PDA

View Full Version : One set away from year-end-#1 ranking


Navratil
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:03 PM
If only Wozniacki had lost the final set against Radwanska in RR, Kvitova would have been # 1.

Is that correct??

Has it ever been that close?

Patrick345
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:09 PM
If only Wozniacki had lost the final set against Radwanska in RR, Kvitova would have been # 1.

Is that correct??

Has it ever been that close?

If you want to pin this on one person it would be Kuznetsova. She gifted Wozniacki an extra 620 points at the US Open.:lol:

Mynarco
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:14 PM
If you want to pin this on one person it would be Kuznetsova. She gifted Wozniacki an extra 620 points at the US Open.:lol:

This

n1_and_uh_noone
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:15 PM
Kvitova would rather have had it on her own racquet. For instance, she was slightly over a set away from doing it at Tokyo, 5-1 against Zvonareva in the semis and playing well. That was the difference between 620 pts and 395 i.e. 225 :lol:

Meelis
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:16 PM
It would be Petra herself. Winning third set against Arvidsson in Beijing would have been enough. And there were other matches too.

Djezonfly
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:18 PM
It would be Petra herself. Winning third set against Arvidsson in Beijing would have been enough. And there were other matches too.

Winning against Marion in Eastbourne ? :oh:

danieln1
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:19 PM
It would be Petra herself. Winning third set against Arvidsson in Beijing would have been enough. And there were other matches too.

If she only could win her challengers in Nassau and Prague :oh:

:happy:

Meelis
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:23 PM
Winning against Marion in Eastbourne ? :oh:

Yes, this was one of the matches ;)

If she only could win her challengers in Nassau and Prague :oh:

Would still not be enough :p

Novichok
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:00 PM
If you want to pin this on one person it would be Kuznetsova. She gifted Wozniacki an extra 620 points at the US Open.:lol:

She didn't give Caroline anything. Caroline fought and won that match and then won her next match.:rolleyes:

madmax
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:04 PM
we could also blame Pova's rolled ankle while we're at it...and Fiona's health issues, Snicker's addiction to retirements and so on and etc...in other words a lot of unfortunate circumstances led to Pushniacki clinging onto her spot as we can see

spiceboy
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:17 PM
If only Wozniacki had lost the final set against Radwanska in RR, Kvitova would have been # 1.

Is that correct??

Has it ever been that close?

Sabatini was 2 games away from reaching the #1 when she lost 1991 Wimbledon final 8/6 in the third set. This is even sadder as she didn't even get to #2 during her career.

Jens K A
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:36 PM
Has it ever been that close?

Davenport had four year-end #1 and all were close:

1998
1 Lindsay Davenport 5654
2 Martina Hingis 5366 (94.9%)

2001
1 Lindsay Davenport 4902
2 Jennifer Capriati 4892 (99.8%)

2004
1 Lindsay Davenport 4760
2 Amelie Mauresmo 4546 (95.5%)

2005
1 Lindsay Davenport 4910
2 Kim Clijsters 4829 (98.4%)

Other close:
2003
1 Justine Henin 6628
2 Kim Clijsters 6553 (98.9%)

2011
1 Caroline Wozniacki 7485
2 Petra Kvitova 7370 (98.5%)

Steven.
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:04 PM
Davenport had four year-end #1 and all were close:

1998
1 Lindsay Davenport 5654
2 Martina Hingis 5366 (94.9%)

2001
1 Lindsay Davenport 4902
2 Jennifer Capriati 4892 (99.8%)

2004
1 Lindsay Davenport 4760
2 Amelie Mauresmo 4546 (95.5%)

2005
1 Lindsay Davenport 4910
2 Kim Clijsters 4829 (98.4%)

Other close:
2003
1 Justine Henin 6628
2 Kim Clijsters 6553 (98.9%)

2011
1 Caroline Wozniacki 7485
2 Petra Kvitova 7370 (98.5%)

Noooo JCap :sobbing:

the jamierbelyea
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:24 PM
Noooo JCap :sobbing:

She lost in the 2R (QF)of the Chase Champs that year to Sandrine Testud to lose her #1 ranking.

Davenport made the final.

The Daviator
Nov 2nd, 2011, 09:26 PM
Well there were close matches Woz lost that she could have won, MP against Na in Melbourne, that match against Cibu at Wimbledon, so it goes both ways.

Just hope Petra can seal the deal at the AO.

spencercarlos
Nov 2nd, 2011, 09:44 PM
Sabatini was 2 games away from reaching the #1 when she lost 1991 Wimbledon final 8/6 in the third set. This is even sadder as she didn't even get to #2 during her career.
Even with the Wimbledon final result Sabatini would have been number one if she had skipped Canadian Open and Los Angeles 1991, thatīs all she needed to..

backhandsmash
Nov 2nd, 2011, 09:56 PM
And posters here say #1 ranking is not an important thing.

spencercarlos
Nov 2nd, 2011, 10:01 PM
And posters here say #1 ranking is not an important thing.
Well certainly these days does not tell you who the best player is..

backhandsmash
Nov 2nd, 2011, 10:02 PM
"important" being the key word. :)

Matt01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 10:40 PM
Well certainly these days does not tell you who the best player is..


Sabatini as #1 in 1991 would have been 3rd best player at best :oh:

So much for the divisor being a good system :tape:

ExtremespeedX
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:17 AM
I'd rather Petra remain a hunter rather than hunted. #2 is no pressure, after all she's not the best (according to Carotards, anyway) player in the world. Let Dullniacki keep her #1. It's not like she'll be keeping it for very long :shrug:

cowsonice
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:43 AM
But record books are record books. Most of the time, record books don't come with asteriks saying "She wasn't really #1."
If Petra only reaches #2, people like TFers will probably remember her as "best player to not have #1." Even though right now, #1 ranking is meaningless, doesn't mean it won't be important later on.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:46 AM
But record books are record books. Most of the time, record books don't come with asteriks saying "She wasn't really #1."
If Petra only reaches #2, people like TFers will probably remember her as "best player to not have #1." Even though right now, #1 ranking is meaningless, doesn't mean it won't be important later on.

Funny you should mention recordbooks, because currently they are not in Dullniacki's favor :shrug: Zero slams, YEC's or Olympic medals. :tape:

I'd rather be a "best player to never reach #2 with a slam", rather than "worst #1 in Open Era". :shrug:

All of this is irrelevant, however, because Petra will be #1 next year, whether Carotards like it or not.

Matt01
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:57 AM
Funny you should mention recordbooks, because currently they are not in Dullniacki's favor :shrug: Zero slams, YEC's or Olympic medals. :tape:

I'd rather be a "best player to never reach #2 with a slam", rather than "worst #1 in Open Era". :shrug:

All of this is irrelevant, however, because Petra will be #1 next year, whether Carotards like it or not.


Did you borrow dsanders06's crystal ball? Sorry to say but it's not working. And also sorry to say but Caro is already in the history books. Many weeks as #1, two time YE #1, these are great achievement if you like it or not, and no matter if Caro will ever win a Slam or not.

And stop calling her Dullniacki because it only makes you look even more stupid.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 3rd, 2011, 03:05 AM
Did you borrow dsanders06's crystal ball? Sorry to say but it's not working. And also sorry to say but Caro is already in the history books. Many weeks as #1, two time YE #1, these are great achievement if you like it or not, and no matter if Caro will ever win a Slam or not.

She's in history books as the worst #1 ever. Not being able to make a slam final in 2 years, not being to make it out of RR in YEC tells you a lot about her inability to raise her level in big events. She IS in history books, but I am not sure whether this is such a good thing at this point. She needs a slam to be relevant and to secure her legacy. Simple as that. Every great player won a slam. Why can't she? Why can't she even make a final?

And stop calling her Dullniacki because it only makes you look even more stupid.

I find her playstyle dull, thus the nickname. Hitting <5 winners per match is not my idea of exciting tennis, sorry :shrug:

cowsonice
Nov 3rd, 2011, 03:10 AM
Funny you should mention recordbooks, because currently they are not in Dullniacki's favor :shrug: Zero slams, YEC's or Olympic medals. :tape:

I'd rather be a "best player to never reach #2 with a slam", rather than "worst #1 in Open Era". :shrug:

All of this is irrelevant, however, because Petra will be #1 next year, whether Carotards like it or not.

So? What about Jankovic? If we judge it by that...that doesn't necessarily mean that Jankovic was never a "true" #1 People still remember Jankovic for her YEC #1 and her accomplishments.

To the casual tennis fan, sometimes #1 ranking is enough to justify one's greatness no matter how dubious it may be.

ToopsTame
Nov 3rd, 2011, 08:21 AM
So? What about Jankovic? If we judge it by that...that doesn't necessarily mean that Jankovic was never a "true" #1 People still remember Jankovic for her YEC #1 and her accomplishments.

To the casual tennis fan, sometimes #1 ranking is enough to justify one's greatness no matter how dubious it may be.

Not anymore. This was true before all the slamless world no.1's started appearing. Now even casual fans recognize that the ranking is not indicative of quality of play. Jankovic, Safina and Wozniacki all have asterisks next to their rankings and Wozniacki's is the biggest.

Navratil
Nov 3rd, 2011, 09:04 AM
Could Petra still get the year-end-#1 ranking by playing some ITF-futures? :O

Steven.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 09:22 AM
Could Petra still get the year-end-#1 ranking by playing some ITF-futures? :O

Unfortunately for her, the answer is no. Her 16th best result is worth 125 points and so winning any ITF tournaments will not increase her points.

Even if she could reach no. 1, she would not be the end year no. 1 afaik, as any challengers from here on out counts as tournaments played in 2012. Wozniacki has already secured her spot as end year no. 1 as of last Sunday.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2011, 12:15 PM
c'est la vie, c'est la vie..Petra had some shocking losses herself, soo..in the end it all evens out.

Matt01
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:03 PM
She's in history books as the worst #1 ever. Not being able to make a slam final in 2 years, not being to make it out of RR in YEC tells you a lot about her inability to raise her level in big events.


Yeah, because she is the first #1 to not make it out of RR at the YEC. :weirdo: And she is the first #1 to not make a Slam final. :weirdo: Maybe you learn the something about the tennis history and then stop posting such crap.

Drake1980
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:05 PM
So Petra should be number 1 after AO 2012! :eek:

Matt01
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:11 PM
So Petra should be number 1 after AO 2012! :eek:

Depends on how they play...Woz has more points to defend at AO and Petra more to defend in Brisbane earlier. But I suspect that we'll have a new #1 after Doha, Dubai or Indian Wells. :tape:

dybbuk
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:13 PM
Myskina was a match away from No.1 in 2004, wasn't she? Was she a set away by any chance?

Navratil
Nov 7th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Kvitova Wimbledon, the Championships, Fed-Cup plus 5 more WTA titles. She's the real # 1 in 2011! No doubt!

She's 21:0 indoor and 11:1 on grass. Her only loss on grass came to Bartoli in the Eastbourne final 5:7 in the final set.

MakarovaFan
Nov 7th, 2011, 03:19 PM
She didn't give Caroline anything. Caroline fought and won that match and then won her next match.:rolleyes:


What match were you watching!! From 76 41 up to atleast 44 Sveta definitely got tight and LOST the match(rather than have Caroline WIN it), and from 55 on she was horrendous whilst Caroline grew in confidence.

MakarovaFan
Nov 7th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Sabatini as #1 in 1991 would have been 3rd best player at best :oh:

So much for the divisor being a good system :tape:

Except it never happened :rolleyes: . What you are basing that on is purely theoretical, and if we do that then:

Sabatini's 1991 WITH Wimbledon would have actually been a strong year: 6 titles beating the likes of Navratilova,Seles,Graf x3 in the Finals of 5/6 events; F in Miami, SF in RG whilst in comparison IF the Wimbldeon result reversed Steffi in the Majors would have went QF,SF,F,SF and have won just 6 overall events(not GS) Plus Sabatini beat Steffi 5 times that year(Tokyo,Boca,Miami,Amelia Island AND Wimbledon). So at the very least, if you are going by the divisor system not having been a good system then on that same note Sabatini would have surely been a much better player in 1991 than Graf and far & away 2nd only to Seles that year( 3 GS,YEC and a handful of other titles)

MakarovaFan
Nov 7th, 2011, 03:50 PM
Yeah, because she is the first #1 to not make it out of RR at the YEC. :weirdo: And she is the first #1 to not make a Slam final. :weirdo: Maybe you learn the something about the tennis history and then stop posting such crap.

Like Who?? See that's the thing about both Woz's YE # 1's.....her "partners" in the Slamless YE #1 category Safina & Jankovic BOTH made Slam F's in their respective years and on the flip her "partners" in the No Slam That Year category: Davenport & Hingis were BOTH far and away already proven GS champions before those "dark" years happened,so therefore they got a bit of slack and were still credible #1 holders. Sure the latter may not "satisfy" these idiots on the TF, but for everyone else( the players, the commentators and the general sports fans) it was acceptable because they were Lindsay Davenport and Martina Hingis. Caroline has neither so she is in her own category at the very bottom,sorrry.

Stonerpova
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:11 PM
She didn't give Caroline anything. Caroline fought and won that match and then won her next match.:rolleyes:

Cool story bro.

Novichok
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:19 PM
What match were you watching!! From 76 41 up to atleast 44 Sveta definitely got tight and LOST the match(rather than have Caroline WIN it), and from 55 on she was horrendous whilst Caroline grew in confidence.

Getting tight and losing a match does not equal "gifting" a match. Caroline definitely won it (at least the USO organizers thought so). :rolleyes:

Cool story bro.

It's not a "story." It's fact. Deal with it.:wavey:

DefyingGravity
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:21 PM
So? What about Jankovic? If we judge it by that...that doesn't necessarily mean that Jankovic was never a "true" #1 People still remember Jankovic for her YEC #1 and her accomplishments.

To the casual tennis fan, sometimes #1 ranking is enough to justify one's greatness no matter how dubious it may be.

Casual tennis fans remember Ivanovic for a Roland Garros win that may be 4 years removed. They remember Caroline as a terrible number one because they're told she is the worst number one ever by people who are more knowledgeable like commentators and big fans of the sport. #1 has been devalued, even for casual fans. They don't know who the hell Safina is...Jankovic is.

But they DO know (and this surprised me, as many of my friends who watch tennis only watch the Slams) Schiavone, Li, Kvitova, Clijsters, Serena, Sharapova, and Venus.

Novichok
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:24 PM
I doubt "casual fans" are going to remember certain slam winners from several years back especially one-slam wonders.

pov
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:26 PM
2006:
1 Justine Henin-Hardenne BEL 3998
2 Maria Sharapova RUS 3532

2005:
1 Lindsay Davenport USA 4910
2 Kim Clijsters BEL 4829

2004:
1 Lindsay Davenport USA 4760
2 Amelie Mauresmo FRA 4546

2003:
1 Justine Henin-Hardenne BEL 6628
2 Kim Clijsters BEL 6553

2001:
1 Lindsay Davenport USA 4902
2 Jennifer Capriati USA 4892

DefyingGravity
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:34 PM
I doubt "casual fans" are going to remember certain slam winners from several years back especially one-slam wonders.

Tell that to the USO court scheduling. :oh:

And just for the record, people who actively look to discuss women's tennis on a forum do not count as casual fans. We are mostly far from casual.

ElusiveChanteuse
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Kim was so close to be YE#1 twice :eek: :hug:

Novichok
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Tell that to the USO court scheduling. :oh:

And just for the record, people who actively look to discuss women's tennis on a forum do not count as casual fans. We are mostly far from casual.

I don't understand your first sentence but I agree with the second.

I just don't think that a "casual fan" would be able to tell me who won the 2008 RG.

DefyingGravity
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:41 PM
I don't understand your first sentence but I agree with the second.

I just don't think that a "casual fan" would be able to tell me who won the 2008 RG.

If you're looking to push my buttons, you aren't going to. Then how do you explain someone who won their first grand slam 7 years ago, her last one 3 years ago being completely relevant in the minds of viewers as well? Casual fans get told who is relevant anyway, usually by who's on television during the 4 slams.

Novichok
Nov 7th, 2011, 04:55 PM
If you're looking to push my buttons, you aren't going to. Then how do you explain someone who won their first grand slam 7 years ago, her last one 3 years ago being completely relevant in the minds of viewers as well? Casual fans get told who is relevant anyway, usually by who's on television during the 4 slams.

I'm not looking to push your buttons. :rolleyes:

Maria Sharapova's popularity outside of tennis might have something to do with her current relevance. I still don't believe that a casual fan could tell me that Maria won 2004 Wimbledon, 2006 USO, or 2008 AO.

I'm not talking about relevance in terms of chances of winning a slam/tournament. I'm talking about the likelihood of casual fans to remember certain events in the history of tennis.

frenchie
Nov 7th, 2011, 06:39 PM
Myskina was a match away from No.1 in 2004, wasn't she? Was she a set away by any chance?

No she wasn't;)

As far as I remember, she would have been numbre 1, had she reached the USO QF in 2004.
but she lost 2nd round to Chakvetadze:help:

Navratil
Nov 7th, 2011, 09:57 PM
Real rankings YE 2011:

1. Kvitova
2. S. Williams
3. Azarenka
4. Clijsters
5. Stosur
6. Sharapova
7. Li
8. Wozniacki
9. Radwanska
10. Petkovic

pov
Nov 7th, 2011, 11:07 PM
Real rankings YE 2011:

:facepalm: When, at the beginning of the season, the WTA players are playing based on your system, it will be real. Over than that it's fantasy - just you wanting the rankings to be the way you like.

Novichok
Nov 7th, 2011, 11:10 PM
Real rankings YE 2011:

1. Kvitova
2. S. Williams
3. Azarenka
4. Clijsters
5. Stosur
6. Sharapova
7. Li
8. Wozniacki
9. Radwanska
10. Petkovic

Nice try.:tape::help: