PDA

View Full Version : True #1 of 2011 : Wozniacki or Kvitova?


Pages : [1] 2

danieln1
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:05 PM
Off season, back with the discussion threads! :devil:

Caro - Won Indian Wells (PM), Dubai(P5), Charleston, New Haven, Wozniacki Open and Brussels :oh:
Grand Slams: Semi in Melbourne and New York

Petra - Won Brisbane, Paris, Madrid(PM), Linz :oh:, YEC
Grand Slams: WON Wimbledon, QF Australia, 4R Roland Garros, 1st round US Open :facepalm:

Decide

To go along with my other "true #1 of 2000" thread :)
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=420993

Edit: "true" as most deserving, best player of the season :rolleyes:

No1Curr
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:12 PM
Petra of course.

I kinda feel sorry for Wozniacki, she's just so...... mediocre.

Fighterpova
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:12 PM
Petra and it's not even close :D

By the way, she also won Brisbane and lost in the QF of the AO, not R4 ;)

Hurley
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:12 PM
Petra also won Hobart (or Brisbane)...they have the same amount of titles (6) but Petra has two that matter.

Even if Petra had gone 0-3 at the YEC including a loss to Alexandra Stevenson (ALT), the bottom line is, in the immortal words of fetal Woztard Wor(l)d Life:

1 > 0

bbjpa
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:15 PM
Is that the question even needeed to be asked :haha:

Novichok
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:18 PM
The true #1 is the player who is #1 under the WTA ranking system. Anyone who says otherwise is unknowingly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Brad[le]y.
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:31 PM
this off season really is gonna suck :lol:

Matt01
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Petra also won Hobart (or Brisbane)...they have the same amount of titles (6) but Petra has two that matter.


Every tournament matters.


The true #1 is the player who is #1 under the WTA ranking system. Anyone who says otherwise is unknowingly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.


Exactly.

cowsonice
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:39 PM
Tr0llbait.

bbjpa
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:42 PM
At the start of the year there was a gap of 6287 points between Caro and Petra and now how many exactely 100 , 200 ? How can the Woztards even claim that Caro is still the real n1
And it's disgusting that the friendly match Aga-Caro was rigged just for her to keep the n1 ranking :mad:

MakarovaFan
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:43 PM
Every tournament matters.





Exactly.


Except some matter more than others!! And Petra won those ;)

goldenlox
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:50 PM
Kvitova is a great talent. Might be an alltime great when she retires.
But Wozniacki is #1 this week, next week, the week after that, the week after that, and a few weeks after that. 51 of 52 this calendar year.
Doesnt take away from Petra's talent, but Kvitova lost to Dulgheru, Ardvisson, Rybarikova, Morita, Barrois, Strycova this year.
She's still a great talent, but was very inconsistent

moodin0931
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:51 PM
Woz's #1 -----> Petra's #2

:shrug:

jrm
Oct 30th, 2011, 11:54 PM
it's just how ranking works :shrug:

JulesVerne
Oct 31st, 2011, 12:00 AM
Wozniacki is obviously world number 1 as the computer says so, but Kvitova is the player of the year / best player because she has won 2 of the biggest 5 events while Wozniacki did not reach the final of any of the 5.

Tatcher
Oct 31st, 2011, 12:00 AM
Every tournament matters.
.
One Wimbledon much more, than all Woz's titles :worship:

AcesHigh
Oct 31st, 2011, 12:02 AM
True #1? Caro
Best player? Kvitova

jrm
Oct 31st, 2011, 12:02 AM
Has it ever happened that Player of the year award went to someone who wasn't ranked No1? Or is that automatically awarded to current No1?

JulesVerne
Oct 31st, 2011, 12:07 AM
Petra also won Hobart (or Brisbane)...they have the same amount of titles (6) but Petra has two that matter.

Even if Petra had gone 0-3 at the YEC including a loss to Alexandra Stevenson (ALT), the bottom line is, in the immortal words of fetal Woztard Wor(l)d Life:

1 > 0

He seems quite.

QuietPlease
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:17 PM
Caro has more points, so she is true #1.
HOWEVER, I would rather have Petra's season and finish #2!

bandabou
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:27 PM
True no.1 is what the comp says..but the best player?! Right now it ISN'T Caro.

Meelis
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:33 PM
Has it ever happened that Player of the year award went to someone who wasn't ranked No1? Or is that automatically awarded to current No1?

Nowadays WTA Player of the Year award goes to a player not ranked #1 most of the time. Clijsters over Wozniacki last year, Serena over Jankovic in 2008, Mauresmo over Henin in 2006, Clijsters over Davenport in 2005, Sharapova over Davenport in 2004 etc.

ITF world champion award goes usually to a year end #1, but not always.

romismak
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:36 PM
Is this even serious question? Kvitova won most important/valuable tournament in the game and also won biggest tournament outside of slams - where he destroyed Wozniacki. Yes Wozniacki is more consistent and so on, but still i think even Carline would switch here No.1 and her titles for just No.2 and Wimby-YEC

sammy01
Oct 31st, 2011, 01:45 PM
True #1? Caro
Best player? Kvitova

true number 1 in what sense? that she has a lower win/loss percentage than petra. oh i forgot she played 2 more tournaments and finished 115 points ahead of petra :worship:

Mynarco
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:04 PM
Statistics no.1 - caro
Real no.1(in term of best tennis throughout the year) - petra

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:12 PM
true number 1 in what sense? that she has a lower win/loss percentage than petra. oh i forgot she played 2 more tournaments and finished 115 points ahead of petra :worship:

True #1 in the sense that she is the player that the WTA officially considers #1. Any other player is the false #1. Just accept it and move on. :rolleyes:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:13 PM
One Wimbledon much more, than all Woz's titles :worship:

Absolutely ridiculous.:tape::help::lol:

Irute
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:17 PM
Kvitova shown that there is a promise for her to be the number 1 and let's see if she will be able to make it next year. She may have strong competition not only from Caro. So far Caro is the true #1 who may not be able to hold on to it much longer and give it to Kvitova ... or someone else.

Kworb
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:25 PM
True #1:

AO 900
RG 160
Wimbledon 280
USO 900
---
YEC 370
---
IW 1000
Miami 140
Madrid 140
Beijing 250
---
Dubai 900
Rome 395
---
Charleston 470
Brussels 470
New Haven 470
Doha 320
Stuttgart 320

Better luck next year:

AO 500
RG 280
Wimbledon 2000
USO 5
---
YEC 1500
---
IW 5
Miami 80
Madrid 1000
Beijing 5
---
Tokyo 395
Toronto 125
---
Paris 470
Eastbourne 320
Linz 280
Brisbane 280
Cincinnati 125

:oh:

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:33 PM
True #1 AND Best Player of 2011 is Kvitova by far. How on earth can anyone say Wozniacki is the true #1 in any sense is beyond me. Both won 6 tournaments, but Kvitova's tournaments overall ARE MUCH bigger ones, including a Slam and the biggest non Slam title. Both were equally inconsistent with many early and horrible showings throughout the year. Both would be crappy #1s in a normal era but Kvitova is far more worthy than Wozniacki. How on earth even the retarded ranking system managed to come up with points that put Wozniacki at #1 is beyond me.

Years from now nobody will even know Wozniacki was computer #1 ranked for 2011 and just assume it was Kvitova anyway.

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:36 PM
The true #1 is the player who is #1 under the WTA ranking system. Anyone who says otherwise is unknowingly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Laughable statement. So if a Player won the Calendar Slam and was ranked #2, #3, or #4 (easily possible under the incompetent WTA ranking system) they wouldnt be the "true #1" if the computer didnt rank them there. :lol:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:38 PM
Definition of true
Adjective:
In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".

Wozniacki is the WTA's #1.

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:38 PM
Laughable statement. So if a Player won the Calendar Slam and was ranked #2, #3, or #4 (easily possible under the incompetent WTA ranking system) they wouldnt be the "true #1" if the computer didnt rank them there. :lol:

That is absolutely correct.

QuietPlease
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:41 PM
Better luck next year:
USO 5
IW 5
Miami 80
Beijing 5
Toronto 125
Cincinnati 125


This is why Caroline is the WTA #1, none of her best 16 results are as small as these SIX results from Kvitova.

BUT. As I said before, I would rather have Petra's season and finish 2nd.

Kworb
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:41 PM
Laughable statement. So if a Player won the Calendar Slam and was ranked #2, #3, or #4 (easily possible under the incompetent WTA ranking system) they wouldnt be the "true #1" if the computer didnt rank them there. :lol:
If they won all the Slams surely they could rack up a few more points to clinch the #1. If not, well then they shouldn't have suffered so many early round exits. If you're the best player then you should be able to prove it whenever you play.

DragonFlame
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:42 PM
That is absolutely correct.

Depends, when i talk about true no.1 im thinking about the subjective meaning with it instead of the dictionary translation.
The threadstarter obviously meant it in that way.

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:43 PM
Depends, when i talk about true no.1 im thinking about the subjective meaning with it instead of the dictionary translation.
The threadstarter obviously meant it in that way.

Truth is not subjective. The OP should use better vocabulary. I'm not in the business of reading minds.

danieln1
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:45 PM
Depends, when i talk about true no.1 im thinking about the subjective meaning with it instead of the dictionary translation.
The threadstarter obviously meant it in that way.

True as most deserving number 1, as of winning the important titles. :rolleyes:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:46 PM
True as most deserving number 1, as of winning the important titles. :rolleyes:

That is not the definition of true. Either way, Caroline is still the "true" #1.

Kworb
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:48 PM
This is why Caroline is the WTA #1, none of her best 16 results are as small as these SIX results from Kvitova.

BUT. As I said before, I would rather have Petra's season and finish 2nd.
It's too bad for Kvitova that there are Premiere Mandatories. Else she could replace one of those 5s with her Prague F (+95) and then play another 75K ITF the coming months to be year end #1. :oh:

QuietPlease
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:48 PM
Laughable statement. So if a Player won the Calendar Slam and was ranked #2, #3, or #4 (easily possible under the incompetent WTA ranking system) they wouldnt be the "true #1" if the computer didnt rank them there. :lol:

Sure about that? 4 slams alone are 8,000 points. #1 this year has 7,485.
I guess in theory it's possible, but if you won all slams you probably won a few matches on the WTA tour as well ;)

Excelscior
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:04 PM
true number 1 in what sense? that she has a lower win/loss percentage than petra. oh i forgot she played 2 more tournaments and finished 115 points ahead of petra :worship:

Actually Caro played 3 more tournaments than Petra (19 vs 22), and Petra's WTA record is 58-13 (though the WTA broadcast in Istanbul says it's now 60-13), while Caro's record is 63-17, WTA record.

Petra has a clear better winning percentage, and is only 115 pts behind for #1, with three less tournaments than Caro.

So for all the phony criticism a lot of Woztards wanna give Petra for "alleged" inconsistency (as if Caro didn't have bad losses her self), that shows you how much/how well Petra won outside of those hiccups.

Bravo Petra!!

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:08 PM
Actually Caro played 3 more tournaments than Petra (19 vs 22), and Petra's WTA record is 58-13 (though the WTA broadcast in Istanbul says it's now 60-13), while Caro's record is 63-17, WTA record.

Petra has a clear better winning percentage, and is only 115 pts behind for #1, with three less tournaments than Caro.

So for all the phony criticism a lot of Woztards wanna give Petra for "alleged" inconsistency (as if Caro didn't have bad losses her self), that shows you how much/how well Petra won outside of those hiccups.

Bravo Petra!!

Or that Petra accumulated more points at big tournaments in the periods where she was in good form?

Juju Nostalgique
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:25 PM
This is a no brainer. Can't believe 16 casual fans voted the first option. :weirdo:

Mightymirza
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:28 PM
Here we go again. I love Kvitova but :tape: :rolleyes: Caro is still number one.. Petra will be number one when she does get the ranking. Caro did get to the ranking fair and square and kudos for her keeping it so long. People need to stop being bitter bitches :lol: Sky is the limit if Kvitova keeps her form next year. I dont think she really cares (hope so) that shes not number one yet.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:30 PM
Statistics no.1 - caro
Real no.1(in term of best tennis throughout the year) - petra


I agree that Kvitova won the biggest titles and had the "greatest" year of all players but this line made me laugh :oh:

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:33 PM
Woz would trade her 2011 for Petra's in a heartbeat. :dance:

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:33 PM
Laughable statement. So if a Player won the Calendar Slam and was ranked #2, #3, or #4 (easily possible under the incompetent WTA ranking system) they wouldnt be the "true #1" if the computer didnt rank them there. :lol:


Yes, absolutely.

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:34 PM
Woz would trade her 2011 for Petra's in a heartbeat. :dance:

Caroline's opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.:lol:

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:35 PM
Caroline's opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.:lol:

And so is yours. :wavey:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:37 PM
And so is yours. :wavey:

You can't follow a logical argument? :awww:

SAISAI-GOAT
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:42 PM
the rankings tell us who is the true #1 ... why bother having a poll :bigwave:

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:47 PM
You can't follow a logical argument? :awww:

You don't make a logical argument to follow. :awww: You're saying that Wozniacki's opinion is irrelevant to a discussion about HERSELF yet for some reason you consider the opinions of people on a message board (or at least your own) about Wozniacki to be relevant. Riiiiiiiight. :lol: There is nothing logical about that. :spit:

GTFO. :bigwave:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:52 PM
You don't make a logical argument to follow. :awww: You're saying that Wozniacki's opinion is irrelevant to a discussion about HERSELF yet for some reason you consider the opinions of people on a message board (or at least your own) about Wozniacki to be relevant. Riiiiiiiight. :lol: There is nothing logical about that. :spit:

GTFO. :bigwave:

The discussion is not about Wozniacki qua Wozniacki. The discussion is about who's the true #1, which can be determined without any input from Caroline. It is an objective characteristic not determined by the individual who possesses the characteristic's opinion about the characteristic.:bigwave:

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:55 PM
The discussion is not about Wozniacki qua Wozniacki. The discussion is about who's the true #1, which can be determined without any input from Caroline. It is an objective characteristic not determined by the individual who possesses the characteristic's opinion about the characteristic.:bigwave:

So how is her opinion any less relevant than yours? Please do explain. :wavey:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:03 PM
So how is her opinion any less relevant than yours? Please do explain. :wavey:

Her opinion (about which results she would rather have) is irrelevant to the discussion. She could rather have Jovanovski's resuls but it wouldn't follow that Jovanovski should be the true #1. That has no bearing in who should be the true #1. My assessment of the "True #1 of 2011" problem is based on opinion that has direct bearing to the problem. Namely the semantics of the word "true" and the officialness of the ranking.

GreenGrass
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:05 PM
If Kvitova was the true no 1, she would have accumulated enough points for that ranking, but she didnt :shrug: while Caro did, so there's no denying that Caro is the true no 1 and she deserves it :shrug: :)

LoLex
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:06 PM
Wozniacki. I'm not a fan but that's what ranking says and I respect that.

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:14 PM
Her opinion (about which results she would rather have) is irrelevant to the discussion.

What utter garbage. :happy: Of course it's relevant. If we're debating on who is the true #1, of course if you ask Kvitova and Wozniacki whose 2011 they would rather and they both said Kvitova's, then I think that means something. And you're saying that Wozniacki saying she'd prefer Kvitova's 2011 is completely irrelevant? :spit:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:19 PM
What utter garbage. :happy: Of course it's relevant. If we're debating on who is the true #1, of course if you ask Kvitova and Wozniacki who's 2011 they would rather and they both said Kvitova's, then I think that means something. And you're saying that Wozniacki saying she'd prefer Kvitova's 2011 is completely irrelevant? :spit:

Yes, I do believe so. Unless you can articulate why it's relevant.

Roookie
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:21 PM
In singles alone Petra earned 2 million dollars more than Caro this year. That says it all.

goldenlox
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:23 PM
I wouldnt mind if the rankings were done by prizemoney. But its the same computer formula for all of them.
Caro gets YE #1 bonuses from sponsors so this thread is beyond irrelevant
But entertaining nonetheless

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:25 PM
In singles alone Petra earned 2 million dollars more than Caro this year. That says it all.

All that says is that Petra received more money than Caroline in the tournaments that they've played. There is no causal relation between the amount of money that you receive and rankings. Correlation but not causation.

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:28 PM
Yes, I do believe so. Unless you can articulate why it's relevant.

The "true #1" is presumably the one who has the best results in 2011. Obviously Wozniacki statistically speaking is the #1, but if she doesn't have the best results (and she admits this), then she is not the "true #1". If you disagree with me then please explain what you think the "true #1" means. And don't give me crap like "the player with the most WTA points" or "person who won the most matches" something along those lines, because that's not a discussion, we know that's Woz. :wavey:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:33 PM
The "true #1" is presumably the one who has the best results in 2011. Obviously Wozniacki statistically speaking is the #1, but if she doesn't have the best results (and she admits this), then she is not the "true #1". If you disagree with me then please explain what you think the "true #1" means. And don't give me crap like "the player with the most WTA points" or "person who won the most matches" something along those lines, because that's not a discussion, we know that's Woz. :wavey:

The definition of true is "In accordance with fact or reality." The #1 player is determined by the ranking system used by the WTA. In order to be the true #1, you must be the player that is determined to be #1 under the WTA ranking system. An infinite amount of players can be #1 under an infinite amount of ranking systems but I accept the WTA system to be the official one. If you're going to claim that Petra is the #1 player in the world, then a case can be made that every person on the planet is the true #1 in the world using a myriad of different ranking systems.

rechi
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:34 PM
Thats an easy one. Petra Kvitova is the real number 1 at this moment! Won Wimbledon and Istanbul!!! Do you need more arguments ;-)

I think the ranking system must be changed someone, that the players who win the bigger tournaments are rewarded more, than the players who just play a lot of tournaments. Maybe the WTA should increase the points for a GS win and YEC win...

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:35 PM
Thats an easy one. Petra Kvitova is the real number 1 at this moment! Won Wimbledon and Istanbul!!! Do you need more arguments ;-)

I think the ranking system must be changed someone, that the players who win the bigger tournaments are rewarded more, than the players who just play a lot of tournaments. Maybe the WTA should increase the points for a GS win and YEC win...

Yes I do dear. :kiss:

BlueTrees
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:42 PM
The definition of true is "In accordance with fact or reality." The #1 player is determined by the ranking system used by the WTA. In order to be the true #1, you must be the player that is determined to be #1 under the WTA ranking system. An infinite amount of players can be #1 under an infinite amount of ranking systems but I accept the WTA system to be the official one. If you're going to claim that Petra is the #1 player in the world, then a case can be made that every person on the planet is the true #1 in the world using a myriad of different ranking systems.

If that's the case then how come...

1. Sharapova was given the WTA player of the year award in 2004 despite finishing the year at #4 (1224 points behind Dav)?
2. Henin was given the WTA player of the year award in 2006 despite finishing the year at #3?
3. Clijsters was given the WTA player of the year award in 2010 despite finishing the year at #3 (1400 points behind Woz)?

Obviously the WTA is able to distinguish between the "true #1" (or the player with the best results, the best player) and the "statistically speaking #1". Or is their opinion "irrelevant to this discussion" also? :happy:

:bigwave:

Mynarco
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:43 PM
The points Petra won from Wimbledon and YEC almost cover ALL the points wozniacki gained from winning 6 titles.
Just saying

Melange
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:48 PM
If Caroline had won Bastad and completed the Woz slam, she would be a clear winner. As it is, its quite close but I will still give it to her because she won Indian Wells.

Laura_VeeFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:03 PM
Kvitova's title are more impressive than Woz's plus she has a slam and the YEC. She quite clearly the best player of 2011

Hurley
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:12 PM
If you're the best player then you should be able to prove it whenever you play.

Close. If you're the best player, then you should be able to prove it ONCE. :oh:

mac47
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:44 PM
Really funny trolling from Novichok. He knows perfectly well that the phrase "real number 1” in the original post did not mean, "Let me check the WTA website...Yep, it's Caro!" And he knows this without "reading minds". He's just enjoying jerking everyone's chain by pretending to be too stupid to understand and then blaming the original poster for not using words in accordance with their dictionary definition.

It is obvious that Wozniacki's ranking was gained by gaming the poorly designed system, not by being the best player this year. The system, and the rankings it produces, thus does not "correspond to reality" -- and that is what the original poster was wanting to discuss. It would have been very sweet to see Petra snatch the YE#1 ranking -- which she would have done if Radwanska had beaten Woz. The dismay of her fans here in GM would have been a source of delicious schadenfreude. But it is only a matter of time before that injustice gets rectified, and in the meantime, Petra, being #2, will enjoy equal seeding benefits until Caro falls to #3 or lower.

Every player in the top 20 would rather see Wozniacki in their quarter of the draw than Petra.

I'm looking forward to seeing how many slams Petra wins in 2012, and how many ranking places Caro falls by the end of the year.

Irute
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:59 PM
Really funny trolling from Novichok. He knows perfectly well that the phrase "real number 1” in the original post did not mean, "Let me check the WTA website...Yep, it's Caro!" And he knows this without "reading minds". He's just enjoying jerking everyone's chain by pretending to be too stupid to understand and then blaming the original poster for not using words in accordance with their dictionary definition.

It is obvious that Wozniacki's ranking was gained by gaming the poorly designed system, not by being the best player this year. The system, and the rankings it produces, thus does not "correspond to reality" -- and that is what the original poster was wanting to discuss. It would have been very sweet to see Petra snatch the YE#1 ranking -- which she would have done if Radwanska had beaten Woz. The dismay of her fans here in GM would have been a source of delicious schadenfreude. But it is only a matter of time before that injustice gets rectified, and in the meantime, Petra, being #2, will enjoy equal seeding benefits until Caro falls to #3 or lower.

Every player in the top 20 would rather see Wozniacki in their quarter of the draw than Petra.

I'm looking forward to seeing how many slams Petra wins in 2012, and how many ranking places Caro falls by the end of the year.

I don't think (s)he is trolling, but trying to make a point that TRUE #1 is determined over entire year. While we want to believe that currently best performing player will continue or even increase her level of play in foreseeable future we truly don't know it. Petra had two awesome streaks this year but did not perform to get either on the computer or in objective eyes over 12 month period. Upcoming months will show if she will deliver on this promise, they will also show if Caroline or someone else will raise their level to make it difficult for her. Since the definition of TRUE is vague it will cause conflict here and bring different opinions to this thread. I agree that IF nothing changes in the next months she WILL be the TRUE and REAL number 1, but that did not happen yet.

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:01 PM
If that's the case then how come...

1. Sharapova was given the WTA player of the year award in 2004 despite finishing the year at #4 (1224 points behind Dav)?
2. Henin was given the WTA player of the year award in 2006 despite finishing the year at #3?
3. Clijsters was given the WTA player of the year award in 2010 despite finishing the year at #3 (1400 points behind Woz)?

Obviously the WTA is able to distinguish between the "true #1" (or the player with the best results, the best player) and the "statistically speaking #1". Or is their opinion "irrelevant to this discussion" also? :happy:

:bigwave:

Being #1 in the world is not a sufficient condition to receive the WTA player of the year award. :bigwave:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:02 PM
Really funny trolling from Novichok. He knows perfectly well that the phrase "real number 1 in the original post did not mean, "Let me check the WTA website...Yep, it's Caro!" And he knows this without "reading minds". He's just enjoying jerking everyone's chain by pretending to be too stupid to understand and then blaming the original poster for not using words in accordance with their dictionary definition.

It is obvious that Wozniacki's ranking was gained by gaming the poorly designed system, not by being the best player this year. The system, and the rankings it produces, thus does not "correspond to reality" -- and that is what the original poster was wanting to discuss. It would have been very sweet to see Petra snatch the YE#1 ranking -- which she would have done if Radwanska had beaten Woz. The dismay of her fans here in GM would have been a source of delicious schadenfreude. But it is only a matter of time before that injustice gets rectified, and in the meantime, Petra, being #2, will enjoy equal seeding benefits until Caro falls to #3 or lower.

Every player in the top 20 would rather see Wozniacki in their quarter of the draw than Petra.

I'm looking forward to seeing how many slams Petra wins in 2012, and how many ranking places Caro falls by the end of the year.

I'm amazed that you can read my mind. I guess you already know what I think about you. :kiss:

Aramitz_II
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:11 PM
The true #1 is the player who is #1 under the WTA ranking system. Anyone who says otherwise is unknowingly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.

THIS!!

Talula
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:12 PM
Wozniacki is obviously world number 1 as the computer says so, but Kvitova is the player of the year / best player because she has won 2 of the biggest 5 events while Wozniacki did not reach the final of any of the 5.

My view too.

I also don't buy that the WTA 'rigged' the ranking, with Caroline's complicity. Why would she want all this controversy and pressure? I actually feel for her and would rather be in Petra's shoes. Far better to be No 2 without the pressure. Petra can lose here and there and still go for some big ones. Whereas Caroline has to live up to No 1 all the time. I think many of us underestimate the pressure on her, and what is she to do?

goldenlox
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:15 PM
My view too.

I also don't buy that the WTA 'rigged' the ranking, with Caroline's complicity. Why would she want all this controversy and pressure? I actually feel for her and would rather be in Petra's shoes. Far better to be No 2 without the pressure. Petra can lose here and there and still go for some big ones. Whereas Caroline has to live up to No 1 all the time. I think many of us underestimate the pressure on her, and what is she to do?I dont agree, but if this were true, Caro is in luck because she defends 1000s more than Petra, Vika, & Maria early 2012.
There's almost no way she can be #1 for 51 weeks in 2012.
So she will be a closer next year, after being frontrunner most of 2011

LCS
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:18 PM
Every tournament matters.





Exactly.

:facepalm: delusional.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:37 PM
:facepalm: delusional.


I was stating a fact, not opinion. :weirdo:

Pops Maellard
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:49 PM
Let me see. The girl who won a slam and a YEC VS the girl who didn't reach a final at any. Toughie.

It's Kvitova by a nose!

Viennalover
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:53 PM
I even feel sorry for Caro.
She always need to defend herself for being No.1.
She is consistancy queen but not No.1 player in the world.

About Petra, she's not perfect but shows a blight future.
and Caro's peek is... maybe last year? :rolleyes:

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:09 PM
All that says is that Petra received more money than Caroline in the tournaments that they've played. There is no causal relation between the amount of money that you receive and rankings. Correlation but not causation.

Actually there is: the effect is higher prize money; the cause is by a) doing better OR b) playing in higher rated events and they are directly related to rankings. Players who have more prize money generally means they are more successful which in turn means they have better results therefore HIGHER RANKINGS.....so sorry sir but the two do relate, thanks!

mac47
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:16 PM
The question is not whether Caro is #1 under the present system. Any fool can see that she is. The question is whether the current ranking system is a good one, since it gave Caro the #1 ranking despite her tournament wins being less important than Petra's, and despite her being less consistent than Petra (as evidenced by her lower winning %).

To say, "The computer ranking is the true ranking, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional" is to beg the question. It is equivalent to an assertion that, by definition, there cannot be any problem with the WTA's ranking system. But that is nonsense, since the WTA has itself changed and tweaked its ranking system from time to time, presumably to make it a better reflection of reality. That presupposes that there is a reality distinct from the system.

Just thought it would be helpful to set the debate on a proper footing, so that people can see Novichok's grandstanding for the nonsense that it is.

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:18 PM
Where do people get this "consistency queen"/ Petra had a "few awesome" streaks but Caroline was consistent all around, bs........Caroline leads by only 105 points, and as for consistency,her clay season was terrible; her US hardcourt season was a mess save her USO Semi and her fall was a joke!!! In half her events she failed to even reach the QFs!!!!(Sydeny,Miami,Madrid,RG,Wimby,Bastaad,Cincy ,Toronto,Beijing and YEC). Basically she had a highly consistent first 3 months to the year but then for the ENTIRE remaineder of the season had about 4 strong results

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:25 PM
Where do people get this "consistency queen"/ Petra had a "few awesome" streaks but Caroline was consistent all around, bs........Caroline leads by only 105 points, and as for consistency,her clay season was terrible; her US hardcourt season was a mess save her USO Semi and her fall was a joke!!!


The only joke I'm seeing here would be your post. Caro won 2 Premiers during the clay season and won New Haven during the US HC season...why are you posting such crap? Care about Makarova instead :rolleyes:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:32 PM
Actually there is: the effect is higher prize money; the cause is by a) doing better OR b) playing in higher rated events and they are directly related to rankings. Players who have more prize money generally means they are more successful which in turn means they have better results therefore HIGHER RANKINGS.....so sorry sir but the two do relate, thanks!

The amount of prize money that you get does not cause the ranking that you get. Your above paragraph is barely comprehensible. It in no way shows that the amount of prize money you receive has an impact on your ranking. Your last sentence is just correlation not causation either. Before you come at me with what you believe to be a thoughtful response, actually learn how to think. :wavey:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:35 PM
The question is not whether Caro is #1 under the present system. Any fool can see that she is. The question is whether the current ranking system is a good one, since it gave Caro the #1 ranking despite her tournament wins being less important than Petra's, and despite her being less consistent than Petra (as evidenced by her lower winning %).

To say, "The computer ranking is the true ranking, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional" is to beg the question. It is equivalent to an assertion that, by definition, there cannot be any problem with the WTA's ranking system. But that is nonsense, since the WTA has itself changed and tweaked its ranking system from time to time, presumably to make it a better reflection of reality. That presupposes that there is a reality distinct from the system.

Just thought it would be helpful to set the debate on a proper footing, so that people can see Novichok's grandstanding for the nonsense that it is.

No. The question was: True #1 of 2011 : Wozniacki or Kvitova?

I don't think that you know what begging the question means. Begging the question means that the conclusion is embedded in the premises. There has been a logical argument made in this thread that does not beg the question in support of Caroline as the true #1.

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:35 PM
The only joke I'm seeing here would be your post. Caro won 2 Premiers during the clay season and won New Haven during the US HC season...why are you posting such crap? Care about Makarova instead :rolleyes:

Do me a favor(and yourself) and go back to READ my post......1,2,3,4,5, sorry couldn't wait.

Charleston ,which IF YOU READ, was apart of her highly consistent first 3 months of her season! And again IF YOU READ, i said she had about 4 good results for the rest of the season: Brussels,New Haven,USO and Rome. So as i said after than her strong start to the year ,other than about 4 events, she had a very weak season overall! It's not a lie nor is it crap: the girls lost before the QFs in 10....TEN events this year!

Btw idiot, you tried to be clever with the Makarova joke but you have no idea who that even is :rolleyes:

marineblue
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:35 PM
I wonder how long will it take Kvitty bangwagon:silly: to get over the fact that she just wasn't good enough to reach the no.1. Winning biggest tournaments does not automatically mean being the best player. That's a recurring pattern with all recent slam winners,not only Kvitova.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:44 PM
Do me a favor(and yourself) and go back to READ my post......1,2,3,4,5, sorry couldn't wait.

Charleston ,which IF YOU READ, was apart of her highly consistent first 3 months of her season! And again IF YOU READ, i said she had about 4 good results for the rest of the season: Brussels,New Haven,USO and Rome. So as i said after than her strong start to the year ,other than about 4 events, she had a very weak season overall! It's not a lie nor is it crap: the girls lost before the QFs in 10....TEN events this year!

Btw idiot, you tried to be clever with the Makarova joke but you have no idea who that even is :rolleyes:


And now you try to backpeddle by pointing to something that you have written in a whole different paragraph. :lol: So lame but what do I expect from bitter Caro haters like you? :rolleyes:

And I know who Makarova is. I've seen her play live when you were still in your diapers. :baby:

Sorry for being rude but when you call me an idiot, you get back what you deserve. :wavey:

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:46 PM
The amount of prize money that you get does not cause the ranking that you get. Your above paragraph is barely comprehensible. It in no way shows that the amount of prize money you receive has an impact on your ranking. Your last sentence is just correlation not causation either. Before you come at me with what you believe to be a thoughtful response, actually learn how to think. :wavey:

BTW like i told the last guy, try reading first....nowhere in the first place did i even say "Rankings are caused by Prize Money" so i really didn't even need to defend my post and right there alone "your thoughtful and intellgient" response to my post was pretty much nullified!


Hahaha i love making people look stupid, who prior tried to make someone else look dumb.......you said prize money and rankings are not casually related to nor do they have any causation,correct?

The higher rlevel events you play offer HIGHER PRIZE MONEY and accordingly HIGHER RANK POINTS, now if YOU actually learned how to think and used a teeny bit of logic you would see how the two are related and in ways caused by one another! Playing and doing well in a GS will cause you to get alot of rank points and also cause you to gain much in prize money. The Cause: Playing and doing better in higher level events = The Effect: more prize money and rankings points. Not directly caused, but caused none the less(which is exactly what i said in the first place ). Toodles ;)

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:49 PM
And now you try to backpeddle by pointing to something that you have written in a whole different paragraph. :lol: So lame but what do I expect from bitter Caro haters like you? :rolleyes:

And I know who Makarova is. I've seen her play live when you were still in your diapers. :baby:

Sorry for being rude but when you call me an idiot, you get back what you deserve. :wavey:

I didn't back peddle anywhere, i referred right back to my post in which you quoted. :rolleyes: I think it's you who is trying to deflect the egg of your face by alluding to various "posts/conversation changes".Geez, maybe it's a language barrier :confused:.

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:50 PM
BTW like i told the last guy, try reading first....nowhere in the first place did i even say "Rankings are caused by Prize Money" so i really didn't even need to defend my post and right there alone "your thoughtful and intellgient" response to my post was pretty much nullified!


Hahaha i love making people look stupid, who prior tried to make someone else look dumb.......you said prize money and rankings are not casually related to nor do they have any causation,correct?

The higher rlevel events you play offer HIGHER PRIZE MONEY and accordingly HIGHER RANK POINTS, now if YOU actually learned how to think and used a teeny bit of logic you would see how the two are related and in ways caused by one another! Playing and doing well in a GS will cause you to get alot of rank points and also cause you to gain much in prize money. The Cause: Playing and doing better in higher level events = The Effect: more prize money and rankings points. Not directly caused, but caused none the less(which is exactly what i said in the first place ). Toodles ;)

I'm sorry but I have studied logic and this is a mess.:lol:

If you don't believe that "Rankings are caused by Prize Money," why are you arguing with me? We agree on that. I said that there's no causal relationship between prize money and rankings (Do you believe that prize money is caused by rankings?). I said that they were correlated. Your last paragraph agrees with me on that. I hope that you haven't graduated high school yet. Otherwise, buy a critical thinking skills book and study the hell out of it.

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:56 PM
I'm sorry but I have studied logic and this is a mess.:lol:

If you don't believe that "Rankings are caused by Prize Money," why are you arguing with me? We agree on that. I said that there's no causal relationship with prize money and rankings. Your last paragraph agrees with me on that. I said that they were correlated. I hope that you haven't graduate high school yet. Otherwise, buy a critical thinking skills book and study the hell out of it.

Nope pretty sure it's your SELECTIVE READING and assupmtion skills that are working their magic(and a little bit of putting words im my mouth, which you have just done for the second time). My entire last paragraph stated that while the two WEREN'T directed related there IS causation which was a direct challenge to your intial statement of saying there is "no causation" nor any "casual relation". I wasnt arguing your opinion, i was merely showing you how there IS causation. Duh

And fyi, studying logic at your local community college is probably the reason you thought that a mess.....just saying :wavey:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:00 PM
Nope pretty sure it's your SELECTIVE READING and assupmtion skills that are working their magic(and a little bit of putting words im my mouth, which you have just done for the second time). My entire last paragraph stated that while the two WEREN'T directed related there IS causation which was a direct challenge to your intial statement of saying there is "no causation" nor any "casual relation". I wasnt arguing your opinion, i was merely showing you how there IS causation. Duh

And fyi, studying logic at your local community college is probably the reason you thought that a mess.....just saying :wavey:

No dear, that is not causation. Correlation does not imply causation.

And your last sentence is a mess. Who the hell are you? The reincarnation of Kurt Godel or Gottlob Frege?:lol:

Mistress of Evil
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:01 PM
Queen Petra is the moral winner :bowdown:
Evil Princess Karolina had usurped the top spot with the help of dark powers, making the poor little haters of hers so unhappy :scared:

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:09 PM
No dear, that is not causation. Correlation does not imply causation.

And your last sentence is a mess. Who the hell are you? The reincarnation of Kurt Godel or Gottlob Frege?:lol:

No buddy, causation is basically the "act or process of causing something" and several times now i have explained how there is a cause/effect between the two.Now whether or not you believe it true seems to be YOUR problem. There was and is no implicating going on from my said(if any thing ,it is you who have made several implications, but that's neither here nor there). As it stands, i have defended my statement twice now and have shown how the causation between rankings and prize money. Maybe you,as you previously did yourself by criticizing the wording by the OP, should have better phrased your initial statement to avoid this.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:14 PM
Prize money is really completely irrelevant when trying to figure out who the best player or "true #1" is. I think most sane people here would agree on that. :tape:

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:15 PM
I wonder how long will it take Kvitty bangwagon:silly: to get over the fact that she just wasn't good enough to reach the no.1. Winning biggest tournaments does not automatically mean being the best player. That's a recurring pattern with all recent slam winners,not only Kvitova.

Really, which recent slam winners have won ANY other(big or small) tournament since their GS win, heck which recent slam winner has been anywhere near No.1 in the rankings??? Def not Schiavone, not Li and nope not Stosur. What are you talking about kid? I'm sorry but there HASN'T been a recent slam winner who has done this well and won this many big events and been this close to number 1, so stop acting brand new.

MakarovaFan
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:19 PM
Prize money is really completely irrelevant when trying to figure out who the best player or "true #1" is. I think most sane people here would agree on that. :tape:


I love how you attack a post and defend it feverishly until proven wrong, then you disappear and stop answering the resulting queries(from that arguement) only to reappear and begin bandwagoning/defending a completely different topic until once again someone proves you wrong. 5th time now lol. This is fun

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:21 PM
No buddy, causation is basically the "act or process of causing something" and several times now i have explained how there is a cause/effect between the two.Now whether or not you believe it true seems to be YOUR problem. There was and is no implicating going on from my said(if any thing ,it is you who have made several implications, but that's neither here nor there). As it stands, i have defended my statement twice now and have shown how the causation between rankings and prize money. Maybe you,as you previously did yourself by criticizing the wording by the OP, should have better phrased your initial statement to avoid this.

Here's your argument, child:

Playing well (X) leads to a higher ranking (Y) and more prize money (Z). You claimed that the cause of higher rankings and more prize money is playing well.

Basically your argument is: X ----> (Y & Z)
It does not follow that: Z ----> Y

They are correlated but not causally related.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:23 PM
I love how you attack a post and defend it feverishly until proven wrong


I did not get proven wrong. I posted all that I had to say on the topic and made my point clear I think (and won the argument).

So do you agree with my post above? Yes or No? Will be very interesting.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:44 PM
I did not get proven wrong. I posted all that I had to say on the topic and made my point clear I think (and won the argument).

So do you agree with my post above? Yes or No? Will be very interesting.
Game set match Matt :bounce:

http://jokerreport.typepad.com/.a/6a00e393366a1a8834014e8b95a7bb970d-500wi

:hug:

Pops Maellard
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:07 PM
I wonder how long will it take Kvitty bangwagon:silly: to get over the fact that she just wasn't good enough to reach the no.1. Winning biggest tournaments does not automatically mean being the best player. That's a recurring pattern with all recent slam winners,not only Kvitova.

She was good enough to reach #1. She just didn't play enough events to make the most of this best 16 results system where almost all of Karolina's 10 pre-QF losses this year were erased in favour of her GOAT runs at relatively empty premiers like Brussells.

killerqueen
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:09 PM
Wozniacki was the true number one, because she spent virtually all of the year at number one. Petra however was the best player of the year.

Coconut91
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:11 PM
Everyone knows Petra is the best player in the world. We don't need a computer to tell us that. Wozniacki can end the year as #1 under this ranking system. It's ok. She will probably lose the spot next season, more sooner than later, and there's not much she can do about it.

Her fate will be determined, as always, by other players' level. Difference is, it looks unlikely that she'll be able to benefit from that for much longer.

Everyone will be put in the right place, eventually. ;)

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:11 PM
Game set match Matt :bounce:


And now that Makarova-fanboy/fangirl can't even answer a simple question. :rolleyes:

Keadz
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:17 PM
I think both options have negatives.

Caro as number #1 can't win the tournaments that matter, though she is fairly consistent through out the year.

Petra can win the big tournaments but then struggles to win matches for months and loses in ITF's. Not a good look for a number 1 player either.

If Caro won a slam/ Olympics next year, she would be a better player to hold the mantle without embarrassing the tour. Here's hoping!

Excelscior
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:18 PM
Where do people get this "consistency queen"/ Petra had a "few awesome" streaks but Caroline was consistent all around, bs........Caroline leads by only 105 points, and as for consistency,her clay season was terrible; her US hardcourt season was a mess save her USO Semi and her fall was a joke!!! In half her events she failed to even reach the QFs!!!!(Sydeny,Miami,Madrid,RG,Wimby,Bastaad,Cincy ,Toronto,Beijing and YEC). Basically she had a highly consistent first 3 months to the year but then for the ENTIRE remaineder of the season had about 4 strong results

This

So many Woztards ignore what you said and pretend the actual reality is something else.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Caroline was very inconsistent in 2011, especially for a number one.

goldenlox
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:23 PM
2011 weeks at #1

Wozniacki - 51
Clijsters - 1
everyone else on the tour - zero

Soliloque
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:24 PM
Sadly, Caro is the true number one. She's not the best player of the world, but she's number one.

Petra has just herself to blame in this story. She sucked on outdoor hardcourt all year long (except January) which explains that she's behind by a tiny margin. Not consistent enough.

Anyway. It was a weird year. Wozniacki performance were not as good as last year, Kim won AO and disappeared when you thought she was gonna take the lead, Kvitova was too erratic to win the few points she would have needed, Serena barely played and still dominated most of the tournaments she played, Li won a slam, played a slam final and then nothing, Stosur didn't performed well outside of the USO...

It feels like there's no such thing as a best player this year or a true number one this year. Nobody took the edge with consistency.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:35 PM
I'm confused, I thought that according to Dsanders06 for some obscure reason that only he and his invisible friend understands, that Grannypants Pova was the real number 1?

mac47
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:55 PM
No. The question was: True #1 of 2011 : Wozniacki or Kvitova?

I don't think that you know what begging the question means. Begging the question means that the conclusion is embedded in the premises. There has been a logical argument made in this thread that does not beg the question in support of Caroline as the true #1.

Actually, Novichok, there has not been any logical argument made for Caro being the true #1, probably because none can be. The very idea of a "true #1 requires an argument to prove that the computer ranking corresponds to some reality behind the ranking. But all we have seen advanced as an argument by you and others is this: "Caro is the real number 1 because the WTA computer says she is." As a response to the initial question, that's circular. It amounts to saying that "the WTA ranking is correct because the WTA ranking system generates it." You are indeed begging the question.

ananke
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:01 PM
I see that Kvitova bandwagoners try very hard to make new enemies for Petra :rolleyes:. If you want to bash a player you don't like, fine, but please, don't use sweet and honest girl like Petra to do it. You're adding more fuel for the haters, just watch how they will use it the next time Petra fails. And as someone who watches her since USO'09 I can guarantee you that she WILL fail at some stages of the next season.

I think it's a little too early for #1 too, the more time she has to deal with all the pressure, the better.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:02 PM
Actually, Novichok, there has not been any logical argument made for Caro being the true #1, probably because none can be. The very idea of a "true #1 requires an argument to prove that the computer ranking corresponds to some reality behind the ranking. But all we have seen advanced as an argument by you and others is this: "Caro is the real number 1 because the WTA computer says she is." As a response to the initial question, that's circular. It amounts to saying that "the WTA ranking is correct because the WTA ranking system generates it." You are indeed begging the question.

How about Caroline earned more points than the other players during the year, and her closest rival was unable to play to an acceptable standard without a roof over her head, or a still calm?

It's a ranking based on actual performances on the court over 12 months, not a fantasy popularity contest.

Rollo
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:03 PM
Even the WTA must be blushing in embarrassment.

Kvitova has a higher-won loss percentage. (That's consistency)
Two majors to zero.
A 1-0 head to head this year vs Caro.

and won the same number of events overall.

Petra may not be a strong #1, but she's a clear #1.

Caro would have been be a valid #1 if she had manged even the YEC, but once again she's proven why she a hollow #1.

She's 0 for 10 in majors and the YEC in the 2 years she's computer #1. Givre her a 100% for consistency, as she's consitently losing the ones that count.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:04 PM
I see that Kvitova bandwagoners try very hard to make new enemies for Petra :rolleyes:. If you want to bash a player you don't like, fine, but please, don't use sweet and honest girl like Petra to do it. You're adding more fuel for the haters, just watch how they will use it the next time Petra fails. And as someone who watches her since USO'09 I can guarantee you that she WILL fail at some stages of the next season.

I think it's a little too early for #1 too, the more time she has to deal with all the pressure, the better.

It's an unfortunate reality that most of the floating glory hunting trolls on TF flocked behind the Petra band wagon. Nothing we can do about it until the mods wake up.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:10 PM
Even the WTA must be blushing in embarrassment.

Kvitova has a higher-won loss percentage. (That's consistency)
Two majors to zero.
A 1-0 head to head this year vs Caro.

and won the same number of events overall.

Petra may not be a strong #1, but she's a clear #1.

Caro would have been be a valid #1 if she had manged even the YEC, but once again she's proven why she a hollow #1.

She's 0 for 10 in majors and the YEC in the 2 years she's computer #1. Givre her a 100% for consistency, as she's consitently losing the ones that count.

52 weeks does not equal 2 years. Forgive me if I ignore the rest of your post.

bobito
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:15 PM
52 weeks does not equal 2 years. Forgive me if I ignore the rest of your post.

Caro has been #1 for just over a year. Therefore the results that have contributed to her becoming and remaining #1 cover the last two years. I believe that is what Rollo was referring to.

Excelscior
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:17 PM
Even the WTA must be blushing in embarrassment.

Kvitova has a higher-won loss percentage. (That's consistency)
Two majors to zero.
A 1-0 head to head this year vs Caro.

and won the same number of events overall.

Petra may not be a strong #1, but she's a clear #1.

Caro would have been be a valid #1 if she had manged even the YEC, but once again she's proven why she a hollow #1.

She's 0 for 10 in majors and the YEC in the 2 years she's computer #1. Givre her a 100% for consistency, as she's consitently losing the ones that count.

Well said Rollo.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:17 PM
Caro has been #1 for just over a year. Therefore the results that have contributed to her becoming and remaining #1 cover the last two years. I believe that is what Rollo was referring to.

he lists 10 Majors so I don't think that's the case at all. Further additional errors lead me to ignore the post .

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:21 PM
Actually, Novichok, there has not been any logical argument made for Caro being the true #1, probably because none can be. The very idea of a "true #1” requires an argument to prove that the computer ranking corresponds to some reality behind the ranking. But all we have seen advanced as an argument by you and others is this: "Caro is the real number 1 because the WTA computer says she is." As a response to the initial question, that's circular. It amounts to saying that "the WTA ranking is correct because the WTA ranking system generates it." You are indeed begging the question.

No that is not what it amounts to. The arguments is:

1) The WTA system is the only official ranking system
2) The player who is #1 under an official system is the true #1.
3) Caroline is the #1 player under the WTA system.

Therefore, Caroline is the true #1.

There is no circularity in that argument and the conclusion follows logically from the premises. The only objection that you can make is to question Premise 2.

mac47
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:22 PM
He said "0 for 10 in majors and the YEC." 4 majors plus 1 YEC x 2 years = 10.

Rollo
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:27 PM
He said "0 for 10 in majors and the YEC." 4 majors plus 1 YEC x 2 years = 10.


Thanks Mac 47:).

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:29 PM
He said "0 for 10 in majors and the YEC." 4 majors plus 1 YEC x 2 years = 10.

He says "in the two years she is computer number 1" to which he attributes 10 majors... She has been number one for 52 weeks, not two years...

What he said is clear, and what he said is factually wrong. I can't be bothered to list the rest of the errors...

goldenlox
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:30 PM
Caro wasnt #1 for the 2010 majors. She was seeded 1 at USO 2010 but ranked 2
But once she got to #1 after Beijing, beating Kvitova along the way,Caro at #1 has been the most consistent part of the tour.
No one since 1996 spent 51 weeks at #1 in a year, and when she loses #1 early in 2012, it will be around 65 out of 66 weeks

Excelscior
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:31 PM
Sadly, Caro is the true number one. She's not the best player of the world, but she's number one.

Petra has just herself to blame in this story. She sucked on outdoor hardcourt all year long (except January) which explains that she's behind by a tiny margin. Not consistent enough.

Anyway. It was a weird year. Wozniacki performance were not as good as last year, Kim won AO and disappeared when you thought she was gonna take the lead, Kvitova was too erratic to win the few points she would have needed, Serena barely played and still dominated most of the tournaments she played, Li won a slam, played a slam final and then nothing, Stosur didn't performed well outside of the USO...

It feels like there's no such thing as a best player this year or a true number one this year. Nobody took the edge with consistency.

You do realize that Caro won a significant amount of her tournaments before March, has basically stunk up the joint since May, and won very little for the rest of the year (minus Newhaven)? Where's the reciprocity for Wozniaki (since you pointed out Petra's so called "inconsistency")?

Petra has been the more consistent one (58-13 record vs Caro's 62-17 one), and won 2 titles in the beginning, middle and end of the year. That's balance. Caro didn't!

More significantly, I think Caro had a 3000 point lead at one point this year over Petra (maybe more), Vera and Sharapova. I'm not upset that Petra didn't catch her. Cause most of Wozniaki's points came off of her better 2010, but she couldn't defend them due to her continually poor performance in 2011. People forget that. Woztards keep focusing on "Petra's inability to catch her". What about Woz, inability to defend?

Remember when we were all saying (and Woz haters, crying) "Wozniaki was guaranteed number one, and could never be caught, etc."? Remember that? Now Petra is 115 pts behind. Think about that? Petra stepped up, and Woz choked up!

It's a miracle that Petra is only 115 points behind (whether or not Aga should of beat her at YEC, or Petra should of made the final in Tokyo, or 3rd round of US Open, etc.)

Petra should of never caught her in the first place. It was Wozniaki's inability to defend the big lead that she lost, why Petra is so close, and where having this argument now.

Wozniaki was the more INCONSISTENT one actually (and the statistics, won loss percentage, number of titles spread out through the year, etc.) bear this out.

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:33 PM
Caroline has only been #1 for 4 majors.

Soliloque
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:37 PM
You do realize that Caro won a significant amount of her tournaments before March, has basically stunk up the joint since May, and won very little for the rest of the year (minus Newhaven)? Where's the reciprocity for Wozniaki (since you pointed out Petra's so called "inconsistency")?

Petra has been the more consistent one (58-13 record vs Caro's 62-17 one), and won 2 titles in the beginning, middle and end of the year. That's balance. Caro didn't!

More significantly, I think Caro had a 3000 point lead at one point this year over Petra (maybe more), Vera and Sharapova. I'm not upset that Petra didn't catch her. Cause most of Wozniaki's points came off of her better 2010, but she couldn't defend them due to her continually poor performance in 2011. People forget that. Woztards keep focusing on "Petra's inability to catch her". What about Woz, inability to defend?

Remember when we were all saying (and Woz haters, crying) "Wozniaki was guaranteed number one, and could never be caught, etc."? Remember that? Now Petra is 115 pts behind. Think about that? Petra stepped up, and Woz choked up!

It's a miracle that Petra is only 115 points behind (whether or not Aga should of beat her at YEC, or Petra should of made the final in Tokyo, or 3rd round of US Open, etc.)

Petra should of never caught her in the first place. It was Wozniaki's inability to defend the big lead that she lost, why Petra is so close, and where having this argument now.

Wozniaki was the more INCONSISTENT one actually (and the statistics, won loss percentage, number of titles spread out through the year, etc.) bear this out.

I've never said that Wozniacki was consistent this year or more consistent than Kvitova :shrug:
I said that Kvitova was not consistent enough to become number one, which is true (I didn't meant it in the way that she would not deserve to be). I perfectly know that she was the most consistent this year but that doesn't make her consistent as the year has been weird as I said.

Rollo
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:37 PM
He says "in the two years she is computer number 1" to which he attributes 10 majors...

Exactly. 2 years. The two years she was end of the year #1. And in both years she had zero-repeat-zero slams.

I was being kind however, and had she won the YEC would have counted that as a major.

I can't be bothered to list the rest of the errors...

Try. Tell me I'm wrong about the head to head or higher won-losss percentage.

It also sounds as if those who feel Caro is #1 can't be bothered to mount a defense aside from citing the computer.

Excelscior
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:43 PM
Ok Delmarquis

Rollo
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:46 PM
How about Caroline earned more points than the other players during the year, and her closest rival was unable to play to an acceptable standard without a roof over her head, or a still calm?



LOL-I'd say going unbeaten indoors through 18 matches is something to be proud of. It beats being unbeaten in Copehagen or New Haven. Jokes aside, Caro's New Haven record is impressive though.

Besides, Petra was the only player to win events on all surfaces.:)

As for acceptable standards, winning at least one major event in the last calendar year is the acceptable gold standard for #1 players. That's been true for well over 100 years. It even true of the computer for 25 years until this idiotic ranking system (the one created in 1997) has repeatedly throw up non-slam #1's since 2000.

I'm hardly a Caro hater. Had she won a major or even the YEC she'd be fine as #1. Yet again though she
blew it.

goldenlox
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:51 PM
...

I'm hardly a Caro hater. Had she won a major or even the YEC she'd be fine as #1. Yet again though she
blew it.If winning a major is mandatory for #1, Caro is the 5th, Kim, Amelie, Dinara, Jelena. To get to #1 slamless.
Lindsay spent a lot of time at #1 years after her last slam.
This system wasnt made to have a major be a mandatory requirement.

mac47
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:54 PM
No that is not what it amounts to. The arguments is:

1) The WTA system is the only official ranking system
2) The player who is #1 under an official system is the true #1.
3) Caroline is the #1 player under the WTA system.

Therefore, Caroline is the true #1.

There is no circularity in that argument and the conclusion follows logically from the premises. The only objection that you can make is to question Premise 2.

The entire thread is about whether premise two is true or not. That's what the original poster's poll question is asking: whether the rankings produced by the official system are true rankings. For that same proposition to appear in your argument is question-begging.

Rollo
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:07 AM
If winning a major is mandatory for #1, Caro is the 5th, Kim, Amelie, Dinara, Jelena. To get to #1 slamless.
Lindsay spent a lot of time at #1 years after her last slam.
This system wasnt made to have a major be a mandatory requirement.

Exactly GoldenLox:)

And I've been against the "new" quality over quantity rankings since they were introduced in 1997.

Speaking of Davenport, it was refreshing to hear her throw back the #1 ranking when she felt she didn't deserve it. Now she's in good company with Evert, Navratilova, and Mcrenroe -all of whom have stated the idea of Wozniacki as #1 without a slam is just silly.

dsanders06
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:08 AM
Kvitova has two of the 5 biggest prizes in the game, the most titles overall, the highest match-winning %, and the most wins over top 10 players.

Wozniacki has the Wozniacki Open.

:confused:

Matt01
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:10 AM
Kvitova has two of the 5 biggest prizes in the game, the most titles overall, the highest match-winning %, and the most wins over top 10 players.

Wozniacki has the Wozniacki Open.

:confused:


:confused:

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:15 AM
Exactly. 2 years. The two years she was end of the year #1. And in both years she had zero-repeat-zero slams.

I was being kind however, and had she won the YEC would have counted that as a major.

Sorry Rollo, but there is only ONE year between YEC's. You clearly attributed two years of results at majors, and your meaning was clear, as was your bias and unflattering distortion of fact, which in my book is a very unfortunate predisposition for a moderator, only compounded by your inability to be gracious and admit the error of judgement. If you're not man enough to admit your mistakes, your not worth bothering with to be fair.

Try. Tell me I'm wrong about the head to head or higher won-losss percentage.

It also sounds as if those who feel Caro is #1 can't be bothered to mount a defense aside from citing the computer.

Feeling has nothing to do with fact, and while cherry picking statistics is silly enough, describing stats you fail to quote or link a source for is down right deceitful when the difference is negligible enough to be meaningless, and you fail to address actual volume of matches won. Petra fell short, Caro did enough to hang on.

There is nothing more off putting on a forum than a Moderator prone to Troll and Flame threads.

dsanders06
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:18 AM
I've never said that Wozniacki was consistent this year or more consistent than Kvitova :shrug:
I said that Kvitova was not consistent enough to become number one, which is true (I didn't meant it in the way that she would not deserve to be). I perfectly know that she was the most consistent this year but that doesn't make her consistent as the year has been weird as I said.

Yes, but to be #1 (under any sensical ranking system anyway), you only need to be better than everyone else at a given time. Real #1 may be a weak year-ending #1 compared to historical YE #1's, but she's still been the best in both quality and consistency this year, hence her moniker Real #1.

Ryusuke Tenma
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:20 AM
Wozniacki ended the year as #1, so she is the #1 of 2011 you idiots :wavey:

Kvitova is behind her, so suck it up :wavey:

Matt01
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:21 AM
Yes, but to be #1 (under any sensical ranking system anyway), you only need to be better than everyone else at a given time, which Petra has been this year in both quality and consistency. :shrug:


She played two Challengers and lost in them. :rolleyes: I mean for f*cks sake, it's really not that hard to figure out why Petra is #2 while Caro is still #1, is it?

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:21 AM
The entire thread is about whether premise two is true or not. That's what the original poster's poll question is asking: whether the rankings produced by the official system are true rankings. For that same proposition to appear in your argument is question-begging.

No, that is not question-begging. Question-begging is when the conclusion is in the premises. If you were to ask "Are the rankings produced by the official system the true rankings?" and I were to respond "The rankings produced by the official system are the true rankings." that would not be question-begging. I'm just answering the question.

The OP's original post was about who is the true #1. Not about ranking systems and their worth. You can take issue with my premise but you can't come in here and try to claim that I'm begging the question when it's obviously not the case.

The question was: True #1 of 2011 : Wozniacki or Kvitova?

thrust
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:21 AM
The true #1 is the player who is #1 under the WTA ranking system. Anyone who says otherwise is unknowingly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid.

TRUE! That is not to say that Caro, at her best, is as good as Petra but that Caro is more consistant. Fortunately, for her, Petra was able to play her best at Wimby and the YEC.

Jane Lane
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:22 AM
Wozniacki ended the year as #1, so she is the #1 of 2011 you idiots :wavey:

Kvitova is behind her, so suck it up :wavey:

You're still alive? :haha:

KV
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:23 AM
Kvitova has two of the 5 biggest prizes in the game, the most titles overall, the highest match-winning %, and the most wins over top 10 players.

Wozniacki has the Wozniacki Open.

:confused:

True

Brad[le]y.
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:25 AM
Wozniacki ended the year as #1, so she is the #1 of 2011 you idiots :wavey:

Kvitova is behind her, so suck it up :wavey:

you;re back :hysteric:

Ryusuke Tenma
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:27 AM
You're still alive? :haha:

you;re back :hysteric:
Yes, I've been enjoying Andy's amazing form on the atp tour atm, but I just wanted to pop in here to tell you that Wozniacki >>> Kvitova in 2011. HAHAHA, #1, in your fucking faces, haters :wavey:

I'll be back at the start of 2012 to cheer on Wozniacki again in the face of all you massive idiots :wavey:

Enjoy the off season :wavey:

Oh and Kvitova would've made a terrible year end #1. Glad she didn't get her paws on it :wavey:

BikezAreForever!
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:28 AM
[QUOTE=Mega DC;20436530]Wozniacki ended the year as #1, so she is the #1 of 2011 you idiots :wavey:
[QUOTE]

I thought they had banned you ??? Please dont tell me your ban has expired!!:fiery:

KV
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:28 AM
Wozniacki ended the year as #1, so she is the #1 of 2011 you idiots :wavey:

Kvitova is behind her, so suck it up :wavey:

A number one ranked doesn't play New Haven/Brussels :o So considering the injuries of Serena/Kim/Sharapova missing out one out on a few tourneys too. Caro doesn't deserve to be number one ranked, you idiot. Kvitova has produced the more important things. BTW, Vika managed to win Miami never won by Caro. Titleless in the biggest 6 tournaments. :lol:

Matt01
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:29 AM
Wordy Life and his infinite wisdom are back :hearts: :yeah:

Ryusuke Tenma
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:30 AM
A number one ranked doesn't play New Haven/Brussels :o So considering the injuries of Serena/Kim/Sharapova missing out one out on a few tourneys too. Caro doesn't deserve to be number one ranked, you idiot. Kvitova has produced the more important things. BTW, Vika managed to win Miami never won by Caro. Titleless in the biggest 6 tournaments. :lol:
Wozniacki is #1. It says so on the wta computer, brainiac. Therefore, she is the #1 of 2011. Hope that logic doesn't hurt your brain.

BikezAreForever!
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:33 AM
Mega_DC, Novichok, Matt01 and Burisleif. You guys have a lot in common. :rolleyes: All of them on the same page too!!

KV
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:33 AM
Wozniacki is #1. It says so on the wta computer, brainiac. Therefore, she is the #1 of 2011. Hope that logic doesn't hurt your brain.

Of course as an injury free player, despite playing the injured party. :o How old are you, return back to the kindergarten. Even Caro fans turn against you. :lol:

Brad[le]y.
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:33 AM
Yes, I've been enjoying Andy's amazing form on the atp tour atm, but I just wanted to pop in here to tell you that Wozniacki >>> Kvitova in 2011. HAHAHA, #1, in your fucking faces, haters :wavey:

I'll be back at the start of 2012 to cheer on Wozniacki again in the face of all you massive idiots :wavey:

Enjoy the off season :wavey:

Oh and Kvitova would've made a terrible year end #1. Glad she didn't get her paws on it :wavey:

you idiot I actually like Caro :facepalm:

so I don't see how it's 'in my face'.

Mary Cherry.
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:34 AM
It's back

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqtx4oFvZJ1qefvypo2_r1_250.gif

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:36 AM
Mega_DC, Novichok, Matt01 and Burisleif. You guys have a lot in common. :rolleyes: All of them on the same page too!!

I don't know Mega_DC but Matt01 and Burisleif are very good logical thinkers. We all have that in common.:hearts:

Jane Lane
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:39 AM
TWAT 2012 winner comes from this thread. Mark it down.

Soliloque
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:39 AM
They're not all the same. Mega DC and Burisleif are huge trolls. Matt is at least a funny and nice troll and a clever person. I don't know much about Novichok though but he never seemed that trollish to me.

Mary Cherry.
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:41 AM
I expect Certinfy to make an appearance shortly.

KV
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:46 AM
I expect Certinfy to make an appearance shortly.

Certinfy? :eek: I've never seen Certinfy being negative towards Caro. But if it's against the kindergarten Kid Mega fully understandable. :lol:

mac47
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:50 AM
No, that is not question-begging. Question-begging is when the conclusion is in the premises. If you were to ask "Are the rankings produced by the official system the true rankings?" and I were to respond "The rankings produced by the official system are the true rankings." that would not be question-begging. I'm just answering the question.


Sorry, but any argument that smuggles in the premise "official=true" in order to prove that "Caro's official ranking is true" is question-begging. You haven't given any reasons for thinking that official rankings are true rankings, so there are also no reasons for thinking that Caro's official ranking is a true ranking. You've simply generalized the specific conclusion you'd like for Caro's particular ranking and stuck the generalization into the premises. Textbook question-begging.

KV
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:55 AM
Sorry, but any argument that smuggles in the premise "official=true" in order to prove that "Caro's official ranking is true" is question-begging. You haven't given any reasons for thinking that official rankings are true rankings, so there are also no reasons for thinking that Caro's official ranking is a true ranking. You've simply generalized the specific conclusion you'd like for Caro's particular ranking and stuck the generalization into the premises. Textbook question-begging.BTW, I think poster Mega DC is in the mood of changing his username as if you can't recognice the kindergarten kid :o

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:02 AM
Sorry, but any argument that smuggles in the premise "official=true" in order to prove that "Caro's official ranking is true" is question-begging. You haven't given any reasons for thinking that official rankings are true rankings, so there are also no reasons for thinking that Caro's official ranking is a true ranking. You've simply generalized the specific conclusion you'd like for Caro's particular ranking and stuck the generalization into the premises. Textbook question-begging.

I did not claim that "official=true" and my conclusion wasn't that "Caro's official ranking is true." This is textbook intellectual dishonesty.

Here is my argument:

No that is not what it amounts to. The arguments is:

1) The WTA system is the only official ranking system
2) The player who is #1 under an official system is the true #1.
3) Caroline is the #1 player under the WTA system.

Therefore, Caroline is the true #1.

There is no circularity in that argument and the conclusion follows logically from the premises. The only objection that you can make is to question Premise 2.

Mary Cherry.
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:08 AM
Certinfy? :eek: I've never seen Certinfy being negative towards Caro. But if it's against the kindergarten Kid Mega fully understandable. :lol:

More the latter :lol: One is very rarely seen without the other. It's cute, in an unbearably irritating sort of way :awww:

Cajka
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:10 AM
Sure about that? 4 slams alone are 8,000 points. #1 this year has 7,485.
I guess in theory it's possible, but if you won all slams you probably won a few matches on the WTA tour as well ;)

+ 210 for all the losses in YEC + 20 points for losses in PMs. Almost 800 points more than Caro and that player would get that for playing 9 tournaments, winning 28 matches and losing the other 7 (playing 35 matches in total). It just confirms that slams are not underrated according to this ranking system.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:14 AM
Caro is obviously better than Kvitova and true #1, after all she's won real tournament like Copenhagen and Brussels, while Kvitova won MM events like Wimbledon and YEC.

mac47
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:23 AM
Novichok, your second premise says that "official #1 --> true #1. Which is precisely what you need to prove in the specific case of Caro, and your argument is therefore circular. You've given no reasons for thinking that premise 2 is true, and it is in any case a petitio principii.

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:46 AM
Novichok, your second premise says that "official #1 --> true #1.” Which is precisely what you need to prove in the specific case of Caro, and your argument is therefore circular. You've given no reasons for thinking that premise 2 is true, and it is in any case a petitio principii.

That is not question-begging. My conclusion is that Caroline is the true #1. My premise doesn't state the Caroline is the true #1. There are other premises that lead to that valid conclusion. When you talk about question-begging in an argument, you are talking about its validity. I don't need to offer any proof for my premises when discussing validity. If you attack the soundness of the argument you are attacking the truth of the premises. It is not a petitio principii AKA begging the question.

Would you find fault in this argument:
1) Novichok is a male.
2) All males over the age of 18 are men.
3) Novichok is 20.

Therefore, Novichok is a man.

This is the same method that I'm using with my argument with Caroline. You seem to believe that intrinsic characteristics about a person that are included in an argument are question-begging. They are not.

EDIT: I crossed-out errors in my initial post.

Cajka
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:57 AM
That is not question-begging. My conclusion is that Caroline is the true #1. My premise doesn't state the Caroline is the true #1. There are other premises that lead to that valid conclusion. When you talk about question-begging in an argument, you are talking about its validity. I don't need to offer any proof for my premises when discussing validity. If you attack the soundness of the argument you are attacking the truth of the premises. It is not a petitio principii AKA begging the question.

Would you find fault in this argument:
1) Novichok is a male.
2) All males over the age of 18 are men.
3) Novichok is 20.

Therefore, Novichok is a man.

This is the same method that I'm using with my argument with Caroline. You seem to believe that intrinsic characteristics about a person that are included in an argument are question-begging. They are not.

Ask some women if they think that every man is a true man. ;)

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:02 AM
Ask some women if they think that every man is a true man. ;)

That would be petitio principii :)

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:08 AM
Sorry I was wrong. Begging the question is a fallacy that deals with the soundness of an argument. That still doesn't mean that my argument begs the question though. :p

Cajka
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:18 AM
That would be petitio principii :)

There is no proof that any man can be "not true enough for a man", in the world of logic it sounds silly. Every elephant is an elephant, but we all have prototypes while imagining something, some elephants are more representative than the other ones. When someone mentions a word "fruit" it's highly unlikely that you'll think about nut as the prototype of the fruit. The OP is discussing who is closer to our connotation of the phrase "world #1", Kvitty or Caro.

Just to answer, for me none of them is a "true" number one, they don't have that aura, just like Dinara, JJ and Ana didn't have it. But I voted for Caro mostly because she has been there for such a long time (it's her 3rd YEC). Kvitty was the most impressive player of this season, tough I can't decide what was more impressive - her wins or her losses.

aloeball
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:26 AM
The question asks who is the true number 1. If you go to the WTA website, Woz is at number 1. Let's not be delusional - she is the real number 1.

Who do we think should be at number 1, obviously Petra and she will ascend there next year, I would hope. I cannot wait for that moment.

I also cannot wait for the moment that friggin Turkish Airlines pull that stupid annoying commercial 'How does the world's number 1 in women's tennis treat herself between games ... ?' LOL seriously, I hope they pull that ad. If they leave it on, it will be false advertisement cause Woz won't be number 1 no more. They could change it to number two in womens tennis .. or four ... :oh:

ananke
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:35 AM
I also cannot wait for the moment that friggin Turkish Airlines pull that stupid annoying commercial 'How does the world's number 1 in women's tennis treat herself between games ... ?' LOL seriously, I hope they pull that ad. If they leave it on, it will be false advertisement cause Woz won't be number 1 no more. They could change it to number two in womens tennis .. or four ... :oh:
This, so much. Probably the worst thing about Wozniacki being #1...

I won't mind her boring game.
I won't complain about her lack of majors.

If they just pull this damn ad off of Eurosport :help:

Cajka
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:35 AM
I also cannot wait for the moment that friggin Turkish Airlines pull that stupid annoying commercial 'How does the world's number 1 in women's tennis treat herself between games ... ?' LOL seriously, I hope they pull that ad. If they leave it on, it will be false advertisement cause Woz won't be number 1 no more. They could change it to number two in womens tennis .. or four ... :oh:

Meanwhile, Czech airlines can make their own commercial... "How does the true world's number one..."

Brad[le]y.
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:40 AM
Does anyone else find it ironic that it was Wozniacki' win over Kvitova that got her the world #1 ranking and that it will be Kvitova who is most likely to dethrone her? :lol:

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:45 AM
That's not funny. :o

Cajka
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:51 AM
Does anyone else find it ironic that it was Wozniacki' win over Kvitova that got her the world #1 ranking and that it will be Kvitova who is most likely to dethrone her? :lol:

It's ironic. But it would be more hilarious if someone else dethrones her after all "Petra vs Caro" discussions.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:51 AM
Petra will take her #2 rank this year and enjoy it. She'll enjoy polishing her YEC and Wimbledon titles this off season. Caro can keep her #1. It's not like she'll be keeping it for very long next year.

Melange
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:14 AM
132 haters of fashion and beauty


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWRjU_XwFsjEe6DKdOX5zNMBgjodVRi OTSxqrV6E5opTQbvWky

Aramitz_II
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:22 AM
Actually, Novichok, there has not been any logical argument made for Caro being the true #1, probably because none can be. The very idea of a "true #1 requires an argument to prove that the computer ranking corresponds to some reality behind the ranking. But all we have seen advanced as an argument by you and others is this: "Caro is the real number 1 because the WTA computer says she is." As a response to the initial question, that's circular. It amounts to saying that "the WTA ranking is correct because the WTA ranking system generates it." You are indeed begging the question.

It has nothing to do with circular argumentation. It is a stipulation. The thing is "The best player in the world" is in the eye of the beholder, but you cannot use that for seeding, So WTA stipulate a raking system. The problem about coming afterwards claiming that you don't like the system be course number #1 are not the one you like are 2 sided. First It is obvious not a good idea to make a system deliberately against a specific player.

The second thing is that even if you do so you cannot take into account the tactically steps the actual players would have taken. Maybe Woznickis Real problem as a lot have proposed is that she actually plays to much( no one knows,) You can never know that another ranking system with much more emphasis on slams would bennefit Kvitova, be course you don't know wich tactically steps Woznicki would have taken. Under such a system maybe Wosnicki played 12 tournament with great success in stead of 23 she have done know.

To claim that there are any other #1 than Woznicki is like going to the winner after a macth an say: "Sorry dude we have chaged the rules you are not the winner after all"

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:33 AM
There is no proof that any man can be "not true enough for a man", in the world of logic it sounds silly. Every elephant is an elephant, but we all have prototypes while imagining something, some elephants are more representative than the other ones. When someone mentions a word "fruit" it's highly unlikely that you'll think about nut as the prototype of the fruit. The OP is discussing who is closer to our connotation of the phrase "world #1", Kvitty or Caro.

Just to answer, for me none of them is a "true" number one, they don't have that aura, just like Dinara, JJ and Ana didn't have it. But I voted for Caro mostly because she has been there for such a long time (it's her 3rd YEC). Kvitty was the most impressive player of this season, tough I can't decide what was more impressive - her wins or her losses.

Novichock's statement was fine. The OP begs to question.

For the "True Man" there is possibility for debate because "Man" can be both an anatomical description, or a set of cultural values. Both have assumptions and ambiguity to their definitions. Anatomically he is a Man, does he have a penis? no his wife cut it off. Start acting like a man, what does a Man act like?

Number one does not have any ambiguity. It is a number, Applied to a ranking system or a bread order it is what it is.

That just leaves true. is it true? if that is the question then the question is invalid with the addition of the players. The players are not relevant to a question of wether the WTA #1 is valid or true. It's an argument if their system is valid of if an alternate system is valid. clearly by the fact that the players entered a race organised and set out by the WTA, and that the WTA is the only valid body in charge, it is indeed true. It is not a qualitative argument.

Without assumption there is only one answer, the one defined by the body who organised the race. It is a fact that Ms Wozniacki is #1 on the race as set out by the WTA. When you assume dispute with a fact it is based on assumptions that require the burden of proof to be valid. The OP's question is explicit in its logic and actuality, false or true, but also implicit. To take a meaning other than the explicit is an assumption or petitio principii.

if the OP wanted to ask a different valid question about quality, perception, or other, he had every chance to do so. As it is the thread is basically market research as to how many TF users are pressed by the fact nobody managed to up their game sufficiently to capture the #1 rank ahead of Ms Wozniacki, and the realisation that they still might not do so for an undetermined amount of time.

Clearly there are many, but relatively few. :)

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:39 AM
That just leaves true. is it true? if that is the question then the question is invalid with the addition of the players. The players are not relevant to a question of wether the WTA #1 is valid or true. It's an argument if their system is valid of if an alternate system is valid. clearly by the fact that the players entered a race organised and set out by the WTA, and that the WTA is the only valid body in charge, it is indeed true. It is not a qualitative argument.

Without assumption there is only one answer, the one defined by the body who organised the race. It is a fact that Ms Wozniacki is #1 on the race as set out by the WTA. When you assume dispute with a fact it is based on assumptions that require the burden of proof to be valid. The OP's question is explicit in its logic and actuality, false or true, but also implicit. To take a meaning other than the explicit is an assumption or petitio principii.



Yes! This is what I meant by my second premise. The players entered a race organized by the WTA. So it seems only fair to favor the WTA ranking system over an infinite number of possible ranking systems.

mac47
Nov 1st, 2011, 09:58 AM
Sorry I was wrong. Begging the question is a fallacy that deals with the soundness of an argument. That still doesn't mean that my argument begs the question though. :p

You have assumed what you need to prove, namely that official rankings are true rankings. Therefore your argument, though formally valid, is circular ("question-begging") and vacuous. Meaning, it doesn't give a reason for anyone to accept your conclusion.

Your particular argument also contains an informal fallacy ("ipse dixit"), but I'll let that slide, since if you reinforced the argument to make it non-circular (by giving reasons for thinking that official rankings always correspond to reality), then it would also cease to be an appeal to authority.

bandabou
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:18 AM
It's ironic. But it would be more hilarious if someone else dethrones her after all "Petra vs Caro" discussions.

:lol: Aga Rad....:haha:

TheHangover
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:00 AM
132 haters of fashion and beauty


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWRjU_XwFsjEe6DKdOX5zNMBgjodVRi OTSxqrV6E5opTQbvWky

ahahhhhh, nice
but this is kvitova vs wozniacki, not kvitova vs hantuchova

bobito
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:08 PM
Seriously, who cares about
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/files/2011/10/wozniacki.jpeg

when you've already got
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/mambots/content/multithumb/thumbs/575.0.1.0.16777215.0.stories.large.2011.07.02.Petr aPlate117962355.jpg

The trophies fit the prizes in this case I think.

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:05 PM
You have assumed what you need to prove, namely that official rankings are true rankings. Therefore your argument, though formally valid, is circular ("question-begging") and vacuous. Meaning, it doesn't give a reason for anyone to accept your conclusion.

Your particular argument also contains an informal fallacy ("ipse dixit"), but I'll let that slide, since if you reinforced the argument to make it non-circular (by giving reasons for thinking that official rankings always correspond to reality), then it would also cease to be an appeal to authority.

There is no assumption to an established fact, the ranking is fully verifiable, the system of calculation published, and as such no further burden of proof. Any belief other than than that reality would be an assumption, as such a question begging, requiring proof of which there is none.

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:14 PM
Seriously, who cares about
http://www.techdigest.tv/World%20Cup%20trophy%20thumb.jpg

when you've already got
http://www.footballinsight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/premier-league-trophy.jpg

The trophies fit the prizes in this case I think.

The size of the bling isn't an argument.

bobito
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:31 PM
The size of the bling isn't an argument.

Please note that I said "The trophies fit the prizes in this case" not in all cases.

Clearly a Wimbledon title is more prestigious than topping an entry system.

bandabou
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:40 PM
The size of the bling isn't an argument.

:spit: You compare ending as no.1 to winning the WC?! :facepalm:

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:47 PM
Please note that I said "The trophies fit the prizes in this case" not in all cases.

Clearly a Wimbledon title is more prestigious than topping an entry system.

The crystal Vase isn't for topping the ranking system, it is for ending the race in first place. For reaching the top of the ranking they award a black ceramic trophy vase and a garland of flowers.

That Wimbledon deserves a fitting trophy is beyond question, the rest of the statement begs a question. however, I can agree to agree based on tradition.

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 02:51 PM
:spit: You compare ending as no.1 to winning the WC?! :facepalm:

I pointed out that bling isn't an argument, no more no less... Sorry you'll have to look elsewhere.

Mynarco
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:02 PM
Seriously, who cares about
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/2011_10_31/tennis-kvitova-wins-wta-championships-title-2011-10-31_l.jpg

when you've already got
http://www.wtatennis.com/javaImages/67/88/0,,12781~9734247,00.jpg



fixed.

Excelscior
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:14 PM
The question asks who is the true number 1. If you go to the WTA website, Woz is at number 1. Let's not be delusional - she is the real number 1.

Who do we think should be at number 1, obviously Petra and she will ascend there next year, I would hope. I cannot wait for that moment.

I also cannot wait for the moment that friggin Turkish Airlines pull that stupid annoying commercial 'How does the world's number 1 in women's tennis treat herself between games ... ?' LOL seriously, I hope they pull that ad. If they leave it on, it will be false advertisement cause Woz won't be number 1 no more. They could change it to number two in womens tennis .. or four ... :oh:

Hilarious!!! :lol: :devil: :lol:

I think we can all agree with that one.

And you notice the Turkish people couldn't care less when Caroline Woes-be-at-me got booted, despite the incessant advertising?

It's not that I dislike Caroline. It's just that the commercial is dopey, corny and monotonous.

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:25 PM
fixed.

I'm confused as to how an irrelevant example constitutes a contribution to the discussion let alone 'Fixed" anything. :rolleyes:

Hate or irrelevant, irrelevant hate.

Burisleif
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:31 PM
Hilarious!!! :lol: :devil: :lol:

I think we can all agree with that one.

And you notice the Turkish people couldn't care less when Caroline Woes-be-at-me got booted, despite the incessant advertising?

It's not that I dislike Caroline. It's just that the commercial is dopey, corny and monotonous.

When logic and reason fail you, there is always unsubstantiated rhetoric and insults.

Same old trolls, different idol.

Novichok
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:53 PM
You have assumed what you need to prove, namely that official rankings are true rankings. Therefore your argument, though formally valid, is circular ("question-begging") and vacuous. Meaning, it doesn't give a reason for anyone to accept your conclusion.

Your particular argument also contains an informal fallacy ("ipse dixit"), but I'll let that slide, since if you reinforced the argument to make it non-circular (by giving reasons for thinking that official rankings always correspond to reality), then it would also cease to be an appeal to authority.

How many times do we have to go over this? I did not assume what I was proving. I was not proving that official rankings are true rankings. I even numbered my premises for you. If you're going to attack someone's argument, it's best to give them the best charitable interpretation then find fault with it. Anyone in academia would agree with that. There is no ipse dixit because I explained my second premise in a subsequent post. Do you deny the truth of the other 2 premises. There was no appeal to authority. Throwing out Latin every once in a while does not make you right.

Steven.
Nov 1st, 2011, 04:37 PM
Hilarious!!! :lol: :devil: :lol:

I think we can all agree with that one.

And you notice the Turkish people couldn't care less when Caroline Woes-be-at-me got booted, despite the incessant advertising?

It's not that I dislike Caroline. It's just that the commercial is dopey, corny and monotonous.

That commercial's actually grown on me. It'll be a sad day when it's gone. :sobbing:

Juju Nostalgique
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:23 PM
Carotards made me do this AGAIN:

http://i55.tinypic.com/axi8hg.gif


:spit: :hah: :oh:

Ryusuke Tenma
Nov 1st, 2011, 06:23 PM
Wozniacki is the #1 of 2011. 51/52 weeks have been her and she's been consistently winning tonnes. She's not far ahead of Kvitova (mostly due to her lacklustre second half of the season). I believe that she'd be at least 1500 points ahead of Kvitova if he wasn't playing badly after Wimbledon.

Fact is, she is #1, so she's been the best player of 2011. How hard is this for some people to grasp? Wozniacki = 2011 #1. Durrrrr, idiots.

Matt01
Nov 1st, 2011, 06:32 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/axi8hg.gif




:rolls: :oh:

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:19 AM
Wozniacki is the #1 of 2011. 51/52 weeks have been her and she's been consistently winning tonnes. She's not far ahead of Kvitova (mostly due to her lacklustre second half of the season). I believe that she'd be at least 1500 points ahead of Kvitova if he wasn't playing badly after Wimbledon.

Fact is, she is #1, so she's been the best player of 2011. How hard is this for some people to grasp? Wozniacki = 2011 #1. Durrrrr, idiots.

:yeah:

Kvitova is a mug for sure. Totally failed to win the most important tournaments that matter most like New Haven, Copenhagen and Brussels. She is a sham of a #2 player :sad: Poor girl will have to contend with winning events no one cares about like Wimbledon and YEC :sad:

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:42 AM
:yeah:

Kvitova is a mug for sure. Totally failed to win the most important tournaments that matter most like New Haven, Copenhagen and Brussels. She is a sham of a #2 player :sad: Poor girl will have to contend with winning events no one cares about like Wimbledon and YEC :sad:

I'm not even sure that the biggest woztrolls (no offense to loyal fans, they are not in this group) called Petra a mug. Since I've started posting here nobody said that Wimbledon is a MM. There were some wozfans who claimed that #1 is more important than winning a slam, while some other posters claimed that a slam is more important (IMO, #1 and a slam are both incredible achievements, but I would always take a slam if I had to choose), but I've never read that someone thinks that NH is more important than slams. I dislike Caro's playing style (although I don't deny she's a great player), I can't say I like her on-court behavior, but the amount of the shit that Caroline gets on this board is beyond ridiculous. Does someone really believe that she became a #1 just because she won NH and Brussels!!? What did this girl do to all you guys? What's SO WRONG about her? Big forehead? Bad forehand? Some bad jokes? OK, imitating Nadal was too much. But there is no way that she's so much hated just because of stupid things. It seems that #1 is still more important than slams since there's so many people pressed because she's number one. :weirdo:

Oh, Jesus, I don't even defend my faves like this, let alone a player I really don't like. :sobbing: :facepalm:

BikezAreForever!
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:44 AM
fixed.

132 haters of fashion and beauty


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWRjU_XwFsjEe6DKdOX5zNMBgjodVRi OTSxqrV6E5opTQbvWky

:rolls::rolls::rolls::clap2:

Martian Jeza
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:47 AM
Where's the " NONE " option ? :shrug:

Matt01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:48 AM
:yeah:

Kvitova is a mug for sure. Totally failed to win the most important tournaments that matter most like New Haven, Copenhagen and Brussels. She is a sham of a #2 player :sad: Poor girl will have to contend with winning events no one cares about like Wimbledon and YEC :sad:


Does mentioning Nassau and Prague ring a bell? :oh:

Martian Jeza
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:00 AM
:yeah:

Kvitova is a mug for sure. Totally failed to win the most important tournaments that matter most like New Haven, Copenhagen and Brussels. She is a sham of a #2 player :sad: Poor girl will have to contend with winning events no one cares about like Wimbledon and YEC :sad:

With a devalued YEC that for the 1st time in such a long time you hadn't at least a multiple GS champion ! It was the weakest YEC field since years ! Kvitova isn't a consistent player at all ! What did she do at the FO, what did she do at the US Open ? What did she do at the US Open Series ? Yeah right : THE ( Censored ) all !

aloeball
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:18 AM
With a devalued YEC that for the 1st time in such a long time you hadn't at least a multiple GS champion ! It was the weakest YEC field since years ! Kvitova isn't a consistent player at all ! What did she do at the FO, what did she do at the US Open ? What did she do at the US Open Series ? Yeah right : THE ( Censored ) all !

I totally agree that this girl is inconsistent. But I think she'll get there, but needs a lot of refinement before people start calling her the best or comparing her to the greats.

Everything you said was true - except for the FO. She lost to the eventual champion, EDIT: it was 4th round. So...

Her US open series was a disaster.

And if people are saying Petra was inconsistent at the slams, like hello, the whole of WTA was inconsistent at the slams, complete joke. It's only because of this girl that I've actually managed to follow and watch women's tennis again.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:23 AM
With a devalued YEC that for the 1st time in such a long time you hadn't at least a multiple GS champion ! It was the weakest YEC field since years ! Kvitova isn't a consistent player at all ! What did she do at the FO, what did she do at the US Open ? What did she do at the US Open Series ? Yeah right : THE ( Censored ) all !

R4 of FO, losing to eventual champion isn't bad :shrug: Kvitova's style isn't that suited for clay to be honest. Toronto and Cinci - she lost to a player who you don't want to face after celebrating a slam title. Petkovic isn't exactly a scrub and was top 10 at the time. It's not like she lost to Vinci or McHale...

USO was obviously VERY disappointing, I never expected her to win the thing, since winning a second slam after your first right away is almost impossible - not even legends like Graf or Federer could do it, but first round exit to a pusher like Dulgheru was very sad. :shrug:

As for your comments about YEC, you can argue it was weak, but I can argue that some YEC's like 2007 and 2010 were just as weak. You can't really blame Petra for that, she only had to beat players on the other side of the court and she went 5-0, so whether or not the field was weak is of little consequence. A big title is still a big title.

You mention inconsistency? Mention players like Na Li who can barely win a match after FO, not Kvitova who won 6/7 finals and rose to #2 from #30 in a year. She did have embarrassing losses this season, but nowhere near true inconsistent players.

mac47
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:45 AM
"The green paper I gave you is really worth a dollar, and isn't inflated, because it is issued by an official institution." -- exhibits Novichok-style question-begging.

Love how more than 3/4ths of the more than 200 voters on this poll have shown what they think of the WTA's number one ranking. But I suppose it doesn't matter that the ranking is a laughingstock. After all, it was produced via the official system!

I wonder if the WTA will wake up and reinstitute the divisor system?

Martian Jeza
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:07 AM
I totally agree that this girl is inconsistent. But I think she'll get there, but needs a lot of refinement before people start calling her the best or comparing her to the greats.

Everything you said was true - except for the FO. She lost to the eventual champion, EDIT: it was 4th round. So...

Her US open series was a disaster.

And if people are saying Petra was inconsistent at the slams, like hello, the whole of WTA was inconsistent at the slams, complete joke. It's only because of this girl that I've actually managed to follow and watch women's tennis again.

You know Jana Novotna in the 90ies where she won Wimbledon did also a very good year but after didn't win anything big in her career ! People are trying to find a multiple champion here where she has still loads to prove ! She isn't in the class of Martina Hingis - the WS - The Belgians yet ! ANd I don't think she'll ever join those names ! Kvitova only is an opportunist "enjoying" the fact that the tour lacks of variety, lacks of mentally very strong player, lacks of strong personalities, players that take tennis as a chess game, etc.

Loads of people here that became Kvitova fans are not Geniune ones : some of them are just desperate glory hunters ! Some of them are using Kvitova to bring down Caroline : which is very stupid !

About Wozniacki, I've said already here way too much what I thought about her : she was in general massively disappointing ! She has no other choice than getting her things straight and work massively on a better forehand and serve otherwise she'll get busted again against big guns but even if you don't have the power, outsmart them with your brains : that's my philosophy.

ChagoDoni
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:15 AM
I don't know Mega_DC but Matt01 and Burisleif are very good logical thinkers. We all have that in common.:hearts:

It looks like Woz fans get pretty upset on Kvitova's achievement this year. Weird.

Matt01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:15 AM
You know Jana Novotna in the 90ies where she won Wimbledon did also a very good year but after didn't win anything big in her career !


Ehh...this comparison is ridiculous. Novotna was already 29 or something when she won Wimledon, she practically fulfilled the goal of her life with that win, she probably never lost sleep that she retired one year after her only Slam win. Oh, and she beat Venus in 2 sets in Hannover after she won Wimbledon. :p

Kvitova's case is totally different (even though I hope it's not but I have to be realistic...).

Novichok
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:23 AM
It looks like Woz fans get pretty upset on Kvitova's achievement this year. Weird.

We are not upset about Petra's achievements just annoyed that Petra's achievements are used to belittle Caroline's achievements.

ChagoDoni
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:26 AM
"Originally Posted by Martian Jeza
With a devalued YEC that for the 1st time in such a long time you hadn't at least a multiple GS champion ! It was the weakest YEC field since years ! Kvitova isn't a consistent player at all ! What did she do at the FO, what did she do at the US Open ? What did she do at the US Open Series ? Yeah right : THE ( Censored ) all !"

Yeah, It's the weakest YEC since years. And that probably because our so called "No. 1" was in it and sent home after 3 rounds. What a shame. She could not even survive the the round robin.

BikezAreForever!
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:30 AM
You know Jana Novotna in the 90ies where she won Wimbledon did also a very good year but after didn't win anything big in her career !.

Sorry, but this comparison is a monumental fail. Jana won Wimby when she was 30 years old. This after many attempts and failings. Comparing her to Kvitty strong drive to win and awesome mentality in the finals - PLEASE, just remember Jana's tears.

People are trying to find a multiple champion here where she has still loads to prove ! !.
Well, some people make predictions, as they see development in someone's game. Increase in variety, killer instinct in crucial moment and so on. Dont worry, if they predict right, there is always an excuse about weak era.

She isn't in the class of Martina Hingis !.
My prediction is PK will at least get the same number of slams as Hingis. Mind you she will not play in as many loosing finals as Hingis.

aloeball
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:38 AM
You know Jana Novotna in the 90ies where she won Wimbledon did also a very good year but after didn't win anything big in her career ! People are trying to find a multiple champion here where she has still loads to prove ! She isn't in the class of Martina Hingis - the WS - The Belgians yet ! ANd I don't think she'll ever join those names ! Kvitova only is an opportunist "enjoying" the fact that the tour lacks of variety, lacks of mentally very strong player, lacks of strong personalities, players that take tennis as a chess game, etc.

Loads of people here that became Kvitova fans are not Geniune ones : some of them are just desperate glory hunters ! Some of them are using Kvitova to bring down Caroline : which is very stupid !

About Wozniacki, I've said already here way too much what I thought about her : she was in general massively disappointing ! She has no other choice than getting her things straight and work massively on a better forehand and serve otherwise she'll get busted again against big guns but even if you don't have the power, outsmart them with your brains : that's my philosophy.

I would shorten the quote but I'm on my mobile. I'm too young to have seen Novotna play, only started watching tennis when I was 10 and she was retired by then.

in regards to the Kvitova bandwagon, I cannot speak for others but I said to my friends I'm following this girl during her match against Serena at Wimbledon, after Serena retires but that girla hardly been playing. Kvitova does have the raw talent and I know she'll be great, I can feel it in me waters haha

As for the Woz hate. I can nderstand where it's coming from. This counter punch / pushing style of play, playing in tournies at weird times like before a grandslam. I still cant understand her change of racquet other than for money purposes. I understand players are free to choose but just watching Woz previous matches, her use of the babolat had a lot more pop. I dunno why you'd change something so big, and I guess thats why I dislike her - This money hungry thing over tennis. Thats my assumption of her change of equipment but other delusionalist will say otherwise.

ChagoDoni
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:38 AM
We are not upset about Petra's achievements just annoyed that Petra's achievements are used to belittle Caroline's achievements.

yes you guys are. Because woz fans thought Woz was the kind of the front runner in the generation who was born in 90s. Suddenly, a new comer got a rosewater dish from wimbledon, which means this new comer is the first one who was born 90s to get a grand slam title. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok,you know,our Woz is world No. 1...Then this girl became a YEC champion when she got in the YEC first time, which means she is the first one who was born in 90s to get this. And Woz was sent home after the round robin. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok, your, our Woz is world No. 1...People consider Kvitova as the shinning star of borned-in-90s. You guys feel lost and uncomfortable,

Novichok
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:43 AM
yes you guys are. Because woz fans thought Woz was the kind of the front runner in the generation who was born in 90s. Suddenly, a new comer got a rosewater dish from wimbledon, which means this new comer is the first one who was born 90s to get a grand slam title. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok,you know,our Woz is world No. 1...Then this girl became a YEC champion when she got in the YEC first time, which means she is the first one who was born in 90s to get this. And Woz was sent home after the round robin. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok, your, our Woz is world No. 1...People consider Kvitova as the shinning star of borned-in-90s. You guys feel lost and uncomfortable,

All of this is just what you believe. It is not truth. It does not even approximate truth. Just stop.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:46 AM
yes you guys are. Because woz fans thought Woz was the kind of the front runner in the generation who was born in 90s. Suddenly, a new comer got a rosewater dish from wimbledon, which means this new comer is the first one who was born 90s to get a grand slam title. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok,you know,our Woz is world No. 1...Then this girl became a YEC champion when she got in the YEC first time, which means she is the first one who was born in 90s to get this. And Woz was sent home after the round robin. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok, your, our Woz is world No. 1...People consider Kvitova as the shinning star of borned-in-90s. You guys feel lost and uncomfortable,

It's expected, really. Carotards are bitter because she can't even make a slam final this or last year or even make it out of RR of the YEC :shrug: I guess her lack of talent is beginning to dawn even on them, but they'll never admit it. Sooner or later even her fanboys will abandon her. She's a pretty face, very marketable, but her tennis is top 50 at best :shrug:

I would be bitter as well if the player I was a fan of won events like Copenhagen and Brussels, while the real #1 won YEC and Wimbledon. It's an expected reaction of over-defensive and pressed fans :shrug:

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:48 AM
yes you guys are. Because woz fans thought Woz was the kind of the front runner in the generation who was born in 90s. Suddenly, a new comer got a rosewater dish from wimbledon, which means this new comer is the first one who was born 90s to get a grand slam title. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok,you know,our Woz is world No. 1...Then this girl became a YEC champion when she got in the YEC first time, which means she is the first one who was born in 90s to get this. And Woz was sent home after the round robin. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok, your, our Woz is world No. 1...People consider Kvitova as the shinning star of borned-in-90s. You guys feel lost and uncomfortable,

True.

And don't forget, now that same player/nemesis in Petra, is only 115 ranking points behind Caro (while playing 3 less tournaments, mind you). Caro also has a boat load of Points; 3000+, to defend, compared to Petra's 900+ the first quarter of 2012. So they can see number one falling over the horizon now (and don't know what to do).

Be afraid. :eek: :confused: :eek:

ChagoDoni
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:51 AM
All of this is just what you believe. It is not truth. It does not even approximate truth. Just stop.


No. it is not what i believe. it's what you woz fans believe. Look at your board for Woz. All you guys can brag about is her No. 1. I just wonder that if she loses her ranking in the beginning of next year, what will you guys brag about anymore?

PMBH
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:21 AM
The rankings never lie so Caro deserves to be number 1. Petra had the two biggest win of the season but she's very inconsistent.

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:29 AM
The rankings never lie so Caro deserves to be number 1. Petra had the two biggest win of the season but she's very inconsistent.

Petra was much more consistent this year than Woz.

So what are you saying?

Petra is only 115 pts behind now; cause Woz had a whopping 7000 point lead over Petra at the beginning of the year, and it was 3000+ by the fall.

Petra should be proud of what she achieved, and it was only through her consistency (58-13 record vs Woz's inferior 62-17 record), and 6 titles-garnering two in the beginning, 2 in the middle and 2 at the end of the year, etc.

Petra also had the second most pts from Grand Slams this year, despite losing in the first round of the US Open. I bet you didn't know that?

More importantly, Woz didn't win or do much after March, which is why Petra was able to practically overcome Woz's massive point lead, and is perched to over take her in the beginning of next year. Massive fail on Woz's part!!

I think you labelled the wrong player as "inconsistent".

dsanders06
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:29 AM
yes you guys are. Because woz fans thought Woz was the kind of the front runner in the generation who was born in 90s. Suddenly, a new comer got a rosewater dish from wimbledon, which means this new comer is the first one who was born 90s to get a grand slam title. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok,you know,our Woz is world No. 1...Then this girl became a YEC champion when she got in the YEC first time, which means she is the first one who was born in 90s to get this. And Woz was sent home after the round robin. You guys then comfort yourselves:it's ok, your, our Woz is world No. 1...People consider Kvitova as the shinning star of borned-in-90s. You guys feel lost and uncomfortable,

Spot on. 6 months ago, even though she was doing embarrassingly on the biggest stages, Wozniacki/her fans could console themselves with the illusion that she was the most accomplished player of her generation, and that the best Slam players at that time would retire within years, which would logically point to Wozniacki's time at Slams eventually coming (this logic was always pretty unsound and Goldenbot-esque, but she/her fans atleast had enough signs to delude themselves it was the case 6 months ago).

Now though, Kvitova has undeniably eclipsed her comprehensively, while Azarenka and Radwanksa are suddenly in the ascendance - and, as you say, the Woz fans are now realising that those of us who months ago were saying her window of opportunity was very narrow were probably right afterall...

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:37 AM
Spot on. 6 months ago, even though she was doing embarrassingly on the biggest stages, Wozniacki/her fans could console themselves with the illusion that she was the most accomplished player of her generation, and that the best Slam players at that time would retire within years, which would logically point to Wozniacki's time at Slams eventually coming (this logic was always pretty unsound, but she/her fans atleast had enough signs to delude themselves it was the case 6 months ago).

Now though, Kvitova has undeniably eclipsed her comprehensively, while Azarenka and Radwanksa are suddenly in the ascendance - and, as you say, the Woz fans are now realising that those of us who months ago were saying her window of opportunity was very narrow were probably right afterall...

True!

Cause Azarenka and Radwanska, will furiously claim/devour any scraps at the tennis table that Petra, Serena, Masha (and maybe Clijsters) don't eat for themselves!!

Wozniaki, just got kicked out the house (or the pride), and now she got to go out and watch/scavenge for herself 6-10th in line, after the real/true big cats feast for themselves.

Welcome to the jungle baby!!!

Jajaloo
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:40 AM
"I think Dinara did a great job to get to #1, she won Rome and Madrid :oh: :lol:".

At the end of the day #1 is #1. Kvitova isn't the True #1. She's the true #2.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:48 AM
"I think Dinara did a great job to get to #1, she won Rome and Madrid :oh: :lol:".

At the end of the day #1 is #1. Kvitova isn't the True #1. She's the true #2.

Only as far as computer rankings are concerned. In 50 years' time, Kvitova will be remembered as the Wimbledon champ, while Wozniacki will be...wait no one will remember her at all :shrug:

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:53 AM
Only as far as computer rankings are concerned. In 50 years' time, Kvitova will be remembered as the Wimbledon champ, while Wozniacki will be...wait no one will remember her at all :shrug:

So, you are completely sure that Caro won't win any slams. If you can see the future clearly, I would like you to tell me the future of my faves. It would save my nerves.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:03 AM
So, you are completely sure that Caro won't win any slams. If you can see the future clearly, I would like you to tell me the future of my faves. It would save my nerves.

Winning a slam isn't that easy. Players vastly more talented than Wozniacki like Dementieva, Jankovic and Safina walked away slamless, why would she win a slam when she's clearly on the decline? She can't even make a slam final after that fluke 2009 and this year, lost to players who failed to win the big title. It doesn't take a psychic to realize that she'll finish her career slamless as better, stronger and more talented players take over.

PMBH
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:04 AM
True!

Cause Azarenka and Radwanska, will furiously claim/devour any scraps at the tennis table that Petra, Serena, Masha (and maybe Clijsters) don't eat for themselves!!

Wozniaki, just got kicked out the house (or the pride), and now she got to go out and watch/scavenge for herself 6-10th in line, after the real/true big cats feast for themselves.

Welcome to the jungle baby!!!

Bollocks.

Caro just came through what may very well turn out to be the toughest season of her entire career. For the first time she had to defend her position instead of just continue to climb the rankings. She had all the pressure and attention, and it visibly affected her greatly. But she still ended the year as number one again, which is truly amazing.

Next year the pressure and attention will suddenly be much more on players like Kvitova and Azarenka. Caro can be a lot more relaxed coming into the Slams, and she can focus 100% on staedily improving her game. Unless Serena really puts in the effort, I have no doubt Caro will end 2012 as number 1 again and this time with at least one Slams under her belt.

PMBH
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:07 AM
Petra was much more consistent this year than Woz.


That makes absolutely no sense. Petra had the three biggest wins (Madrid, Wimby and YEC). She both started and ended the season with a tournament win. But she still ended up with fewer points than Caro. Obviosuly caro showed more consistency throughout the season.

Martian Jeza
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:15 AM
Sorry, but this comparison is a monumental fail. Jana won Wimby when she was 30 years old. This after many attempts and failings. Comparing her to Kvitty strong drive to win and awesome mentality in the finals - PLEASE, just remember Jana's tears.


Well, some people make predictions, as they see development in someone's game. Increase in variety, killer instinct in crucial moment and so on. Dont worry, if they predict right, there is always an excuse about weak era.


My prediction is PK will at least get the same number of slams as Hingis. Mind you she will not play in as many loosing finals as Hingis.

I'm sorry but what you don't get it even she hadn't the power she did amazing things : things you don't see nowadays in the tour ! The only thing she lacked : Power ! Otherwise she would have been one of the greatest player of the WTA history ! I don't ( censored ) care the amount of finals she lost but at least they were very entertaining and her tennis was of a infinite much more quality than what you have nowadays ! PK the same amount as slams ? One year isn't the other as we say in French ! And having PK around MH : I'd take it as an insult !

Stop to make Petra Kvitova a great achiever when I think what she's doing make me think to an overachiever ! You don't make of Peter Crouch a Messi !

Martian Jeza
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:20 AM
The rankings never lie so Caro deserves to be number 1. Petra had the two biggest win of the season but she's very inconsistent.

That's why I'm very furious with Caroline : she has what it takes to win some GS but unfortunately she still has to put some offensive in her game and not all the time waiting errors of her opponent ! It's time she stops being between two chairs and combine the two chairs ! I try to be much more friendly with her those days but you know when you are a n1 in the world : you MUST have a killer instinct : that's what she lacks enormously ! Like Martina said : Will I serve or will I break you ? That's what I want to see from Caroline !

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:23 AM
That's why I'm very furious with Caroline : she has what it takes to win some GS but unfortunately she still has to put some offensive in her game and not all the time waiting errors of her opponent ! It's time she stops being between two chairs and combine the two chairs ! I try to be much more friendly with her those days but you know when you are a n1 in the world : you MUST have a killer instinct : that's what she lacks enormously ! Like Martina said : Will I serve or will I break you ? That's what I want to see from Caroline !She's trying to improve. Its not a steady incline for any player.. Players have some days where they are better than others. Everybody is trying to improve.

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:27 AM
Winning a slam isn't that easy. Players vastly more talented than Wozniacki like Dementieva, Jankovic and Safina walked away slamless, why would she win a slam when she's clearly on the decline? She can't even make a slam final after that fluke 2009 and this year, lost to players who failed to win the big title. It doesn't take a psychic to realize that she'll finish her career slamless as better, stronger and more talented players take over.

The talent is not enough. Is Nadal more talented than Gasque? Just like someone mentioned, the talent is overrated. Just look at the list of the wasted talents in WTA... Patty, Vaidisova, Jankovic, Dementieva.... even Ivanovic and Pierce who were able to win some slams. It's just sad. And Push is 21, she will improve if she fires her dad. She was a talented youngster, she reminded me of young JJ... But the playing style she adopted... and Piotr... :tape: She needs someone more supportive and neutral. I can understand some of Polish and I've never heard him saying something positive to her. God, it must be depressive to listen that all the time. :facepalm:

debby
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:27 AM
Martian Jeza thinks Kvitova is overachieving, yet he wants Pushniacki to be aggressive... :scratch:

Zvonareva, you are useless.

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:36 AM
But how is she going to truly improve, and reclaim the number one position in the same year?

If she tries to alter her game and loses matches she would win, people start screaming she's finished. Fact is, no one knows whats going to happen.
When Serena was holding the 2003 AO trophy, if you said someone on the tour was going to win more majors than Venus & Serena combined for the next 5 years, few would take that seriously. But Henin did that.
No one knows what's going to happen, and Wozniacki fans expect her to have a Hall of Fame career, with majors and YE #1's. But nothing is promised to any of them, not even the health to have a long career

Martian Jeza
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:36 AM
Martian Jeza thinks Kvitova is overachieving, yet he wants Pushniacki to be aggressive... :scratch:

Zvonareva, you are useless.

Yes, she's an overachiever and she's very lucky that she was born at the right time otherwise that girl would have been the laughing stock of the tour : She only could dream of the QF at best ! But hey ! That you want it or not : she's no natural talent ! I've watched some of her matches if you think that such girl is a great thing, Oh God ! Loads of the girls nowadays are unable to perform from the beginning 'till the end of the season at a consistent level ! And Kvitova isn't from that level and will never be of that level ! She's the girl where with 13/20 : you are the best of your class because all the rest are pony and trap !

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:36 AM
Bollocks.

Caro just came through what may very well turn out to be the toughest season of her entire career. For the first time she had to defend her position instead of just continue to climb the rankings. She had all the pressure and attention, and it visibly affected her greatly. But she still ended the year as number one again, which is truly amazing.

Next year the pressure and attention will suddenly be much more on players like Kvitova and Azarenka. Caro can be a lot more relaxed coming into the Slams, and she can focus 100% on staedily improving her game. Unless Serena really puts in the effort, I have no doubt Caro will end 2012 as number 1 again and this time with at least one Slams under her belt.

The problem is, Caro has no game, and she's been exposed.

You're living in a dream world. And I'm not even a real Caro hater.

I've never begrudged her for being number one.

But how is she going to truly improve, and reclaim the number one position in the same year?

And I noticed, you didn't say anything about her winning a major. Why are you so focused on number one in the first place? She's already done that. Why not focus on winning a major?

Have Caro fans given up on the notion that she'll ever win a major (cause she's weaponless)?

PS: Wishful thinking with Kvitova and Azarenka. They both seemed to comport themselves quite well at the YEC, this past weekend in Istanbul.

What did Wozniaki do when she was there, by the way?

Brad[le]y.
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:39 AM
Martian Jeza thinks Kvitova is overachieving, yet he wants Pushniacki to be aggressive... :scratch:

Zvonareva, you are useless.

you never post here anymore :sad:

vikapower's been on a rampage :happy:

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:47 AM
The talent is not enough. Is Nadal more talented than Gasque? Just like someone mentioned, the talent is overrated. Just look at the list of the wasted talents in WTA... Patty, Vaidisova, Jankovic, Dementieva.... even Ivanovic and Pierce who were able to win some slams. It's just sad. And Push is 21, she will improve if she fires her dad. She was a talented youngster, she reminded me of young JJ... But the playing style she adopted... and Piotr... :tape: She needs someone more supportive and neutral. I can understand some of Polish and I've never heard him saying something positive to her. God, it must be depressive to listen that all the time. :facepalm:

You make some decent points, but I don't agree with the bolded part. Dullniacki will not be improving, her peak was second half of 2010. How can she improve when she has no talent to do so? You can often see real talented players who evolve over time when they fix their attitude, their fitness or their mental strength. But when one has no talent it's almost impossible to improve. Wozniacki is stagnating at the moment and soon, when she's not super fit and young, when all the retrieving she does starts catching up to her, she'll fall and fall hard. People suggesting the idea that she'll be a threat until 30, when vastly superior players with more economical styles of play succumbed to injuries in mid 20's are laughable at best and Carotards at worst. People need to accept that Wozniacki is vulnerable to any top 100 player and it's not a mental issue, it's a talent issue. She might have had some aura in late 2010, but she has been figured out; even absolutely brainless ballbashers like Kanepi understand they don't need to obliterate the ball to beat her. Moonballing all match, hitting about 2 winners per set is NOT slam winning material.

And comparing Dullniacki to Jankovic is prepostrous. The former just moonballs everything and hopes her opponent self destructs, while the latter complemented her incredible defense with offense. Even much-maligned Jankovic forehand was much more a weapon than anything Wozniacki has in her arsenal.

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:49 AM
That makes absolutely no sense. Petra had the three biggest wins (Madrid, Wimby and YEC). She both started and ended the season with a tournament win. But she still ended up with fewer points than Caro. Obviosuly caro showed more consistency throughout the season.

Now I think Your Delusional for sure. :lol: :tape: :help: :tape: :lol:

You do realize that Petra is less than 2 percentage points behind Woes-be-at-at me (115 pts), while Caro played 3 more tournaments than Petra did.

So why you lying to yourself? :confused: :tape: :confused:

She played more tournaments to throw out her worst results, and include her better ones in the current system. We all know that. She gamed it. But like I said earlier; I'm not complaining that she did. The system is, what it is. No problem there.

Now, if that's whats important to Caro and her father, I hope they knock themselves out doing/pursuing it.

The juicy irony here is, most players don't stay number one most of their careers. So yes, and ultimately, you are defined by the amount of majors, big wins, head to head vs other great players, etc., in a players career.

It seemed that Wozniaki and fans are completely devoid of this notion and reality. They appear happy to keep or re-stake (if she loses it) another run for number one!?

Lastly; you don't have to the most consistent to be no 1. A player can win the 4 majors, and lose every other match during the year and be number one. Does that make them the most consistent player? So please stop with the Caro lies/make believe? Kvitova was both more consistent and spectacular than Caro this year.

How dumb!

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:52 AM
You make some decent points, but I don't agree with the bolded part. Dullniacki will not be improving, her peak was second half of 2010. How can she improve when she has no talent to do so? You can often see real talented players who evolve over time when they fix their attitude, their fitness or their mental strength. But when one has no talent it's almost impossible to improve. Wozniacki is stagnating at the moment and soon, when she's not super fit and young, when all the retrieving she does starts catching up to her, she'll fall and fall hard. People suggesting the idea that she'll be a threat until 30, when vastly superior players with more economical styles of play succumbed to injuries in mid 20's are laughable at best and Carotards at worst. People need to accept that Wozniacki is vulnerable to any top 100 player and it's not a mental issue, it's a talent issue. She might have had some aura in late 2010, but she has been figured out; even absolutely brainless ballbashers like Kanepi understand they don't need to obliterate the ball to beat her. Moonballing all match, hitting about 2 winners per set is NOT slam winning material.

And comparing Dullniacki to Jankovic is prepostrous. The former just moonballs everything and hopes her opponent self destructs, while the latter complemented her incredible defense with offense. Even much-maligned Jankovic forehand was much more a weapon than anything Wozniacki has in her arsenal.We will see. I was sure when Sharapova won the AO at age 20 she would win more majors. Beat Henin 64 60, Dementieva 62 60
You dont know whats going to happen. Wozniacki has technical flaws, but won 18 tournaments already with them, been to slam semis 3 of the last 5 majors.
Its not like she a stranger to the final 4, been there 4 times and no reason to think she wont be there many times more.

You dont know, but you want to talk shit like you've seen the future and you've come back to enlighten us.
But you have no clue.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:11 AM
We will see. I was sure when Sharapova won the AO at age 20 she would win more majors. Beat Henin 64 60, Dementieva 62 60
You dont know whats going to happen. Wozniacki has technical flaws, but won 18 tournaments already with them, been to slam semis 3 of the last 5 majors.
Its not like she a stranger to the final 4, been there 4 times and no reason to think she wont be there many times more.

You dont know, but you want to talk shit like you've seen the future and you've come back to enlighten us.
But you have no clue.

Sharapova was destroyed by shoulder injury, that's why she's no longer a factor. In fact shoulder injury and tennis player is something you never want to see in the same sentence. While Sharapova was also quite a limited player, at least she went for her shots and made things happen on court, she was/is an attacking player. She took the matches out of her opponent's hands instead of waiting for errors or waiting for them to self destruct. That is the big difference. And she won 3 slams, so her legacy is already secure.

Wozniacki, on the other hand reached only a single slam F in her career due to fortunate draw (Oudin/Wickmayer) and couldn't reach one ever again. She gets regularly thrashed in early rounds of slams (RG 2010, W 2010, RG 2011) and plays a million tournaments to keep her #1 rank.

If you want to believe I want to "talk shit", that's your prerogative, however Wozniacki is an empty champion, who failed to improve her game since 2010 and actually declined in her mental strength and consistency. If you want to count slam semis, quarters or whatevers, you can do so, but as Agassi said once - "History only remembers winners".

HawkAussie
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:12 AM
Petra Kvitova is the true number 1.

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:15 AM
I dont want to make bold predictions about Wozniacki, or anyone.
But she had a match point on her serve this year for her 2nd slam final.
And yeah, I do think its important to keep getting to slam semis. Only way to win them in is to keep making deep runs at majors.