PDA

View Full Version : Do You think Momo would deserve the number spot if she doesn't win the tournament ?


Kuti Kis&Monica
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Let's vote !

SWP
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:17 PM
no one deserves no1 without ever winning a slam.

jimbo mack
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:19 PM
the rankings do not lie

mauresmo may not have been spetacular in the last 12 months but she's been extremely consistent and thats enough to get to number 1

i personally dont think she deserves it, but then i remind myself 'the rankings do not lie'

alfonsojose
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:20 PM
numbers are numbers. The no. 1 is about being a consistent player during a whole year. If she get it, good for her ;)

Veritas
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Of course she does. Otherwise she wouldn't have gotten there in the first place.

Harju.
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:31 PM
no one deserves no1 without ever winning a slam.
does that mean if you win a slam, then you should be number one. Bull shit.

Another stupid thread bout undeserving number one.

Even if Momo does not win the grand slam, and still be #1. She's definately earn it. Whether you like or not.

Kuti Kis&Monica
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:33 PM
So apparently the definition of being number one must be defined. IMO a number one should be

1/ Consistant the whole year
2/ Winning Grand Slams

The problem this year is that nobody can't pretend to be like that on the Tour. Justine didn't play that much because of illness, Sharapova & Myskina had a lack of consistency.

Momo is the total contrary of them : consistent but not winning big Slams. She's in the same case of Lindsay, but Lindsay is even more consistant than Momo, if u look at their records :

Mauresmo : 53/10 (including Hopman Cup)
Davenport : 58/6

Conclusion : Momo would deserve it IMO only if she wins it. But if Lindsat wins that US Open and still doesn't get the Number 1, the WTA will have to find a solution, because that'd make no sense that a player who didn't win any Slams in her career would become number one, even for a week. The specialists will know why but the general crowd won't understand it.

What's the more important ? To win the final of Montreal against Likhovtseva or to win a hard level fight in the last 16 against Venus Williams ?

SWP
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:34 PM
does that mean if you win a slam, then you should be number one. Bull shit.

Another stupid thread bout undeserving number one.

Even if Momo does not win the grand slam, and still be #1. She's definately earn it. Whether you like or not.

no i'm just saying no1 players should be able to win slams

SerenaSlam
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:35 PM
peoples attitude has changed, u don't have to be a grandslam champion to be considered number 1. u don't even have to get to the finals. u just have to play so much and win so much even w/ the fact of loosing in GrandSlams, u can stil become number 1.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Yes she does.

hablo
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:42 PM
does that mean if you win a slam, then you should be number one. Bull shit.

Another stupid thread bout undeserving number one.

Even if Momo does not win the grand slam, and still be #1. She's definately earn it. Whether you like or not.

Exactly. Well said! :yeah:

Doraemon
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:50 PM
Your ranking is one thing and your ability is quite another.

fifiricci
Sep 7th, 2004, 03:56 PM
does that mean if you win a slam, then you should be number one. Bull shit.

Another stupid thread bout undeserving number one.

Even if Momo does not win the grand slam, and still be #1. She's definately earn it. Whether you like or not.Quite. As this year, probably for the first time in a long time, we are going to have 4 different slam winners, it kind of makes a mockery of that arrogant and narrow opinion that you must win a slam to "deserve" being number 1! Those with that belief: shall we declare four number ones this year? :rolleyes:

The situation this year shows the importance of CONSISTENCY as a measure of greatness and everyone who derided Kim last year could be asked to start eating those words now. :devil:

So, yes, Amelie does deserve number 1, however the points come to her!

deminator
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:04 PM
Of course she does if she gets the points she gets the position end of story!

SerenaSlam
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:18 PM
Quite. As this year, probably for the first time in a long time, we are going to have 4 different slam winners, it kind of makes a mockery of that arrogant and narrow opinion that you must win a slam to "deserve" being number 1! Those with that belief: shall we declare four number ones this year? :rolleyes:

The situation this year shows the importance of CONSISTENCY as a measure of greatness and everyone who derided Kim last year could be asked to start eating those words now. :devil:

So, yes, Amelie does deserve number 1, however the points come to her!
yeah that is true, this year you have the ability to argue that, but the sad thing is, we all know, when it comes down to how the "ranking system" actually works, had someone besides justine won 2 slams or more, justine could still have kept her number 1 ranking etc, had she not been out.

think of it people, justine is loosing her ranking b/c she lost, but on top of that, the majority of the points she lost was due to injury. about like Serena.

griffin
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Momo's had her own struggles with injuries, which makes her consistancy when she has been able to play that much more impressive imo (although I realize I'm biased). But it all boils down to: You earn the points, you earn the ranking. Period.

I'm sure it would be more satisfying for everyone - Amelie included - if she got to #1 winning a Slam, but #1 is nothing to sneer at no matter how you get there (and I think if Lindsay had never been #1 before, she'd be a lot less blase about getting there now)

Steffica Greles
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Frankly, if Mauresmo reaches no.1 after this tournament I think it'll be an even greater tragedy for women's tennis than Clijsters' attainment of that mantle 12 months ago; the final mockery of a group of prestigious players.

Unlike Clijsters, Amelie plays with flair and panache. She's great for tennis. A breath of fresh air. But the woman has won absolutely nothing of note, and that includes the WTA Championships - in addition to the fact she's only reached one sole grandslam final over five years ago. She lost tamely to Justine a couple of weeks ago, something even Petrova couldn't manage, blew her chances against Serena at Wimbledon, and couldn't find the inspiration to battle through a tough encounter against Dementieva in Paris.

Far greater players than Mauresmo have failed to reach the highest rung on the women's tennis ladder: Sabatini, Novotna, Mandlikova, Pierce, for example. Each of those players ultimately failed because they missed their chances, or failed to reach the required level of consistency; yet, each player held, or had held, grandslam championships, and had beaten the world's best on numerous occasions. Mauresmo is still yet to show the backbone necessary to present such a danger.

If Amelie Mauresmo reaches no.1 during this tournament, then it'll make a mockery of the group that preceeded her - even more so than Clijsters.

bandabou
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:36 PM
well she has been great this year, except when it matters, but tjaa.. in fact, it ainīt about deserving. I think she will become no.1 at the end of the week.

fammmmedspin
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Of course she deserves it. The figures tell you something. basically no 0ne is dominating and the top players are much closr (and the ones from 20 upwards are scoring more points too) In momo's case they tell you that she has up to now not performed at her best at the GS or the Olympics but she has performed really well elsewhere beating top players. They also tell you that Justine was/is sick, Lindsay has also done relatively poorly at GS and hasn't beaten many top 5 players in an age (though there are not many to beat around playing) and avoided the Olympics and Nastya has had downs as well as great highs. Now if Momo gets it being beaten before Lindsay here it will look odd but it will be because Lindsay missed points at the Olympics and Momo has a few more QP and you could argue that Lindsay shouldn't benefit from missing the olympics to gain an advantage here and there is no logic why a win over a top tenner here is any better than a similar win by Momo in some tier 1 earlier in the year..

WTF Tour
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:50 PM
I didnt' like it when Clijsters got it, and I wont' like it when Mauresmo gets it. Again, even me who hates the Russians wouldn't be upset if Myskina got it.

fammmmedspin
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Frankly, if Mauresmo reaches no.1 after this tournament I think it'll be an even greater tragedy for women's tennis than Clijsters' attainment of that mantle 12 months ago; the final mockery of a group of prestigious players.

Unlike Clijsters, Amelie plays with flair and panache. She's great for tennis. A breath of fresh air. But the woman has won absolutely nothing of note, and that includes the WTA Championships - in addition to the fact she's only reached one sole grandslam final over five years ago. She lost tamely to Justine a couple of weeks ago, something even Petrova couldn't manage, blew her chances against Serena at Wimbledon, and couldn't find the inspiration to battle through a tough encounter against Dementieva in Paris.

Far greater players than Mauresmo have failed to reach the highest rung on the women's tennis ladder: Sabatini, Novotna, Mandlikova, Pierce, for example. Each of those players ultimately failed because they missed their chances, or failed to reach the required level of consistency; yet, each player held, or had held, grandslam championships, and had beaten the world's best on numerous occasions. Mauresmo is still yet to show the backbone necessary to present such a danger.

If Amelie Mauresmo reaches no.1 during this tournament, then it'll make a mockery of the group that preceeded her - even more so than Clijsters.
You are missing the point which is odd for a Graf fan - most of those people didn't make it because Steffi was far better. Momo may make it because no one is better. No one has 6000 points - lots have 2000 and 4 have 4000. when that happens some odd looking things will happen. Lindsay the hardcourt number 1. Myskina or sharapova the far better players earlier in the year - not any better?

Kim also was different she had the points and masses of tournament wins and top ten wins and matches won totals that Momo hasn't. She won the YEC and was in the GS finals and SF which Momo isn't. Kim would be a clearnumber 1 at present by 2000 points. momo is near the pack - just a little ahead of it.

SerenaSlam
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:53 PM
well like it always has been on this message board, there are serveal that don't think she deserves the ranking, but yet they cannot express themselves.

Steffica Greles
Sep 7th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Whether she deserves it or not is irrelevant. She's NOT the best, and she's not even the second best in the world. Objectively, you can't possibly place her above Lindsay Davenport or Serena Williams. But then she's never put together an inspired run as Myskina did this year, or in the manner of Sharapova at Wimbledon. Sure, she's more consistent than the latter, and subjectively a better player, but she's short on adrenaline when stood next such players.
If the no.1 ranking is purely about stats, then I suppose I can grudgingly say she deserves the achievement. But she's clearly not the best in the world, otherwise she'd be a clear favourite today over the world no.6, Dementieva, which she isn't. In the interests of women's tennis, it is desirable that the player on the highest perch is the most formidable player.

Add another statistic to the bottom of the list, with Clijsters.

ex hopman
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Of course she does deserve it.
She constantly wins matches in tourneys.

hope she wins this USO. :)

Kuti Kis&Monica
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:19 PM
Of course she deserves it. The figures tell you something. basically no 0ne is dominating and the top players are much closr (and the ones from 20 upwards are scoring more points too) In momo's case they tell you that she has up to now not performed at her best at the GS or the Olympics but she has performed really well elsewhere beating top players. They also tell you that Justine was/is sick, Lindsay has also done relatively poorly at GS and hasn't beaten many top 5 players in an age (though there are not many to beat around playing) and avoided the Olympics and Nastya has had downs as well as great highs. Now if Momo gets it being beaten before Lindsay here it will look odd but it will be because Lindsay missed points at the Olympics and Momo has a few more QP and you could argue that Lindsay shouldn't benefit from missing the olympics to gain an advantage here and there is no logic why a win over a top tenner here is any better than a similar win by Momo in some tier 1 earlier in the year..

1/ Lindsay is the only one this year who has been able to keep a domination, winning 4 US Tournaments.

2/ Lindsay did play the week of Olympics, it's not like she doesn't play enough

3/ Mauresmo did win 3 Tiers I, but only has 2 wins against top 10 players while winning them :rolleyes: : Jenny Capriati (twice), with a WO in final of Berlin from Venus Williams. Talking about big wins in Tier I ? C'mon. :rolleyes:

on the rest of the year : Henin-H., Myskina (twice), Kuznetsova (only counts the one from the JO cause in Berlin she wasn't on top ten)

Total : 5 Impressive :angel:

4/ Mauresmo is always unable to beat the Williams's sisters, won 1 match against Serena on all her career and no one against Venus (don't count that abandon in Varsaw). Proof again this year in Wimby, while Lindsay owned the Sisters this summer.

5/ If Davenport played poorly in GS, Mauresmo did too : they both reach 1/4 F. In Australia, lost to the same player at French Open (1/8F. and 1/4F), both lost in semi-final in Wimby. They're equal.

6/ Head to head this year : Davenport leads Momo 2/0, both in straight sets.

7/ Please, people : the number one spot should represent the best player in the world. And Mauresmo is not.

jlamire
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:29 PM
1/ Lindsay is the only one this year who has been able to keep a domination, winning 4 US Tournaments.

2/ Lindsay did play the week of Olympics, it's not like she doesn't play enough

3/ Mauresmo did win 3 Tiers I, but only has 2 wins against top 10 players while winning them :rolleyes: : Jenny Capriati (twice), with a WO in final of Berlin from Venus Williams. Talking about big wins in Tier I ? C'mon. :rolleyes:

on the rest of the year : Henin-H., Myskina (twice), Kuznetsova (only counts the one from the JO cause in Berlin she wasn't on top ten)

Total : 5 Impressive :angel:

4/ Mauresmo is always unable to beat the Williams's sisters, won 1 match against Serena on all her career and no one against Venus (don't count that abandon in Varsaw). Proof again this year in Wimby, while Lindsay owned the Sisters this summer.

5/ If Davenport played poorly in GS, Mauresmo did too : they both reach 1/4 F. In Australia, lost to the same player at French Open (1/8F. and 1/4F), both lost in semi-final in Wimby. They're equal.

6/ Head to head this year : Davenport leads Momo 2/0, both in straight sets.

7/ Please, people : the number one spot should represent the best player in the world. And Mauresmo is not.

Talk about whining posters....pfff

justine&coria
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:30 PM
The rankings are not objective !!!

I really laugh out loud when people say that rankings don't lie !!
Rankings are made by human beings : it's 650 + quality points when you win a GS , 456+QP when you reach the finals of a GS, 325 + QP when you win a Tier I etc ...
Why is it 650 and not 1000 ?
Those numbers are subjective, and that's why sometimes the number 1 isn't the best player.

Lindsay definitely should be the number 1 after the US Open.
Mauresmo doesn't deserve it, except if she wins the Open.

Spunky83
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:33 PM
As long as there isnīt a rule that says that non-GS-winners canīt be number one, I guess, yes, she deserves it very much! She has been more consistent than any other player in the last year, so if she will be number one, thereīs a good reason for it.

Kuti Kis&Monica
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:33 PM
Talk about whining posters....pfff

I'm not whining. I'm explaining.

SWP
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:33 PM
mauresmo is nowhere near the best player in the world.

GoDominique
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:37 PM
mauresmo is nowhere near the best player in the world.
Where does it say that this is the meaning of being no.1?
BTW, who is it then?

Amelie is not responsible for other players' suckness and injuries.
And if you asked her what her main goal at this tournament is, becoming no.1 or winning it, she would probably choose the latter.

SerenaSlam
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:39 PM
the number 1 ranking has become more so, who can be a consistent player, rather than who has the better game.

therefore you have those in here, who are highly associated fans of players like Amelie, Kim try their hardest to put up a good excuse and reasoning as to why they should be number 1.

This is my personal opinion. How can you be ranked number 1, and not be considered the favorite as well?

That is what I wanna know.

tennischick
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Hingis/Kim part deux :o

Elske
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:50 PM
numbers don't lie, the numbers say that she is the most consistent player of the last 12 months so Amelie deserves to be number 1 :yeah:

MinnyGophers
Sep 7th, 2004, 05:59 PM
whether she wins it or not, if she gets the number 1 then she gets it. period. I don't see why everyone has to post and whine about it. Is it her fault that she got to number 1? NO. Does she want it? Yes, might as well. Would she rather win the USOpen? HECK yeah!

Harju.
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:00 PM
1/ Lindsay is the only one this year who has been able to keep a domination, winning 4 US Tournaments.
Well Momo too. Remember the 3 Tier I & II during the clay seasons she won?

2/ Lindsay did play the week of Olympics, it's not like she doesn't play enough
And your point is?? Still Olympics and Tier III are not on the same league.

3/ Mauresmo did win 3 Tiers I, but only has 2 wins against top 10 players while winning them :rolleyes: : Jenny Capriati (twice), with a WO in final of Berlin from Venus Williams. Talking about big wins in Tier I ? C'mon. :rolleyes:

on the rest of the year : Henin-H., Myskina (twice), Kuznetsova (only counts the one from the JO cause in Berlin she wasn't on top ten)
And the point is?? She can't help it if those top players have lost in previous rounds, can she???


4/ Mauresmo is always unable to beat the Williams's sisters, won 1 match against Serena on all her career and no one against Venus (don't count that abandon in Varsaw). Proof again this year in Wimby, while Lindsay owned the Sisters this summer.
So? Beating Williams Sisters make you a better player?

5/ If Davenport played poorly in GS, Mauresmo did too : they both reach 1/4 F. In Australia, lost to the same player at French Open (1/8F. and 1/4F), both lost in semi-final in Wimby. They're equal.
Momo was INJURED during AO.

6/ Head to head this year : Davenport leads Momo 2/0, both in straight sets.
No comment. :haha:

7/ Please, people : the number one spot should represent the best player in the world. And Mauresmo is not.
again, number one doesn't mean you have to be the best player. Could Momo help it if the rests of the players are injured. She herself had injured most of the times during past few years, but people gave no shits bout it.

LostGlory
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Your ranking is one thing and your ability is quite another.

I totally agree with that....

By the way no one achieves anything unless they deserve it....some people are luckier than others...but then it is about time Mauresmo gets some luck....she is one of the best players the game's ever seen and she happens to be a nice person..not arrogant and a show off like most of them...If any two players should win this year it is either Mauresmo or Davenport....and if anyone deserve the No.1 spot then it is one of these two great players...

treufreund
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:29 PM
she has won a whole bunch of tournaments. don't forget that she was on a roll at oz open until an injury derailed her.

DemWilliamsGulls
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Clisters + Mauresmo = Over-rated.....No she does not deserve the #1 ranking if she isn't winning anything.

ali
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:35 PM
......again, number one doesn't mean you have to be the best player.
It kind of should mean that though shouldn't it?! Being number 1 in the world at something surely means you're the best at it?! :confused:

I think if Amelie gets the number 1 ranking she'll deserve it, of course she will. She's obviously been more consistent than the other players and has taken her chance while others have been out injured...something that other players haven't been able to do.

But I wonder who the other players will consider to be the best player, the one they most want to beat, the one who in their minds is the best player in the world. In the late 90s when Aranxta got the number 1 spot, a win against Steffi was still seen as a greater achievement I think. And in the early 2000s when Martina was still at number 1 and Venus and Serena were behind her (due to playing a small number of tournaments), they were considered the scalp to take.

Of course none of this matters in the record books. Just as GS winners who were victorious when some of the "bigger" names weren't playing (eg Mary at the Australian Open '95....just to show I'm not being biased ;) ) will always have that title, no matter what, so Amelie will always have been number 1 in the world if she takes her chance this year.

And that's something to be proud of and deserving whether she wins a GS title or not.

skanky~skanketta
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:42 PM
i dont think so, yes, it can be compared to kim to winning a grand slam, but she won a few tier ones and she had most titles in the year and she made 2 GS finals and 2 GS semis. momo won 3 titles, yes, all tier ones, and she made the olympic finals but its just not enough. even with top players out, she didnt take advantage of the situation. kim did.

Natarajasana
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:13 PM
Absolutely not! I don't think Momo deserves to win tournaments let alone become #1 in the world.
I wish that the WTA had the same ranking system as the ATP.
Honestly.....I guess Lindsay deserves the #1 ranking....but no clear favorite for that spot....nobody has been dominate this year (except for Lindsay in California).

Barrie_Dude
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:26 PM
the rankings do not lie

mauresmo may not have been spetacular in the last 12 months but she's been extremely consistent and thats enough to get to number 1

i personally dont think she deserves it, but then i remind myself 'the rankings do not lie'Actually, she has had a good year. The only one better has been Lindsay and she will need to beat Lindsay to get it

Stamp Paid
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:48 PM
If you get there, you deserve it.

jenglisbe
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Normally I would say no because I think #1 should also have a major, but this year we will have 4 different women holding a major. Considering Justine, Anastasia, and Maria haven't done a lot outside of their major wins (for varying reasons), this is a case where I think you definitely need to look at other things. In the past year Amelie has won at least 3 Tier 1 titles, made the finals of the WTA Championships, has beaten Justine twice, and has played good in the majors (even if she hasn't won yet).

If Lindsay wins the U.S. Open, though, I'd say she deserves #1 because she has the most titles this year and has done pretty well in the majors.

Kuti Kis&Monica
Sep 7th, 2004, 10:39 PM
Well Momo too. Remember the 3 Tier I & II during the clay seasons she won?


She won Berlin & Roma, but lost to Schiavone in Varsaw. What a domination :rolleyes:


And your point is?? Still Olympics and Tier III are not on the same league.


I was answering to the guy who did tell that Lindsay didn't play the Olympics, and that if she doesn't have points enough, it's her fault. That's why i answered to him that she actually did play that week, but wasn't interested by a title she previously won. :rolleyes:


And the point is?? She can't help it if those top players have lost in previous rounds, can she???


My point is that the draws count a lot in tennis. People who say that " if U wanna win a tournament, you've got to beat everybody" are just hypocritical.
Would Zuluaga have reach the semi of Australian Open without a good draw ? Same Asagoe in that Open ? There are so much examples in tennis, c'mon.
She can win Tiers I with beating a semi Likhovtseva in final, nobody will recall it when she'll retire :rolleyes:



So? Beating Williams Sisters make you a better player?


Yes definitely. She'd be a better player if she would have beaten them in big occasions. :o :o :tape:


Momo was INJURED during AO.


And so ? Everybody has his own business, & considering your previous arguments, i'll do like U : answer with questions :rolleyes: Are U sure Mauresmo would have beaten Zuluaga ? :p


No comment. :haha:


U have no comment cause U know i'm right. U hide your embarassment by laughing :rolleyes: :p


again, number one doesn't mean you have to be the best player. Could Momo help it if the rests of the players are injured. She herself had injured most of the times during past few years, but people gave no shits bout it.

Wonderful : Mauresmo could become number one, but is definitely not the best player of the world :rolleyes: :rolleyes: We don't have the same definition of being number 1. One semi-final in Grand Slam, not even a final for number one wouldn't be representative at all.


Seriously, my points weren't against Mauresmo : she's a talented player and nice person. I'm just telling that the WTA Rankings are just not well done at all. They should do modify it.

Kuti Kis&Monica
Sep 8th, 2004, 10:34 PM
bump :tongue:

jonny84
Sep 8th, 2004, 10:42 PM
At the end of the day the person that deserves to sit on the top of the rankings is the player that has accumulated the most points from 17 tournaments.

Amelie - at the moment has done that.

She has huge points from :

YEC runner-up 2003
Olympics runner-up 2004
Rome/Montreal/Berlin wins 2004
Wimbledon Semifinal 2004
Roland Garros/Australian/US QF 2004

So she does have plently of accomplishments to put on her CV - and she at the moment has outdone everyone else in the rankings, alebit not actually winning a GS.

Lady
Sep 8th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Well, if Lindsay win the Open she'll be #1! She'll deserve it! If she won't, she won't deserve it anymore then Amelie. They would be on equal termes. I don't see how Lindsay would deserve it more IF she doesn't win it. ;)

But anyway, who gets there, gets there. And you can't do anything about it! ;)

MinnyGophers
Sep 8th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Well, if Lindsay win the Open she'll be #1! She'll deserve it! If she won't, she won't deserve it anymore then Amelie. They would be on equal termes. I don't see how Lindsay would deserve it more IF she doesn't win it. ;)

But anyway, who gets there, gets there. And you can't do anything about it! ;)


amen to that.
**starting to mold a Lindsay voodoo doll**
Just kidding Linds, me love you too.

Kabezya
Sep 8th, 2004, 10:58 PM
I cannot believe I'm saying this, but her consistency should be rewarded. Just because she does not have a slam to her name doesn't mean she should be stuck at #2 until she reaches that great level. If that's the case, rules need to be changed or implemented so that #1 is only a slam winner. Until then, if she has the points, she should be #1 if she gets there.

jonny84
Sep 8th, 2004, 11:02 PM
Well, if Lindsay win the Open she'll be #1! She'll deserve it! If she won't, she won't deserve it anymore then Amelie. They would be on equal termes. I don't see how Lindsay would deserve it more IF she doesn't win it. ;)

But anyway, who gets there, gets there. And you can't do anything about it! ;)

Yes, Lindsay will be #1 if she wins - and she does deserve it (if she wins that would be her 5th straight title) - and if she does retire she would certainly levae the tour on a high note.

Crazy_Fool
Sep 8th, 2004, 11:05 PM
Seeing as there hasn't been a dominant player all year, i guess its only right it goes to the most consistent player - i guess the scenario is good that if Davey wins the title she'll be number 1. I think that would be great, but otherwise Momo deserves it just as much as anyone else.

Ekkekko
Sep 9th, 2004, 12:32 AM
If one has been consistent to be progressing to this stage, i fail to see why doesn't she deserve to get the #1 spot. Why does this discussion have to be brought over and over again. Imo, any player that is consistent throughout the tennis calender deserves the #1, GS winner or not. It's true...Winning a GS is important but a person may win a GS this year and well, isn't consistent in other tournies. Momo had worked hard..So has lindsay and whoever that takes the #1, GS winner this year or not, all i can say is kudos...Job Well Done.

Shenanigans
Sep 9th, 2004, 12:38 AM
I think Lindsay only has herself to blame if she does not take the no.1 spot maybe if she had came over to Europe a bit sooner and played a couple of tier 1's during the clay court season, instead of coming over the week before RG and playing a tier 3. I know european clay is not her favoured surface but it is not like she can't win a few matches on the surface.