PDA

View Full Version : Non-Grand Slam winners Leading Year-to-Date Rankings


tennisphilia
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:07 PM
Should the WTA tour add a rule to indicate that only current Grand Slam champions can hold the #1 ranking? This would prevent the likes of Safina and Jankovic - wonderful players with good results - from holding the top-spot without proving they can win at least won of the four most prestigious titles in the tennis calendar.

Non-Grand Slam winners Leading Year-to-Date Rankings
>> Saturday, June 12, 2010

Three non-Slam winners are leading the Race to the Sony Ericsson Championships Singles Standings after 2 Grand Slams, and half-way through the 2010 season. Venus Williams, Jelena Jankovic, and Samantha Stosur are #1, #2, and #3 respectively in the year-to-date rankings as of June 7, 2010. The elder Williams and Jankovic did not even contest a Grand Slam final this year. Serena Williams, the Australian Open champion and Francesca Schiavone, the French Open champion, occupy the 4th and 5th places, respectively.

Article Link: http://www.tennisphilia.com/2010/06/non-grand-slam-winners-leading-year-to.html

Caralenko
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:28 PM
You're like a year and a half late :weirdo:

tennisphilia
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:36 PM
You're like a year and a half late :weirdo:

Not really. The fact is that Venus Williams can rise to #1 in the world without being a current Grand Slam champion as soon as Wimbledon. That's on the scenario that Serena will lose in the first round, and Venus will JUST reach the finals.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:40 PM
Might be because Serena didn't play for about 4 months (and point-wise, there isn't much of a difference between the top 4 players in the race as only 80 points seperate the number 2 from the number 4).

Jajaloo
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:41 PM
Three non-Slam winners are leading the Race to the Sony Ericsson Championships Singles Standings after 2 Grand Slams, and half-way through the 2010 season. Venus Williams, Jelena Jankovic, and Samantha Stosur are #1, #2, and #3 respectively in the year-to-date rankings as of June 7, 2010.

People are finding more and more ways to bring it up. 3 "non-slam winners". Per Venus' 7 grand slams. They're talking about non-grand slam winners of this year topping the race to the champs :lol: :lol: It's not even non-slam winners ever topping the singles ranking.

tennisphilia
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:48 PM
They're talking about non-grand slam winners of this year topping the race to the champs

I guess the bigger question should be raised - shouldn't the WTA require the #1 player to be a current Grand Slam champion? I think it's a good question. It would prevent the confusion and controversy surrounding the rise of Safina and Jankovic (and to a lesser extent - maybe Clijsters in 2003 and Davenport in 2004). And, it would bring the title "top-ranked women's tennis player" to a higher standard.

JJ Expres
Jun 12th, 2010, 01:59 PM
i have solution!?Calendar should have just 2 tournaments!!!cause premier tournaments and international tournaments are so useless...And FO is so bad.BAD public and stadium is so OLD and there are no lights!And AO is in January so early!
WE ALL THINK its all about WIM and US open ...

Better make topic:Rybarikova has a new dog or something like that.

So Disrespectful
Jun 12th, 2010, 02:01 PM
Changing the rules would send the wrong message to competitors. Great champions should play regularly if they take any pride in holding the number 1 ranking.

Jajaloo
Jun 12th, 2010, 02:01 PM
I guess the bigger question should be raised - shouldn't the WTA require the #1 player to be a current Grand Slam champion? I think it's a good question. It would prevent the confusion and controversy surrounding the rise of Safina and Jankovic (and to a lesser extent - maybe Clijsters in 2003 and Davenport in 2004). And, it would bring the title "top-ranked women's tennis player" to a higher standard.

This has been floating around for a while, and as it's been said before, the rankings are simply used for seedings into tournaments. I know it seems biased because JJ is my favourite player, but i'd feel the same even if JJ had won a slam. If we discriminate and say only slam champions can be #1, where does it end? Only if you have won a Tier I/Premier Manadatory or Premier 5 you can be in the top 10? Only if you have won a tour title that year, can you play in the YEC?

Rankings are based on matches won in varying tournaments. More matches won, and the better you do at the bigger tournaments. The higher the ranking. Why should hard work not be rewarded with a higher ranking?


Changing the rules would send the wrong message to competitors. Great champions should play regularly if they take any pride in holding the number 1 ranking.


Preach

tennisforadults
Jun 12th, 2010, 02:17 PM
Should the WTA tour add a rule to indicate that only current Grand Slam champions can hold the #1 ranking? This would prevent the likes of Safina and Jankovic - wonderful players with good results - from holding the top-spot without proving they can win at least won of the four most prestigious titles in the tennis calendar.

Non-Grand Slam winners Leading Year-to-Date Rankings
>> Saturday, June 12, 2010

Three non-Slam winners are leading the Race to the Sony Ericsson Championships Singles Standings after 2 Grand Slams, and half-way through the 2010 season. Venus Williams, Jelena Jankovic, and Samantha Stosur are #1, #2, and #3 respectively in the year-to-date rankings as of June 7, 2010. The elder Williams and Jankovic did not even contest a Grand Slam final this year. Serena Williams, the Australian Open champion and Francesca Schiavone, the French Open champion, occupy the 4th and 5th places, respectively.

Article Link: http://www.tennisphilia.com/2010/06/non-grand-slam-winners-leading-year-to.html

The rankings are fine. I like it the way it is.

Think about the consequences and implications of having a rule like this. The highest ranking a player can held is #2, even if she earns more points than the #1 in a calendar year, because she's never won a Grand Slam. It really demeans all the hard work this player has put in by playing a consistent year with possible/usually a Grand Slam semi-final or final result. Winning the crown is the difference of one or two matches... and yeah if you don't get there, too bad. Stay at #2.

This only encourages the Williams sisters that their disregard of normal tournaments is correct and justified. Just turn up for the Grand Slams - why do the smaller tournaments matter if their points only get you to #2 anyway.

If a player has consistently good results for the entire season and missed out on a Grand Slam title by one match, but still earned the highest number of points, she very well deserves the #1 spot. It will be a bigger farce if she's denied that spot, just because the 2nd placed player has a previous Slam title.

Umberella
Jun 12th, 2010, 02:18 PM
Take Schiavone for example - because of a stellar performance at a GS, she rose from 17 (i think?) to a well-deserved 6. Thats a massive jump. I think the GS have a significant enough effect as it is.

At the end of the day, a GS is still only one single tournament. A smart player, like Serena, will play her best at the Grand Slams. Thats obvious. But the other tournaments do count, and if someone is consistent enough throughout the year, they still deserve their number 1 ranking (like Safina a while ago). I think the way it is now is good - GS should be worth a lot more points, but they don't mean everything.

tennisforadults
Jun 12th, 2010, 02:20 PM
Rankings are based on matches won in varying tournaments. More matches won, and the better you do at the bigger tournaments. The higher the ranking. Why should hard work not be rewarded with a higher ranking?

Exactly. :worship:

Rolling-Thunder
Jun 12th, 2010, 04:37 PM
NO such a rule would be unfair and counter productive.

Renalicious
Jun 12th, 2010, 04:42 PM
Rankings rankings :rolleyes: Such an old topic. :o

Rui.
Jun 12th, 2010, 04:51 PM
It would really be amazing if we had 3 grand slam winners leading the race when only 2 slams have been played :D

Jajaloo
Jun 12th, 2010, 04:58 PM
It would really be amazing if we had 3 grand slam winners leading the race when only 2 slams have been played :D


:haha:

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 12th, 2010, 05:57 PM
I guess the bigger question should be raised - shouldn't the WTA require the #1 player to be a current Grand Slam champion? I think it's a good question. It would prevent the confusion and controversy surrounding the rise of Safina and Jankovic (and to a lesser extent - maybe Clijsters in 2003 and Davenport in 2004). And, it would bring the title "top-ranked women's tennis player" to a higher standard.

Oh, yes. It's a very good question, an absolutely wonderful question. And I have an excellent, extremely fine answer in reply for you.

No.

goldenlox
Jun 12th, 2010, 06:04 PM
The slams are ITF, so I dont see why the WTA would add rules that downgrade the value of their own tournaments.

The last 3 majors were won by Kim,Serena and Fran.
So if a 4th player wins Wimbledon, there will be questions about who is #1, with 4 different players holding majors.

In 2008 4 different players won majors, a 5th Jankovic was YE #1. And a 6th, Dementieva, won Olympic Gold.

Volcana
Jun 12th, 2010, 06:11 PM
Should the WTA tour add a rule to indicate that only current Grand Slam champions can hold the #1 ranking?No. Race points and rankings points ae different things, existing for different reasons. Ranking points are designed to be a fair way to seed tournaments.

Race points are just that, a race. Should the winner of OZ be #1 in race points all the way to Roland Garros, even if they don;t play between OZ and Roland Garros?

cnelson575
Jun 12th, 2010, 06:13 PM
So Francesca Schiavone deserves #1 because she won a grand slam? Rankings are suppose to reward the playes who overall for a year worth of playing perform the best. I know grand slams are the prestigious things but if they were all that mattered the tennis season would simply be 4 tournaments. Instead of blaming the players ranked #1 with no slam ,why not blame the players who win slams and nothing else. All the great past dominate players were #1 because they not only won slams they won alot of other tournaments and didnt crash out in the 1rst round of a tier 2.

You have wacky rankings because there are no consistant top players any longer.

Volcana
Jun 12th, 2010, 06:23 PM
The #1 ranked player isn't always the best player. Usually they are, but not always. Take 2001. Jennifer Capriati won two slams. Venus won two slams. Who ended the year ranked #1? Martina Hingis. She won NINE Tier I titles. Hingis wasn't the best player. But she certainly deserved the ranking.

As we just saw, you can have a hot streak and win a slam. You can't get the #1 ranking with a hot streak. It takes consistent, high level play. Conversely, you do not have, at any point in the year, to be the best player on the tour to get the #1 ranking. But you have to be among the best players on the tour for a prolonged period of time.

tennisphilia
Jun 12th, 2010, 10:27 PM
In 2008 4 different players won majors, a 5th Jankovic was YE #1. And a 6th, Dementieva, won Olympic Gold.

THEN, the Grand Slam player with the highest ranking points should have been #1. Who would that have been?

I guess it's a question that arises because right now, there's a possibility that the one ending the year-end #1 will not win a major at all. Also, being #1 should be reserved to the best ever players. How can one be best ever if she can't win at the biggest stage?

I just think that adding that additional criteria for being #1 makes it a tougher position to hold.

Has there ever been a time when the top current Grand Slam champion was ranked lower than #2?

toby345
Jun 12th, 2010, 10:33 PM
THEN, the Grand Slam player with the highest ranking points should have been #1. Who would that have been?

I guess it's a question that arises because right now, there's a possibility that the one ending the year-end #1 will not win a major at all. Also, being #1 should be reserved to the best ever players. How can one be best ever if she can't win at the biggest stage?

I just think that adding that additional criteria for being #1 makes it a tougher position to hold.

Has there ever been a time when the top current Grand Slam champion was ranked lower than #2?

To be the best often doesn't mean that you have to win, you have to be consistent. (Am I saying that? Oh my :tape::lol:)

tennisphilia
Jun 12th, 2010, 11:07 PM
To be the best often doesn't mean that you have to win, you have to be consistent. (Am I saying that? Oh my :tape::lol:)

Current #1 player in tennis - to most people - is the current BEST PLAYER in tennis, no?
Not sure what's difficult to understand there.

2001 would be a great example.
You had Hingis who was most consistent during the year.
Problem is - she was also CONSISTENTLY getting beaten by other players in tennis' biggest stage.

Venus or Capriati being #1 for that year would have made more sense.

terjw
Jun 12th, 2010, 11:41 PM
No. Race points and rankings points ae different things, existing for different reasons. Ranking points are designed to be a fair way to seed tournaments.

Race points are just that, a race. Should the winner of OZ be #1 in race points all the way to Roland Garros, even if they don;t play between OZ and Roland Garros?

On race points - I agree with you.

On rankings - yes seedings are done based on rankings. But rankings were not designed to do seedings or are the sole purpose of rankings. Rankings were designed as an objective way to determine who is the #1 player and so on down the list.

I hear you constantly say that the rankings are not the same as who the best player is - but that is based on your definition of "best". I agree the rankings don't necessarily reflect who is the best at their peak or even who is most likely to win the next slam. But they do reflect who has the best results over the whole of the previous 12 months and therefore who was the best player overall during that time. Not just who was best for a few weeks or a few tournaments during that time.

It's the age old question if X > Y at their A game. But X can only play her A game 20% of the time whereas Y can play her A game 80% of the time - who is really the best? I realise that this forum has an obsession with peak vs peak bit its too simplistic to say X.

tennisforadults
Jun 13th, 2010, 12:00 AM
Current #1 player in tennis - to most people - is the current BEST PLAYER in tennis, no?
Not sure what's difficult to understand there.

2001 would be a great example.
You had Hingis who was most consistent during the year.
Problem is - she was also CONSISTENTLY getting beaten by other players in tennis' biggest stage.

Venus or Capriati being #1 for that year would have made more sense.

Rankings points are purely mathematical. It's a system built around points earned at tournaments. Grand Slams obviously have the highest importance because they give you a huge amount of points compared to everything else. There's no ARGUING with the number of points a player earns.

You can't have a rule or system that's easily contentious. Subjective. Oh Hingis keeps getting beaten by other top 10 players, she can't have #1. No offence, but your idea that the #1 ranking is given to the player who SEEMS like the best player of the year is quite hilarious. The #1 ranking is not given out as an award at the end of the season. This is not the Oscars.

égalité
Jun 13th, 2010, 03:13 AM
God, who CARES? :weirdo:

miffedmax
Jun 13th, 2010, 04:34 AM
Slams are not the end all and be all. They are the biggest and most important tournaments, but they are still tournaments. That is already built into the rankings system--you get more points for winning a slam than you do any other tournament. You get more points for LOSING a slam final that you do for winning any other tournament.

A pro-slam bias is already built into the system. Why some people have such a hard time comprehending this is beyond me.

OsloErik
Jun 13th, 2010, 04:46 AM
I've railed against this since the heady days that Clijsters hit #1 without holding a slam: the problem isn't that non-slam winners are EARNING the ranking points to lead the tour; it's that slam winners AREN'T. We haven't had a dominant, undisputed, HUGE ranking points leader with slam title dominance to back it up since Serena Williams ended 2002 at #1 with 3 slams on her ranking. Nobody nowadays has the chutzpah to take the #1 ranking by the throat the way Seles, Graf, Evert, Navratilova did. The players who could don't play enough, and the players that play enough aren't good enough to dominate at the slams.

I don't know if this is a generational thing or not. The men seem to do it just fine. The women did it just 10 years ago. There's something off about it, but I certainly am not going to advocate adjusting the rules just so chicken-shit women who aren't capable of getting off their duffs to play more than 20 weeks a year can take the #1 spot off of 2 weeks of hard work. I have a real job, so my sympathy lies with the workers on the tour.

Umberella
Jun 13th, 2010, 04:54 AM
the problem isn't that non-slam winners are EARNING the ranking points to lead the tour; it's that slam winners AREN'T.

How about making the GS worth less points and kind of even it out?

OsloErik
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:20 AM
How about making the GS worth less points and kind of even it out?

What would that do? Nothing good. Slams are the most prestigous tournaments for a reason, and there's already an institutional rankings bias towards them, as there should be. They are the biggest prizes. It's the recent crop of slam champions that have been too frail to do anything about their superiority, such as prove it. Lowering what slams are worth in the rankings would just muddle the equation further.

I think the men's tour has done a pretty good job ratcheting down what early rounds of slams are worth. A male slam finalist earns 200 less ranking points than his female counterpart, and that trend continues prett steadily down the rounds. Notice that the men have had pretty accurate and reflective top 10 rankings for a while now.

HippityHop
Jun 14th, 2010, 03:28 AM
Why don't we just get rid of the slams altogether? :rolleyes:

tennisforadults
Jun 14th, 2010, 09:31 AM
This is a stupid discussion that's always going to go downhill. :tape:

tennisphilia
Jun 16th, 2010, 12:40 AM
How about Slam winners get 3000 ranking points?
Right now, a Slam winner gets 2000, finalist gets 1400, semifinalist gets 900, and QF = 500.

So, a person with 2 Grand Slam finals gets 2800 points.
A person who actually wins a slam and gets to the QF of another gets 2500 points.

I think Slam champions are not given enough points that merit their achievements.

tennisphilia
Jun 16th, 2010, 12:41 AM
This is a stupid discussion that's always going to go downhill. :tape:

I disagree. In fact, it's more interesting than a lopsided World Cup match that ends 4-0.

tennisforadults
Jun 16th, 2010, 01:03 AM
I disagree. In fact, it's more interesting than a lopsided World Cup match that ends 4-0.

Sorry if you took offence, but no need to drag poor Aussie soccer into this. It doesn't bother me as much as you think. ;)

fouc
Jun 16th, 2010, 01:52 AM
i have solution!?Calendar should have just 2 tournaments!!!cause premier tournaments and international tournaments are so useless...And FO is so bad.BAD public and stadium is so OLD and there are no lights!And AO is in January so early!
WE ALL THINK its all about WIM and US open ...

Better make topic:Rybarikova has a new dog or something like that.

nothing to add. :worship:

emotion
Jun 16th, 2010, 01:53 AM
When the top players only try in slams, it is not hard