PDA

View Full Version : Best Years With Suprisingly Low Rankings


Geisha
Mar 7th, 2008, 07:41 PM
Serena's win over Rodionova today got me thinking about her consistency over the past year, and her ranking outside the Top Ten.

I find it sort of ridiculous. She's played twelve tournaments - she won the biggest tournament outside the Majors at Miami. She lost in the quarterfinals of the four other Majors, Rome, and Stuttgart, finals in Moscow, and now the semifinals in Bangalore.

It got me thinking about other players who have had low rankings, but their results say otherwise.

Anybody else have other ideas?

Kworb
Mar 7th, 2008, 07:52 PM
It's all about playing more to get decent points from 17 tournaments. I think Serena's ranking is accurate.

Slumpsova
Mar 7th, 2008, 09:03 PM
when you play only 10 or 12 in the last 52 weeks, you need to win or reach the final in most of them to stay in top ten. QF in slams doesn't help at all bc the others are win like 2-3 titles and got more points.

Tennisstar86
Mar 7th, 2008, 09:07 PM
quarterfinals in a slam really isnt a "Great" result when you dont play anywhere else... if you think that means you're 1 of 8 girls to get to that round or better... essentially she would be "top 8 if thats all the points you get, but its not... If you notice theres a big drop off between top 8 and 9 as far as points. like 500 i think or somethin like that.... that dif is Serenas lack or other tournaments...

faboozadoo15
Mar 7th, 2008, 09:07 PM
Miami isn't the biggest outside the slams-- that was Madrid. Serena didn't win a match there.

Her results aren't terrible, but each of the women ranked above her have been more impressive either by getting better results of playing a hell ov a lot more, or a combination of both.

Cp6uja
Mar 7th, 2008, 09:15 PM
BTW... last week Serena is only player in TOP10 which not have any "atleast SF" result in her ranking record (now its Dementieva which overtake Ree).

AcesHigh
Mar 7th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Miami isn't the biggest outside the slams-- that was Madrid. Serena didn't win a match there.

Miami is harder to win than Madrid. The players are fresh and the field is usually complete. Also, you lose once and you're out. It's called the 5th slam for a reason.

Dave.
Mar 7th, 2008, 09:26 PM
The YEC is better to win in terms of quality of tournament, but yes I think Miami is perhaps more difficult to win.

Anyway, Serena had a good year-end ranking of 7 last year, her best since 2004. This was because she finally, for the first time since 04, was playing consistent tennis everywhere. It would have been nice to see her beat Henin in one of those Slam QF's, but at least she was getting to those stages instead of losing 3R to the Craybases of the tour. Apart from tournaments she had to retire from, she reached the QF everywhere else. That is what it takes to maintain top 10.

She didn't get any higher though, because Henin, Kuznetsova, Jankovic, Ivanovic etc. were better throughout the year and were playing and winning in more events. So they fully deserved to be there.

tennisbear7
Mar 7th, 2008, 10:48 PM
She was still the third best player of the year behind Venus and Justine.

Just because of that AO title.

MakarovaFan
Mar 7th, 2008, 11:37 PM
when you play only 10 or 12 in the last 52 weeks, you need to win or reach the final in most of them to stay in top ten. QF in slams doesn't help at all bc the others are win like 2-3 titles and got more points.
Yea enter Nicole.....her slams were SF,QF,QF and 3rd...plus she consistently reached QF or better in 6 of the other 8 events she played(all Tier 2 or above) yet she ended at 12 last year!

Geisha
Mar 8th, 2008, 02:18 AM
quarterfinals in a slam really isnt a "Great" result when you dont play anywhere else... if you think that means you're 1 of 8 girls to get to that round or better... essentially she would be "top 8 if thats all the points you get, but its not... If you notice theres a big drop off between top 8 and 9 as far as points. like 500 i think or somethin like that.... that dif is Serenas lack or other tournaments...

You people like to pick and choose parts of others' posts.

I said that she had great results, yes. But, I did not mention only Majors.

WON - Miami (I)
QF - Rome (I)
QF - Paris (GS)
QF - Wimbledon (GS)
QF - New York (GS)
QF - Stuttgart (II)
F - Moscow (I)

Those are some terrific results for someone who ISN'T RANKED IN THE TOP TEN, is what I've been saying. I can't think of any other players in the past five years who have had that type of record and not been in the top ten - maybe Davenport in '02.

AcesHigh
Mar 8th, 2008, 02:27 AM
You people like to pick and choose parts of others' posts.

I said that she had great results, yes. But, I did not mention only Majors.

WON - Miami (I)
QF - Rome (I)
QF - Paris (GS)
QF - Wimbledon (GS)
QF - New York (GS)
QF - Stuttgart (II)
F - Moscow (I)

Those are some terrific results for someone who ISN'T RANKED IN THE TOP TEN, is what I've been saying. I can't think of any other players in the past five years who have had that type of record and not been in the top ten - maybe Davenport in '02.

No, those are not terrific results.. especially for someone who plays so little. Look who's ahead of her. Even Bartoli has a slam final in her record while Serena doesn't have a slam SF. Also, Serena has only one title.. and only two finals appearances.

And it's not like she's outside the top 20. She's 30-10 in the last 12 months(not counting Bangalore). In 2003, Venus went 26-5 and although she missed half a season, she made two slam finals, won a Tier II, made another Tier II and still ranked outside the top 10. It's quantity over quality in many cases and even then, Serena hasn't been THAT great.

Kworb
Mar 8th, 2008, 02:59 AM
And this is a year when many top tournaments went to one player. I can imagine that in a more competitive year the players just outside the top 10 had even better results in the past 12 months.

Geisha
Mar 8th, 2008, 03:38 AM
For example, if we look at Seles' '00-'01 seasons.

Monica reached the four GS QFs, like Serena. She won one title (Tier II, Oklahoma City) compared to Serena's Miami. She reached the QFs in Sydney and the SF in Stanford and Scottsdale. She did reach the finals of three tournaments, which is what makes her year better...but still. She was ranked #4 at one point. So, 11 spots ahead of Serena? By only playing three more tournaments? Oh, and Serena even had a better win-loss percentage.

Geisha
Mar 8th, 2008, 03:39 AM
But, we don't have to focus on Serena's year.

This is meant to spark discussion over a variety of players.

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 8th, 2008, 07:37 AM
I get the observation Geisha is making and it's a good one. I challenge anyone to find a player on tour, past or present, that made four consecutive grandslam QFs and wasn't ranked in the top ten. Good luck with that! I think that's the point the thread starter was trying to make, she's not saying that Serena should be ahead of the other girls who play more of a full schedule- or that Serena doesn't deserve her ranking. She's just saying that the results don't mirror the ranking. And after you go searching you'll see that almost every player, with the exception of Serena, that has showed that kind of consistency in the slams always has a higher ranking. Instead some of you are too hung up on trying say that her results "really" aren't that great...

The truth is it's unusual for a player to have that kind of consistency in the slams and not have a top ten ranking. Of course her ranking makes perfect sense when we take into account the amount of tournaments she's played. Players that show that kind of consistency in the slams sually have better results in the smaller tournaments as well.

The logical thinking is that if you're good enough to show that kind of consistency in the slams, then you should be good enough to win more titles- easier titles, at the Tier 2s and Tier 1 events.

So again, the threadstarter is wondering if there are other players that have had good results where the ranking doesn't really show it. I'd venture to guess that it usually happens the other way around.

Most of the time a player has that 'surprise result', whether it's QF or a SF at a slam, the final of a Tier 1, or a Tier 2 title, and as a result their rankings skyrockets. The ranking becomes over inflated and doesn't really represent the player accurately. It's like that one fluke good result is an anomaly but caries with it enough weight to distort that players ranking.

In Serena's case it's the opposite, but again, it's no mystery why. It's interesting nonetheless though. Then again, you could make the argument that her consistency in the slams was the very thing that allowed her to remain in the top ten without defending her slam win from the previous year. For the most part, she was able to keep her top ten ranking for a while on the strength of her consistency in the slams and Miami.

Il Primo!
Mar 8th, 2008, 09:55 AM
Miami is harder to win than Madrid. The players are fresh and the field is usually complete. Also, you lose once and you're out. It's called the 5th slam for a reason.

Absolutely.

Renalicious
Mar 8th, 2008, 10:11 AM
Serena has a relatively low ranking because obviously she's not playing that much at all. If she were to play a full schedule, without getting injured (which is virtually impossible) I have no doubt that she'd be #1 by like 3000 points, if that's possible...

Yes when Serena is well, she hardly has any freak losses...in fact, she's had hardly any freak losses altogether (apart from the 2005-2006 period, where she was practically playing injured for those whole to years). Serena is actually very consistent, unlike Venus.

Hopefully her ranking will inflate again after she plays and wins a couple of more tournaments. I just wish she will meet Henin in Miami so she can have revenge.

OsloErik
Mar 8th, 2008, 10:16 AM
I get the observation Geisha is making and it's a good one. I challenge anyone to find a player on tour, past or present, that made four consecutive grandslam QFs and wasn't ranked in the top ten. Good luck with that! I think that's the point the thread starter was trying to make, she's not saying that Serena should be ahead of the other girls who play more of a full schedule- or that Serena doesn't deserve her ranking. She's just saying that the results don't mirror the ranking. And after you go searching you'll see that almost every player, with the exception of Serena, that has showed that kind of consistency in the slams always has a higher ranking. Instead some of you are too hung up on trying say that her results "really" aren't that great...

The truth is it's unusual for a player to have that kind of consistency in the slams and not have a top ten ranking. Of course her ranking makes perfect sense when we take into account the amount of tournaments she's played. Players that show that kind of consistency in the slams sually have better results in the smaller tournaments as well.

The logical thinking is that if you're good enough to show that kind of consistency in the slams, then you should be good enough to win more titles- easier titles, at the Tier 2s and Tier 1 events.

So again, the threadstarter is wondering if there are other players that have had good results where the ranking doesn't really show it. I'd venture to guess that it usually happens the other way around.

Most of the time a player has that 'surprise result', whether it's QF or a SF at a slam, the final of a Tier 1, or a Tier 2 title, and as a result their rankings skyrockets. The ranking becomes over inflated and doesn't really represent the player accurately. It's like that one fluke good result is an anomaly but caries with it enough weight to distort that players ranking.

In Serena's case it's the opposite, but again, it's no mystery why. It's interesting nonetheless though. Then again, you could make the argument that her consistency in the slams was the very thing that allowed her to remain in the top ten without defending her slam win from the previous year. For the most part, she was able to keep her top ten ranking for a while on the strength of her consistency in the slams and Miami.

THANK YOU for finally getting the point of the thread across.

I agree, it is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of players that played the slams almost exclusively at some point, but it's not a large list.

The closest I can think of is Seles ending 2002 ranked #7 despite reaching 4 straight slam quarters (one of them being a semifinal). Ten years earlier, Capriati was ranked #8 with 4 straight slam quarters (one of them being a semifinal) right after the '92 Wimbledon. Less impressive but kind of similar, Kournikova being ranked #12 in spite of 4 straight 4th rounds at slams.

It's unrelated, but in the process of finding players in similar situations I just saw Sabatini's 1987 results, and boy did that have to be frustrating. She went on something like a 20-3 run between the US Open and the end of the year, and she rose a total of one spot in the rankings, from #7 to #6.

Another unrelated but odd thing: Pam Shriver played the French Open six times, winning the doubles title four of those times. But in spite of being a top 10 or top 20 singles player for about 12 years, she only played in the French Open singles draw twice! She was THERE for the event four additional, but didn't want to play the singles! How bizarre is that?

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 8th, 2008, 10:27 AM
THANK YOU for finally getting the point of the thread across.

The sad part about it, is that I'm sure people will still gravitate toward "Miami is harder/easier to win than Madrid"- or focus on the number of tournaments Serena's played when that's not even the point of this thread.

Sometimes people don't like to read they just want to reply...

Sir Stefwhit
Mar 8th, 2008, 10:32 AM
I agree, it is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of players that played the slams almost exclusively at some point, but it's not a large list.

The closest I can think of is Seles ending 2002 ranked #7 despite reaching 4 straight slam quarters (one of them being a semifinal). Ten years earlier, Capriati was ranked #8 with 4 straight slam quarters (one of them being a semifinal) right after the '92 Wimbledon. Less impressive but kind of similar, Kournikova being ranked #12 in spite of 4 straight 4th rounds at slams.

It's unrelated, but in the process of finding players in similar situations I just saw Sabatini's 1987 results, and boy did that have to be frustrating. She went on something like a 20-3 run between the US Open and the end of the year, and she rose a total of one spot in the rankings, from #7 to #6.

Another unrelated but odd thing: Pam Shriver played the French Open six times, winning the doubles title four of those times. But in spite of being a top 10 or top 20 singles player for about 12 years, she only played in the French Open singles draw twice! She was THERE for the event four additional, but didn't want to play the singles! How bizarre is that?
:yeah: Good stuff!

Reading your post made me think of 1994 when Sanchez-Vicarrio won both the French Open and the US Open, but still ended the year number two. I'm a graf fanatic so I wasn't too unhappy, but Arantxa's resuls looked stronger at first glance than anyone else that year. It's not exactly the same kind of comparison, but it's in the family, so to speak.

Your Sabatini example is a good one.

faboozadoo15
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:28 AM
Miami is harder to win than Madrid. The players are fresh and the field is usually complete. Also, you lose once and you're out. It's called the 5th slam for a reason.

In terms of points, prestige, top players playing, the YEC>Miami.

All this 5th slam talk is just nonsense. Is Indian wells the sixth slam? Or is that Rome or Zurich :weirdo:

At Miami you get days off between matches, BYEs, 2 weeks to play 6 matches. At the YEC it's the best of the best, and you play 5 matches in a week. It's much tougher to win.

OsloErik
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:48 AM
All this 5th slam talk is just nonsense.

I completely agree. It may have been accurate in the 90's, but now it's just laughable.

OsloErik
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:55 AM
:yeah: Good stuff!

Reading your post made me think of 1994 when Sanchez-Vicarrio won both the French Open and the US Open, but still ended the year number two. I'm a graf fanatic so I wasn't too unhappy, but Arantxa's resuls looked stronger at first glance than anyone else that year. It's not exactly the same kind of comparison, but it's in the family, so to speak.

Your Sabatini example is a good one.

1994 is the year that takes me the longest to remember the tournament winners for. I remember ASV at the French and US (although I always think she won the Aussie at first) and Conchita at Wimbledon, but I can never remember the Aussie winner until I figure that it has to be Graf since nobody else could have won it.

BUT YEAH! ASV had a banner year (I think it would probably be counted as her best, yet she NEVER hit #1 the entire time!) while Graf had a very, very good year, but not a great year. 1st round loss at Wimbledon, anyone? Which she had been dominating at for years.

ASV had 20 more wins than Graf, too! Just bizarre year end ranks.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:57 AM
I get the observation Geisha is making and it's a good one. I challenge anyone to find a player on tour, past or present, that made four consecutive grandslam QFs and wasn't ranked in the top ten.

There was not such player in the recent years.
The closest examples are:
Paola Suarez (QF+3r+SF+QF) between USO-03 and WIM-04
Nicole Vaidisova (SF+QF+QF+3r) in 2007

In 1987 Claudia Kohde-Kilsch went SF+QF+QF+QF at Grand Slams but finished the season only at #10 because of 7 pre-QF losses at other events.

BuTtErFrEnA
Mar 8th, 2008, 01:27 PM
I get the observation Geisha is making and it's a good one. I challenge anyone to find a player on tour, past or present, that made four consecutive grandslam QFs and wasn't ranked in the top ten. Good luck with that! I think that's the point the thread starter was trying to make, she's not saying that Serena should be ahead of the other girls who play more of a full schedule- or that Serena doesn't deserve her ranking. She's just saying that the results don't mirror the ranking. And after you go searching you'll see that almost every player, with the exception of Serena, that has showed that kind of consistency in the slams always has a higher ranking. Instead some of you are too hung up on trying say that her results "really" aren't that great...

The truth is it's unusual for a player to have that kind of consistency in the slams and not have a top ten ranking. Of course her ranking makes perfect sense when we take into account the amount of tournaments she's played. Players that show that kind of consistency in the slams sually have better results in the smaller tournaments as well.

The logical thinking is that if you're good enough to show that kind of consistency in the slams, then you should be good enough to win more titles- easier titles, at the Tier 2s and Tier 1 events.

So again, the threadstarter is wondering if there are other players that have had good results where the ranking doesn't really show it. I'd venture to guess that it usually happens the other way around.

Most of the time a player has that 'surprise result', whether it's QF or a SF at a slam, the final of a Tier 1, or a Tier 2 title, and as a result their rankings skyrockets. The ranking becomes over inflated and doesn't really represent the player accurately. It's like that one fluke good result is an anomaly but caries with it enough weight to distort that players ranking.

In Serena's case it's the opposite, but again, it's no mystery why. It's interesting nonetheless though. Then again, you could make the argument that her consistency in the slams was the very thing that allowed her to remain in the top ten without defending her slam win from the previous year. For the most part, she was able to keep her top ten ranking for a while on the strength of her consistency in the slams and Miami.

you need to stop posting...i'm running out of reps to give you :sad:

mankind
Mar 8th, 2008, 02:21 PM
More points need to be placed on GS results I think. Granted, Serena doesn't play much apart from the slams, but it speaks volumes when Daniela Hantuchova (pre-AO 08) can be in the top 10 without making a single GS QF for a few years, and Serena was barely hanging onto the top 10 with extremely consistent and impressive slam results.

SvenssonFan
Mar 8th, 2008, 02:37 PM
For example, if we look at Seles' '00-'01 seasons.

Monica reached the four GS QFs, like Serena. She won one title (Tier II, Oklahoma City) compared to Serena's Miami. She reached the QFs in Sydney and the SF in Stanford and Scottsdale. She did reach the finals of three tournaments, which is what makes her year better...but still. She was ranked #4 at one point. So, 11 spots ahead of Serena? By only playing three more tournaments? Oh, and Serena even had a better win-loss percentage.

This is a bad example. Pre-2006 the WTA used quality points. There could even be a 200 point difference between two of the semifinalists at a grand slam, whereas now they just go by tournament points. I'm sure Serena had beaten good players at a GS but got no quality points, whereas Monica did and every pre-2006 player example did.

I understand why they got rid of the quality points, but I wish they'd bring it back....then Serena's ranking would probably be better than players like Bartoli, b/c she had a better and consistent GS and Miami record with better quality points.

yayo
Mar 8th, 2008, 02:44 PM
The rankings are a complete mess,The current players are so pathetic that anyone knows that other than sharapova or henin, the williams are the only ones with a chance to win a slam no matter their ranking, I miss Kim who would make short work of this so called top ten with then losing in the final.

Tennisstar86
Mar 8th, 2008, 03:07 PM
For example, if we look at Seles' '00-'01 seasons.

Monica reached the four GS QFs, like Serena. She won one title (Tier II, Oklahoma City) compared to Serena's Miami. She reached the QFs in Sydney and the SF in Stanford and Scottsdale. She did reach the finals of three tournaments, which is what makes her year better...but still. She was ranked #4 at one point. So, 11 spots ahead of Serena? By only playing three more tournaments? Oh, and Serena even had a better win-loss percentage.

And Serena was ranked #6 at one point.....

Beat
Mar 8th, 2008, 04:00 PM
The rankings are a complete mess,The current players are so pathetic that anyone knows that other than sharapova or henin, the williams are the only ones with a chance to win a slam no matter their ranking, I miss Kim who would make short work of this so called top ten with then losing in the final.

yeah, sure, kim of the many, many slams. what a silly post.

MakarovaFan
Mar 8th, 2008, 04:17 PM
For example, if we look at Seles' '00-'01 seasons.

Monica reached the four GS QFs, like Serena. She won one title (Tier II, Oklahoma City) compared to Serena's Miami. She reached the QFs in Sydney and the SF in Stanford and Scottsdale. She did reach the finals of three tournaments, which is what makes her year better...but still. She was ranked #4 at one point. So, 11 spots ahead of Serena? By only playing three more tournaments? Oh, and Serena even had a better win-loss percentage.
Dude and at one point Serena was ranked what #7,three spots below Monica's high.Seles played 4 finals and two semis.Serena played 2 finals and NO semis.Seles also had tons of quality points on her rank.

The Bottom line is unless your are WINNING every event you play then you just cant get away with playing like only a dozen events an entire season and still expect to be in the top 10.It didnt work for Nicole and isnt working for Serena.

Kworb
Mar 8th, 2008, 04:32 PM
This is just another "Grand Slams are the only tournaments that matter" thread. Just because she reached four QFs doesn't mean she automatically belongs in the top 10. Sure it might not have happened in the past (playing only 12 tournaments a year is also quite new) but that's really not some amazing discovery. It's just logic.

frenchie
Mar 8th, 2008, 04:52 PM
Venus should have finished 2000 and 2001 at number 1

ptkten
Mar 8th, 2008, 05:04 PM
This is just another "Grand Slams are the only tournaments that matter" thread. Just because she reached four QFs doesn't mean she automatically belongs in the top 10. Sure it might not have happened in the past (playing only 12 tournaments a year is also quite new) but that's really not some amazing discovery. It's just logic.

It's not really new. Graf used to do it quite often. (94, 95, 96 played 13, 11, and 11 tournaments respectively) That's not the point of this thread though.

I find this thread interesting because there are a lot of instances where one player gets easy draws in a big event and can rack up the points while another does consistently better at events but gets a tough draw or the rankings don't reflect the consistency, especially at the big events.

I think we're going to see discrepancies more and more now that quality points are gone. For example, with Serena, if she wins today, then she gets about as many points for her Tier II F in Bangalore that someone got in Dubai. That's ridiculous when you look at the quality of the draws. Players are going to take advantage of weak draws at Tier Is and Tier IIs and roll up their ranking points because two players who play an equal number of events but one wins Bangalore and Charleston, and the other wins Dubai and Rome will get the same amount of points.

Geisha
Mar 8th, 2008, 08:00 PM
Venus should have finished 2000 and 2001 at number 1

I agree.

The obvious one for me in 2001. I don't know how Capriati or Davenport could even be mentioned. Venus had H2Hs and bigger titles OVERALL than both of them. Lindsay didn't win any of the major six tournaments (Slams, Miami, YEC).

MakarovaFan
Mar 8th, 2008, 08:31 PM
People the bottom line is obvious.....the more tournaments you play the more points you have.Sure Steffi only played 13,12 and 11 events those respective years,but how many of those did she win.....exactly.A player simply cant play just 12 or so events and expect to be in top 10 when you arent winning(or atleast gettin to final ) of atleast 50% of those 12.
Besides Serena was high as 6 at one point last year!!!!!! Now she's 11 and people trip yet look at her last 52 weeks.....One win,one final and like 6 QF's....and you all expect that to get you in the top 10!!!!!!

Kworb
Mar 8th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Besides with this T2 final she's already back up to #9.

sammy01
Mar 8th, 2008, 09:13 PM
shes ranked where she belongs. getting to a slam qtr final is good but can be done without facing a top 20 player. lena d (#11) had to beat the #12 player in the world just to make the 2nd round in dubai, that would never happen at a slam, it could only happen in the 4th round.

slam seedings protect the higher ranked players way too much, thus a player can play well/ok and reach qtr finals without beating anyone of significance.

homogenius
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:46 PM
I agree.

The obvious one for me in 2001. I don't know how Capriati or Davenport could even be mentioned. Venus had H2Hs and bigger titles OVERALL than both of them. Lindsay didn't win any of the major six tournaments (Slams, Miami, YEC).

She also had a first round loss at FO (against Schett I think).Overall, Capriati had a better year and she made semi at all GC, with 2 wins.

Matt01
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:09 AM
Venus should have finished 2000 and 2001 at number 1


No, she should not have finished #1. And besides, I fail to see what this has to do with this thread.

frenchie
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:30 AM
No, she should not have finished #1. And besides, I fail to see what this has to do with this thread.


Well her number 2 or 3 ranking didn't reflect her amazing year in 2000 and 2001

So who should have been nr1 year according to you ans why:rolleyes:

historystupid
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:28 AM
Miami is harder to win than Madrid. The players are fresh and the field is usually complete. Also, you lose once and you're out. It's called the 5th slam for a reason.

It's called the 5th slam because it's held in Miami every single year.

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:37 AM
She also had a first round loss at FO (against Schett I think).Overall, Capriati had a better year and she made semi at all GC, with 2 wins.

yeah... because going 56-14 with 3 titles is better than goin 46-5 with 6.....:rolleyes:

historystupid
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:43 AM
You people like to pick and choose parts of others' posts.

I said that she had great results, yes. But, I did not mention only Majors.

WON - Miami (I)
QF - Rome (I)
QF - Paris (GS)
QF - Wimbledon (GS)
QF - New York (GS)
QF - Stuttgart (II)
F - Moscow (I)

Those are some terrific results for someone who ISN'T RANKED IN THE TOP TEN, is what I've been saying. I can't think of any other players in the past five years who have had that type of record and not been in the top ten - maybe Davenport in '02.

It's absolutely terrific for someone who is not in the top 10, and that's why she gets a lot more points than Patty Schnyder. But those girls ranked above her are better, and that's all. If you want to say that Serena is the best player who "is not in the top ten", I admit it.

historystupid
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:26 AM
Well her number 2 or 3 ranking didn't reflect her amazing year in 2000 and 2001

So who should have been nr1 year according to you ans why:rolleyes:

Hingis and Davenport. Everyone who ranked number one deserves to be number one, that's my reason.

historystupid
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:30 AM
yeah... because going 56-14 with 3 titles is better than goin 46-5 with 6.....:rolleyes:

Yes it is. If Venus did what Capriati did, she was going to be world number two.

Geisha
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:36 AM
The rankings have and always will be never truly representative.

In no way is two Majors and an Olympic gold better than going 0 for 5 - Venus to Hingis - and with a negative win/loss record.

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:37 AM
Yes it is. If Venus did what Capriati did, she was going to be world number two.

this is where we disagree... and when Jankovic goes 110-35 (exaggerated) and ends #1... you'll agree with me...;)

Geisha
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:10 AM
Keep in mind the "surprising" part of the thread.

This thread is for the moments when you say, "Huh, Henin is only ranked #5? I thought she was like, #2 or #3 with her results."

mboyle
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:52 AM
It's all about playing more to get decent points from 17 tournaments. I think Serena's ranking is accurate.

As long as Marion Bartoli is in the top ten, someone else deserves to be there. I'd say Serena has at least as good a claim to that spot as anyone else.

In general, the sisters are underranked because they don't play often. I'd say Venus is about right at the moment, but Serena's low.

Matt01
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:40 PM
Well her number 2 or 3 ranking didn't reflect her amazing year in 2000 and 2001

So who should have been nr1 year according to you ans why:rolleyes:


2000: Hingis
2001: Davenport

I rather trust the actual WTA tour rankings over biased people like you :rolleyes:

Kworb
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Is there anyone with time to determine what the rankings would look like if only the best 10 results counted rather than the best 17?

ptkten
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:48 PM
Is there anyone with time to determine what the rankings would look like if only the best 10 results counted rather than the best 17?

Best 10 with no mandatory events. I only calculated the top 11. There's really not much difference except that players with big slam results get a little bump.

1. Henin-5260
2. Ivanovic-3555
3. Sharapova-3395
4. Kuznetsova-3000
5. Jankovic-2920
6. Venus-2505
7. Chakvetadze-2375
8. Serena-2295
9. Hantuchova-2230
10. Bartoli-1900
11. Dementieva-1745

Geisha
Mar 14th, 2008, 02:52 AM
Is there anyone with time to determine what the rankings would look like if only the best 10 results counted rather than the best 17?

I wonder how it would be for 2000, 2001, 2002, etc. Hingis had nine titles, so she might even be #1 over Venus and Davenport.