PDA

View Full Version : Is it mathematically possible to be #1 without winning a tournament?


CoryAnnAvants#1
Jun 4th, 2003, 02:05 AM
I'm just asking since you can apparently get as high as #8 w/out doing so like Kournikova did (NOT BASHING HER, but it did interest me).

Let's see you play a Dokic or Likhovtseva like schedule (30-35 tournaments) and you get to the finals of every single tournament, but never actually win one. What would your ranking be?

faboozadoo15
Jun 4th, 2003, 02:07 AM
anything is possible with the rankings. if you made 17 finals and played a difficult schedule, you SHOULD be ranked #1, IMO. the only people/person who could be ahead of said person is if they won all or most of the finals.

jenglisbe
Jun 4th, 2003, 02:08 AM
Of course...it all depends on how other players do. For instance, it's possible for a player to reach the finals of all 4 of the majors, and then reach the finals of some Tier 1 events. If that player loses to a variety of players, she would still have more overall points than anyone else.

Look at Venus - she is #4 right now but has only won maybe 2 tournaments in the past year. If she had made the finals of the French this year, she would be top 3. If Serena weren't so dominant, it shows how a player can make a lot of finals and be on top.

novemberrain
Jun 4th, 2003, 02:08 AM
That's very possible...

Finals at the 4 GS's would get you 2500-3000 points... finals at all the Tier I's would get you around 2500. Finals at four Tier II's would be like 1500.

ys
Jun 4th, 2003, 02:13 AM
AFAIR, Steffi was ranked #3 when she won her first tournament.

novemberrain
Jun 4th, 2003, 02:17 AM
AFAIR, Steffi was ranked #3 when she won her first tournament.
I don't think she was that high... she won a ton of tournaments in '86, and she ended up #3 at the end of year.

disposablehero
Jun 4th, 2003, 03:53 AM
Easily. Mathematically speaking, a person could theoretically play 10 events and get the #1 ranking without winning any of them.

fammmmedspin
Jun 4th, 2003, 04:43 AM
Easy to get to 4000+ points if you were runner up in 17 events. Would depend on whether any of the players who actually won anything won multiple tournaments and how many. The other players would have the advantage of 2100 quality points for beating the number one to share between them though and you would always be picking up fewer quality points. The number two players would have to be pretty bad not to get to the finals enough times to beat you. but you could have yourself as the constantly losing number one by a mile if the number twos just won one or two tournaments (or don't play much beyond the minimum of 3 tournaments) In theory if everyone else does badly and plays inconsistently or not much at all, you could have number twos changing every week on very low ranking points with one GS win and a host of first round exits.

disposablehero
Jun 4th, 2003, 05:05 AM
The other players would have the advantage of 2100 quality points for beating the number one to share between them though and you would always be picking up fewer quality points.

Not necessarily at all. You don't have to be #1 the whole year to attain #1. In my example, among the 10 tournaments could be 800 Quality points for beating the #1 of that time at all 4 Slams. This player who becomes #1 could be out of the top 5 for 3 out of 4 Slams, so she wouldn't necessarily be giving big quality points.