PDA

View Full Version : Serena ONLY 7 after beating #1, #2, #3?!


CanadianBoy21
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:02 AM
Yes, I realize she only plays about 10 events a year. But still, come on, she is the best player in the world.
She has beaten Jen now THREE times in a row, Martina three times also, and finally beat Venus.


She must have added amazing quality points, right?
Anyoneknow how the quality points work or anything, thanks.
And how far is Serena off from grabbing the #6 position?

Williams Rulez
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:10 AM
Don't worry, Serena has no point to defend up to RG... her ranking will rise during the clay court season... She should be in the top 5 or 6 at least by the time RG comes :D

Fingon
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:11 AM
Serena has only 9 tournaments computed in her ranking, if you expect her to be # 1 with that :rolleyes:

She got a total of 325 round points and 265 quality points for a total of 590 points. That's more than what Kim Clijsters got for getting to the final of the French Open.

Her total after Nasdaq is 3,271 points. # 6 Monica Seles has 3,314, # 5 Lindsay Davenport 3,350, # 4 Kim Clijsters 3,421 and # 3 Martina Hingis 3,730.

In addition this is the breakdown of Serena's point (easy with only 9 tournaments ;))

French Open: 162
Wimbledon: 240
Los Angeles: 62
Canadian Open: 423
US Open: 818
Munich: 503
Sydney: 139
Scottsdale: 334
Nasdaq: 590

AjdeNate!
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:15 AM
She added 590 total points this week (including round & quality). She had to defend 112.
She is 43 points behind #6 Monica Seles.
(Seles is playing Bausch & Lomb and Family Circle Cup and Italian Open and is defedning -0- points from all of those).

Williams Rulez
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:18 AM
It seems that Serena's tournaments have a great amount of quality points in them... :eek:

Unless Serena wins the US Open, there is no way she can defend her US Open points... unless she is not seeded in the top 8 again...

theultimateone
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:23 AM
We know the rankings don't truly reflect which player is really the BEST player on tour; otherwise, Venus would have obtained the #1 ranking prior to 2002 and Serena's ranking would reflect either #1 or #2. The number of tournaments a player plays shouldn't determined whether she is the BEST. Testud, Shaughnessy, and others play close to 30 tournaments; look where they are!! Because they play so many tournaments maybe they should be #1 by now.

AjdeNate!
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:28 AM
So, if Monique Viele plays let's say the AT&T Cup in Canada and beats #1 in the final, and for good measure, beats another top 10 player and another top 15 player, then plays no other events all year then she's #1? I'm just curious how this is suppose to work.

Fingon
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by theultimateone
We know the rankings don't truly reflect which player is really the BEST player on tour; otherwise, Venus would have obtained the #1 ranking prior to 2002 and Serena's ranking would reflect either #1 or #2. The number of tournaments a player plays shouldn't determined whether she is the BEST. Testud, Shaughnessy, and others play close to 30 tournaments; look where they are!! Because they play so many tournaments maybe they should be #1 by now.

And how would you calculate the rankings then? in an objective way?

you say that Serena deserves to be # 1 or 2, well, that's your opinion. I am not saying I agree or disagree with that, that's irrelevant, even if I agree, it's still an opinion

I am sure there are people that right or wrong think that Lindsay Davenport is the best, others think Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati and so on.

So, how would you decide who the number 1 is? remember you are not the owner of the truth (neither am I). You can't build a ranking based on your perception of reality, you need objective guides for that and the only objective guide are results.

Serena Williams has only played 9 tournaments, has done great on them but there isn't any guarantee she would do as well if she played more, you can believe it, I can believe it but unless she does play more, that's only speculation and you can't build a ranking based on speculation.

Plus the comment that Sandrine or Meghann should be # 1 based on the # of tournaments is at best stupid. They are behind Serena, and they have never been ahead of her (at least in the last 3 years), so, what's the point with that comment?, if the ranking system rewarded only number of tournaments the would be # 1, but they aren't are they?, that only shows how little you know about it, the players that are ahead of Serena not only have played more but have also won tournaments or gotten to finals, you know?

CanadianBoy21
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:35 AM
umm, Seles.

Serena has won Canadian Open, got to Us Open finals, won Chase Championships, Scottsdale, & Miami.

Those are some huge tournies, and they are still on her ranking.
Yet, She is only 7.
What has Monica won that is sooooo important, and yes I mean the whole tourny.
Consistency is rewarded, Quantity of Quality. Yet, Everyone knows Serena is the best player.
She has beaten Jen two times this month!
Also Martina Hingis two times this month!
And Venus!

No, she should not be #1, because she has won no slams in one year, so not the most amounts of points, but she should be at least #5.


Thanks by the way for people that did calculations.

MaRKy MaRk
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:44 AM
All I can say is the ranking system SUX!

treufreund
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:48 AM
serena no doubt played the best tennis this month! the key word is MONTH because rankings are based on 52 weeks. In January Martina Hingis won Sydney, had four match points at Oz and then won a Tier I Tokyo so she should have been #1 according to your thinking.

CanadianBoy21
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:14 AM
And I agree Martina was #1 in January
Venus in February
& Serena this month, but can't count out Jennifer either for January

treufreund
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:25 AM
Maybe she will get player of the month then. Serena deserves not Hantuchova since Serena had two titles to just one for Daniela. Also Serena had tougher opponents.

AjdeNate!
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by theultimateone
The number of tournaments a player plays shouldn't determined whether she is the BEST.

This is the reasoning I was questioning. You don't have to be such a jerk and there is no reason to degrade Monica. I've never said her name in this thread til right now, so why do you have to bring her into this? I was just questioning this posters logic and not at all making any reference to Serena, Jennifer, Venus, or Monica. There's not reason to get all nasty and hatin' on Monica - she has nothing to do with this thread.

Mikey
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:32 AM
the ranking system definitely needs some reworking b/c its very bad (and no, i have no suggestions):

A) Martina Hingis held the #1 spot way (way, way, way) too long w/o winning a major event
B) Lindsay Davenport (even though she's my favorite) never should have been #1 at the end of 2001 (see A)
C) Venus Williams is clearly the best player in tennis w/ the best win percentage and has not gotten to the #1 spot until very recently and it was a brief stay
D) Serena Williams is ranked #7 - enough said
E) Players such as Alexandra Stevenson who beat Capriati in a match get just as many pts. as Venus Williams does for beating the same Capriati in a match - isn't just a little ridiculous that an "on" player ranked in the 30s (or something) gets just as many quality pts. as someone ranked #2 for beating the #1 player? not that neither of them don't deserve it, but alexandra definitely deserves a bit more for her efforts

the ranking system encourages, no, it requires frequent tournament play. however, if it was based on win percentage, it would be much more clear who the top group would be. the problem w/ that is that it takes away from the amount of tournaments the players will compete in. also, the quality point system really needs some reworking, b/c its a little unfair.

that's my two cents :)

AjdeNate!
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:34 AM
17 events per year is not really all that much. Considering some players always play high 20s. I think 17 is an appropriate target # for events to be ranked on.

Mikey
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:37 AM
o definitely! how many did serena play last year? 9, maybe 10? to be ranked where she was at the end of the year playing half as many (even 1/3 as many) tournys as the rest of the players is a very impressive task! the players need to be more committed (and by players, i mean the top players) if they want to move up

Rolling-Thunder
Mar 31st, 2002, 04:55 AM
I can say as an avowed Williams' fan (both), that I think that the ranking as it has recently been reworked, with the Slams and the Tier I's getting greater points, will reward those who play the best and typically it will reward the top players who consistenly make it to the latter rounds. The new system endeavors to reward quality over quantity as it should. And in the end the top players will benefit because as the champions that they are, they will make it closer to the finish line than lower ranked players who will make a splash here and there.

I think that Jennifer does rightly deserve to be the #1 player, followed by Venus. Jennifer has shown greater consistency and form than Venus thus far...Now as for Serena - I firmly believe that if she'd played the Australian Open and had been able to defend some if not possibly most of her Indian Wells points, she'd be ranked #4. The math clearly shows that. So it is only a matter of time when the computer will reflect the transformation that has taken place since last year.

No player has beaten the #1, #2 and #3 players in the same tournament in a long time. And no one this year, nor in recent memory, has beaten the #1 player twice in a month, the #2 player once, and the #3 player twice in a month. Those are just good results. Period!

:bounce: :drool:

P.S. And the way Serena was playing at Sydney prior to the ankle injury, it seems likely she would have faced and beaten Martina.

joao
Mar 31st, 2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by niftymk


E) Players such as Alexandra Stevenson who beat Capriati in a match get just as many pts. as Venus Williams does for beating the same Capriati in a match - isn't just a little ridiculous that an "on" player ranked in the 30s (or something) gets just as many quality pts. as someone ranked #2 for beating the #1 player? not that neither of them don't deserve it, but alexandra definitely deserves a bit more for her efforts


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Oh and How much more would you give to Alexandra for beating the same player??? OH and why not give more points to a player who beats JCap in straight sets than to the one who beats her in 3-sets???
That is just ridiculous! Quality points mean what they mean! They're refering to the player you beat not the one who beat her or how you beat her! HELLO !!!!!!!!! :confused: :confused: :confused: That would be an open door for ANARCHY!!!!!

irma
Mar 31st, 2002, 10:14 AM
If Serena finally wins a grand slam again(and I agree with her it`s getting ridicilious comment considering that;) ) then we can talk about her being officially number 1, she has the level of the number 1 player but she just has to win the slams because that`s what counts:D

smygelfh
Mar 31st, 2002, 01:00 PM
It doesn't matter how good you are - if your opponents show up and you don't, they win.

Thus, there are six players who are better than Serena.

-Sonic-
Mar 31st, 2002, 01:13 PM
Funny how people were bitching @ Martina & Lindsay for 2 or 3 years about how they were ranked 1 without a GS win and yet they are demanding Serena should be #1 without a GS win since 1999.

Asking a player to play 17 is not demanding.

Yes serena has beaten all these people millions of times in a row, but at the GS's she hasn't performed to the 'conventional' #1 standards. a no show, a final and 2 QF's is not the honour roll of a #1.

Mikey
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by joao


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Oh and How much more would you give to Alexandra for beating the same player??? OH and why not give more points to a player who beats JCap in straight sets than to the one who beats her in 3-sets???
That is just ridiculous! Quality points mean what they mean! They're refering to the player you beat not the one who beat her or how you beat her! HELLO !!!!!!!!! :confused: :confused: :confused: That would be an open door for ANARCHY!!!!!

quality points mean very little to a player not in the top 4. they help the lower ranked players to move up in the extremely rare occurance of beating a highly ranked player, but really, all they do is help the best player in tennis reach #1 - which is still a big confusion as to who it really is. look at the gaps b/w the lower ranked and higher ranked players. matevzic, ranked 75, has 511 pts., while nagyova, ranked 31, has 913. the diff b/w capriati and venus, which is a difference in ranking of 1, is greater than than the diff b/w players ranked 75 and 31. that makes zero sense to me. the quality points only lengthen the gap b/w the players all the way at the top and the players all the way at the bottom.

Mikey
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Sonic The Hedgehog
[B]Funny how people were bitching @ Martina & Lindsay for 2 or 3 years about how they were ranked 1 without a GS win and yet they are demanding Serena should be #1 without a GS win since 1999.

yes, the only thing that actually makes sense about the ranking system right now is that the 2 people who have won the last 7 majors are sitting at 1 and 2 in the world.

Williams Rulez
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by niftymk

yes, the only thing that actually makes sense about the ranking system right now is that the 2 people who have won the last 7 majors are sitting at 1 and 2 in the world.

I couldn't agree more... :D :bounce:

Kart
Mar 31st, 2002, 03:48 PM
Serena is ONLY no.7 because frankly that's all she deserves for the number of tournaments she's played relative to the rest of the tour.

If she wants more then it's up to her - unless someone wants to change the ranking system again ...

I thought that maybe after Venus got to no.1 we'd see the end of the complaining but sadly I was clearly wrong :(.

essielewis
Mar 31st, 2002, 05:12 PM
I think Serena understands that she has to play more tournaments in order to get into the top 3-5. She said as much in her interview on court after both the finals and semis. She is committed to playing more this year so all this discussion will be moot in a few months.:kiss:

Serena does not deserve the #1 position right now. However, she has won two tournaments in the past few weeks and playing better than everybody. She'll be #1 soon enough.:)

Ryan
Mar 31st, 2002, 05:32 PM
Serena doesn't deserve to be #1 as of now. If she commits to play more tournaments, and can stay healthy, then there's no reason she can't be in the top 4 or 5.

Rocketta
Mar 31st, 2002, 05:44 PM
I'm sure the top 3 want her to move up in the rankings so they don't have to run into her in the quarters:eek: :eek: !

Jay
Mar 31st, 2002, 06:02 PM
It's fair comment to say that Serena is in the top 4 or 5 at the present moment.

But as everyone knows the rankings are based on this years results combined with last years results so it's up to her, if she wants to be top 4 then just play more tournys.

She certainly has the talent.

Ryan
Mar 31st, 2002, 06:02 PM
Especially Martina!:eek:

rated_next
Mar 31st, 2002, 06:16 PM
LOL at this pathetic thread ...

Serena deserves to be ranked #7.

Mikey
Mar 31st, 2002, 07:33 PM
if the rankings represented ability than maybe the top 10 would be entirely different. serena deserves to #7 based on her schedule but on how good she is....nobody can deny she's better than that.

rocketta is definitely right. it definitely kills martina to find serena in her quarter, not that it's just peaches to anyone who it happens to. it MIGHT be serena's strategy not to have her ranking up just b/c she might get lucky and eliminate the top players in the early rounds to get more points, but i highly doubt that. once serena's committed, her ranking should shoot up.

CanadianBoy21
Mar 31st, 2002, 07:41 PM
No, she deserves to be ranked higher then Kim or Justine or Monica, and higher then Martina.

Oh well, I guess she'll just have to play more.
Last meetings Serena won
3-0 against Martina
3-0 against Jenn
1-0 against Justine
1-0 against Venus
2-0 against Lindsay
1-0 against Monica
3-0 against Kim

hmmm, I don't think she should be #7 beating all these players so many times consecutevily(sp?).
I guess she will play more, and after she wins French Open and goes to final of Wimbledon(only to lose to sis) she will be in great position to be #2(behind sis, for now anyways).
Yah, I am looking forward to that, and I wanna hear u say she won't make it, because I wanna dedicate a thread to you all that say she won't. And remember some of you said Venus won't ever win a grand slam, well she won 4..."she will never get to #1", happened.

Oh, how great it is to be a Williams fan.

Next Destination for Serena to really pick up huge points and move up the rankings to - French Open

Ms. Lively
Mar 31st, 2002, 07:46 PM
It doesn't matter if you're 1-4 or 5-8 in a tournament. All of them face tough QF opponents.

Mikey
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Ms. Lively
It doesn't matter if you're 1-4 or 5-8 in a tournament. All of them face tough QF opponents.

yes, but everyone would rather play someone below them than someone above them. and serena should be in the first grouping, but she's not. that's my point.

lol @ Superhero - if she beats everyone, doesn't that prove something? ;)

The Crow
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:03 PM
Not this stupid arguement all over again, it's always the same... All players know the point system from beforehand, know what they have to do to get the points. So the rank they have is the rank they deserve. Period.

Ryan
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:04 PM
I've never known you to succum to delusion Superhero.

It doesn't matter how many consecutive times Serena has beaten the top players. The rankings are based on quantity, and the quality of the quantity of tournaments you play. Serena played 9 tournaments last year, and won 3. She reached the US open final, and that's the only final I can remember her in.


And Serena winning French Open?:rolleyes: Sorry, but I don't see that happening until the French replace clay with hard courts.

Gumbycat
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:05 PM
As long a Serena and Venus defeat their opponents, that is all that matters!

GO WILLIAMS!!!!!!

CanadianBoy21
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:20 PM
Hey Gumbycat :wavey: , haven't seen u post since the old board.


Ryan14- I'm dellusional about Serenas chances of winning French?
Aren't u the one dellusional about Martinas chances all year long off beating a Williams? OR winning the French Open?
Doesn't matter which court Serena is playing on, clay, grass, hardcourt, sand, ice, whatever, as long as she is moving nicely and hitting cleanely. Although she needs to get fitter to win French Open, and I believe she will.

Ryan
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:26 PM
I'm not debating whether or not Serena CAN win the French Open, I just dont think she can. And Martina will beat one of the sisters this year, it's only a matter of time.:)

Cybelle Darkholme
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:29 PM
Of course she can win it everyone has a chance or maybe you don't remeber how almost everyone said a few years ago that jennifer would never amount to much and her career was washed up.

Ryan
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:31 PM
Actaully I dont remember that. I know it happened, but I never watched tennis back then.

Zl@tko
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:42 PM
Superhero, i like Serena, but it's only her fault she's ranked 7th, because she played less last year. She's on a roll now, she's fit and she's beating the top players, but that doesn't mean she should be ranked higher.

You forgot she also lost to Monica at eStyle.com, she lost to Venus at US Open, twice to Jennifer. It seems you don't care about her losses to top players, but just about meeting that she won :rolleyes:

She doesn't deserve to be ranked higher than Monica. Monica was playing so many tournaments at the end of last season and this year and she absolutely deserves to be ranked 6 even higher. I know Serena was injured and she didn't have a chance to play, but there's nothing we can do about this.

Zl@tko
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:48 PM
Ryan14, i don't think she will. With the way she's playing and with the way Williams sisters are playing at the moment.

She has no chance to beat Serena, that's for sure. Maybe Venus, if Venus has a bad day or something.

Last time Martina defeated them, it was at Aussie Open last year. Since then she lost to Serena three times (US Open, Scottsdale, Miami) and once to Venus last year in Miami.

Zl@tko
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:53 PM
And Jennifer is something different. She was down, no big wins, nothing. But she came back in style. Winning slams, capture no.1 ranking, beating top players .... Jennifer plays with passion, she really wants to win.

But Martina. Always when i watch her playing, it seems she's bored with tennis. Yeah, she's happy when she wins, but i don't see this passion in her game, which i think she needs if she wants to win grandslam again.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 31st, 2002, 08:55 PM
"No, she deserves to be ranked higher then Kim or Justine or Monica, and higher then Martina.

Oh well, I guess she'll just have to play more.
Last meetings Serena won
3-0 against Martina
3-0 against Jenn
1-0 against Justine
1-0 against Venus
2-0 against Lindsay
1-0 against Monica
3-0 against Kim

hmmm, I don't think she should be #7 beating all these players so many times consecutevily(sp?).
I guess she will play more, and after she wins French Open and goes to final of Wimbledon(only to lose to sis) she will be in great position to be #2(behind sis, for now anyways).
Yah, I am looking forward to that, and I wanna hear u say she won't make it, because I wanna dedicate a thread to you all that say she won't. And remember some of you said Venus won't ever win a grand slam, well she won 4..."she will never get to #1", happened.

Oh, how great it is to be a Williams fan. "



Alright - I was going to hold my tongue, but just can't do it against such idiocy.
Superhero - either you have no logic and common sense whatsoever, or you just completely lack any mathematicall comprehension. I'm starting to think that its a case of both.

The ranking system is based on results in tournaments, and takes into account who you beat. NO ONE in here has denied that Serena has been the best player as of late, and has essentially dominated most of her opponents. HOWEVER - if she only players 9 tournaments, then her ranking will suffer.
Where are you confused about this? What exactly are you having such a hard time understanding?

The tour needs players who show up to play, and promote the tour, in order for the tour to succeed. IMO, they should NOT reward players like Serena who play seldom. Because Serena playing less, hurts the tour. She is a VERY popular player - she may not be my favourite, but I would happily shell out a good chunk of cash to see her play live, along with MOST tennis fans, and MANY non tennis fans - so when she doesn't play, it hurts the tour. And you think the tour should be rewarding a player, who is hurting them by not playing? She may be injured a lot and can't help it - but untill she plays more, then the lowered ranking is deserved.

As for the crap about the few people who doubt her and you rubbing it in her face- well go ahead. Because frankly when Jenn won Australia I was happy to see all the people on here who insulted her realizing that she wasn't "done". Of course, I didn't say anything or rub it in peoples faces - cause frankly I couldn't give a shit what some haters though of a player I don't know, will never know, and who doesn't know me.
So WHY you put so much effort into rubbing someone elses accomplishments into everyone elses faces is beyond me - but whatever floats your boat :rolleyes:

For the record - I beleive Serena can win the French Open before her career is up.

OH - and how great it is to be a TENNIS fan.

Dawn Marie
Mar 31st, 2002, 09:12 PM
Serena being ranked #7 is no big deal to me. She is beating all the top players and she is going to play more. Which she needs to do. Serena will be #1 soon, so I could care less if she is ranked #7. Right now imho SERENA IS THE BEST PLAYER ON THE PLANET!! And that is a good thing for her. Serena is on a mission to become #1.

Also, If Mary Pierce and Capriati can win Roland Garros then so can Serena.

Williams sisters have been doubted for so long and have been proven people wrong for at least 4 years now. Never count out Venus or Serena.

The Crow
Mar 31st, 2002, 09:18 PM
Becca, great post :D

CanadianBoy21
Mar 31st, 2002, 09:53 PM
Again Becca, u take it far too seriously.

And I am glad to know u know how to copy and paste, that was my trait, ;)

Anyways, my intention was too find out how the points were distributed, I thought quality points would be worth more.
Geez, some people are so on the offensive when their fave loses 10 times in a row to the same player.

AGAIN, JUST JOKING AROUND

;)