Well said, Dawn Marie

Oct 28th, 2001, 07:13 AM
As a Jenn and Lindsay fan, I do agree that Venus is the # 1 player. BUT don't forget that Jenn won 2 GS and 2 semifinals. That's a great achievement, isn't it?<br />My point: Jenn should also be recognized and not being treated that she didn't do anything this year.<br />Goodluck Jenn and Lindsay.. <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" /> <br />Welcome back Monica ..She's back <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" />

Oct 28th, 2001, 04:11 PM
My post was not to advocate Serena as #1 but to say as other posters have already stated that the ranking system is meaningless. What sense does it make to have the #1 player as the underdog in most finals. To have the #1 one player ridiculed on prime time TV on her inability not to defeat but even compete with the #10 player.