PDA

View Full Version : Davenport thinks Venus is the number 1 player in the world


RMC
Oct 20th, 2001, 07:25 AM
Capriati looks to show Davenport who's No. 1
AP Photo

More Photos

By ERICA BULMAN
Associated Press Writer
October 20, 2001


ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) -- Jennifer Capriati is out to justify her world No. 1 ranking against skeptic Lindsay Davenport.

Capriati, playing in her first tournament since replacing Martina Hingis at No. 1, will face Davenport in an all-American semifinal in the Swisscom Challenge on Saturday.

Earlier in the week, Davenport, a former world No. 1, hinted that U.S. Open and Wimbledon champion Venus Williams was the true top player in the world.

``Jennifer is No. 1 on the computer, but when I play Venus, in my mind, it feels like she's the best player in the world,'' said Davenport, the top-ranked player in the world on four occasions.

Capriati moved atop the rankings after Hingis tore ligaments in her right ankle at the Porsche Grand Prix last Saturday. She has a chance to set Davenport straight and prove she is worthy of her ranking.

Capriati turned her career around completely this year, winning the Australian and French Opens, and reaching the semifinals at the other two Grand Slam tournaments.

Capriati will need to improve her play. She labored against Russian wildcard Nadia Petrova in her first match and was slow to relax against 17-year-old Swiss qualifier Marie-Gaiane Mikaelian before winning 6-4, 6-2.

Davenport and Capriati last met in February in the semifinals of a tourney in Scottsdale, Ariz. Capriati won in three sets.

``It's been awhile,'' Capriati said. ``We'll probably feel each other out a bit at first. It should be a good match.

``I'll have to try and serve well and make her (Davenport) run, make fewer errors and expect more winners. It won't be an easy time.''

Davenport, seeded third in the tournament, has much less at stake.

Already qualified for the WTA Tour's year-end championship in Munich, Germany, Davenport admitted she was tired and wary of risking injury by pushing too hard.

Davenport has looked strong in recent weeks, reaching the finals of three of her last four events. She won two, giving her five titles in 2001.

She rallied after a slow start to eliminate qualifier Daniela Hantuchova 3-6, 6-1, 6-1 in 86 minutes on Friday.

Davenport won the Zurich event in 1997-98, and her only defeat here came against Hingis in last year's final. She has a 13-1 record in the tournament.

The Capriati-Davenport winner will face either fourth-seeded Jelena Dokic or eighth-seeded Nathalie Tauziat.

Adrian
Oct 20th, 2001, 09:32 AM
It has more to do with who is playing who here.....Lindsay has problems with Venus, more so then Jennifer, so she would feel Venus is a better player....Martina has more problems with jennifer, then Venus, so she feels Jen is number 1.....

The computer says Jen is number 1, so she is number 1..all the conjecture in the world is not going to change it.....

veryborednow
Oct 20th, 2001, 09:44 AM
Maybe players do see Venus as the world number 1, it's just she'll never officially reach that spot unless she commits to play more tennis tournaments than she is at the moment.

I think everyone realises that.

jomar
Oct 20th, 2001, 09:46 AM
something's wrong with the article. Their last meeting was won by Lindsay. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

Venus is playing like the No.1 player but at the moment her best is not good enough to earn the TOP ranking. The other top players were able to achieve it, so wait for Venus' turn. <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: jomar ]

Dawn Marie
Oct 20th, 2001, 09:58 AM
Well if it has anything to do with who plays whom then Jennifer must think Venus is #1. She's what like batting a zero average against the Goddess?

Lindsay is right and Venus will get that rank.. She wants to be #1. That is why she is playing Linz and Chase/Munich <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> It will only help to increase her lead next season.

P.S. I hope Jelena wins it all.. that way Jennifer nor Davey can gain points on Venus. <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Dawn Marie
Oct 20th, 2001, 09:58 AM
Well if it has anything to do with who plays whom then Jennifer must think Venus is #1. She's what like batting a zero average against the Goddess?

Lindsay is right and Venus will get that rank.. She wants to be #1. That is why she is playing Linz and Chase/Munich <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0"> It will only help to increase her lead next season.

P.S. I hope Jelena wins it all.. that way Jennifer nor Davey can gain points on Venus. <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Williams Rulez
Oct 20th, 2001, 01:34 PM
Yeah I can see why, Lindsay has just beaten Jennifer again. I think Lindsay sees Venus as a larger threat to her than Capriati, hence, she thinks Venus is number 1!

Adrian
Oct 20th, 2001, 01:42 PM
Then of course Martina would feel more comfortable and confident about beating Venus then anyone else in the top 5..go figure......

Martian KC
Oct 20th, 2001, 03:12 PM
Venus is the best player right now, but Jen is the number 1 player right. If venus wants to be number 1 play more DAMN tournaments. Simple as that.

LucasArg
Oct 20th, 2001, 05:10 PM
I AGREE WITH LINDSAY, JENIFER IS THE TOP RANKED PLAYER BUT VENUS IS FAR AWAY THE BEST PLAYER ON COURT.

ANYONE THINK CAPRIATI IS THE BEST PLAYER???????????????????????????????

Infiniti2001
Oct 20th, 2001, 06:09 PM
Why is capriati questioning Lindsay 's performance at the grandslams??? It's not like Lindsay never won any... Besides she has won more titles than miss questioning calls herself this year alone. Why not ask herself why she has such a miserable record against top 10 or 20 players of late???

Umm Venus and hingisova have met 18 times , and granted the record is 8-10, but Venus has won 5 of the last 7 times they've played... They last played in March at the Ericsson open.. Can anyone tell me that if they met again anytime soon that Hingisova would have the upper hand??? I don't think so... Venus is fast closing in on her .. I bet she won't be happy to see Venus in her draw at any tournament...

Deira
Oct 20th, 2001, 06:36 PM
I'm no Capriati fan, but isn't it strange Lindsay never said she considered Venus to be the "best player in the world" until her girl Hingis lost the #1 ranking? Now that Jen Jen has the #1 ranking, Lindsay considers Venus the best? Why not give Venus those props when Hingis was #1 with few titles and no grand slams. Am I missing something here?

Infiniti2001
Oct 20th, 2001, 07:10 PM
In Lindsay's defence, she did acknowledge that Venus was playing like the #1 player last year... Not sure in which interview... I will do some research , if I find it I will post it here :P

Deira
Oct 20th, 2001, 07:22 PM
Thanks Infiniti2001!! I guess that's why I felt I had missed someting <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> and I did <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Lindsayfan
Oct 20th, 2001, 07:49 PM
everyone posted here is a venus fan or a capriati fan so u arent impartial!!!! <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">
anyway Lindsay is very humble and kind.venus or jennifer wouldnt say the same thing of an other player... <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

cynicole
Oct 20th, 2001, 08:50 PM
This is one screwed up article. First there's the error about Scottsdale that's been pointed out already. Then the reporter is trying to make it sound like Lindsay Davenport is saying that Venus Williams is the true no.1 when that's not what she's saying at all.

Davenport is simply pointing out that she considers Venus Williams as the player to beat. She's not saying that Venus should be no.1.

Shane54
Oct 20th, 2001, 08:57 PM
Right now...Jennifer is the #1 ranked player..but is she the "best" player? Nope, and I AM A Huge Jenn fan...In my mind there is no doubt that Venus is the best player in the world.. But it is funny how certain players match up better against others...Davenport is owned by Serena whereas Serena has more problems with Jenn...Martina has been less successful and against Jenn , whereas Jenn hasnt beaten Venus, whom Martina would rather play than Jenn...Go figure women's tennis! <IMG SRC="smilies/berzerk.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/berzerk.gif" border="0">

Williams Rulez
Oct 21st, 2001, 02:07 AM
Its a mental block thing. And BTW, Martina doesn't own Venus, its just that their matches tend to be tighter than Venus vs any one else in the top 10.

Williams Rulez
Oct 21st, 2001, 02:14 AM
Earlier in the week, Davenport suggested that U.S. Open and Wimbledon champion Venus Williams was the true No. 1 player.

Capriati appeared unhappy about the comment Saturday and questioned Davenport's performance in Grand Slam events. Davenport has won five titles this season but no Grand Slams.

"What's important for me is doing well at the big tournaments and Grand Slams," Capriati said. "What's important for me is that I'm at the championships the week after next."

Can someone post an interview of Davenport and Capriati? Sounds like a cat fight <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

QueenV
Oct 21st, 2001, 03:09 AM
I think basically it comes down to who gives the most people problems, and that's Venus. I mean all of the top players are up there for a reason. Few of them can say that any one person gives them fits. However I think as of the last 2 years Venus has pretty much given all of the top players problems. I think what Lindsay meant was Venus is considered the fav. going into a match against pretty much everyone, because of that. Even though Jenn is #1 on the computer rankings she isn't considered the fav. to me against Venus or Lindsay.

Dawn Marie
Oct 21st, 2001, 05:21 AM
Lindsayfan I have to disagree with you on your comment concerning Venus. Venus has always supported the #1 player and said that they deserve it. So there. <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

Becool
Oct 21st, 2001, 05:34 AM
The ranking is a joke!
Jennifer is number only in this year, This don't mean she can be number one, like she is being consistainly on the top 10, like Venus, Lindsay, Hingis and Serena are. Jennifer didn't had any expressive result last year. The only one that reminds me is the victory on Serena in Indian Wells. Venus is the number one. She can't be there on the top, to show to everybody, but I am with Lindsay. Venus was on the top 10, always fighting and desiring the top. While Jennifer was fighting to keep her at the top 20. Venus almost did it in the beginning of year. I think that Venus is number one, and in the maximum, Jennifer is the second, or third. Cause I don't think she'll win Lindsay or Venus anymore. Well that's it. <IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Crazy Canuck
Oct 21st, 2001, 07:42 AM
I think most of us are in agreeance here with Lindsay, that Venus may well be thebest player on tour.
That is what she said. It shouldn't be confused with the rankings... Linsday didn't say "Venus should be ranked number1"...just that she was the best.

I think over many of our discussions here that many also agree the rankings don't always recognize the most talented players, but the ones with the best results over a 52 week period in 17 or less tournaments. Confusing the two, is to mistake what the rankings are there for.

Anyhow... I don't see anything wrong with Lindsay saying that.. its her honest opinion, and valid one that clearly many people are interested in hearing <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Viva
Oct 21st, 2001, 10:28 AM
Deira - Lindsay did say that about Venus lst year. Get your facts straight. <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

Like Linds said, Venus is the best player now. It seems only people out of the top 10 can beat her, which is quite strange. But then Venus wouldn't know as much about their game so it makes sense.

cynicole
Oct 21st, 2001, 12:13 PM
I'm skeptical as to whether Jennifer Capriati actually made her statements in response to Davenport's. It could be a "journalist" trying to write a "good" story with comments taken out of context.

I think the WTA actually encourages these sort of articles because they like getting whatever publicity they could. Do they realize that these sort of stories make the WTA and the rankings look like a joke? They should be defending their players' achievements!


Regarding Venus' losses...

I don't think that Venus Williams lost to the players she lost to this year because she didn't know their games. I think it was either/or a combination of not enough prepping or underestimating her opponents.

Venus had a bad day against Hingis at the Australian but prior to that match she had already played 3 3-setters in that tournament (Ma.Jose Martinez, Mauresmo, Coetzer). She has only played a total of 6 3-setters since then (2 against the same player: Henin) and she only lost one of those (Shaughnessy).

She lost to Maleeva in Nice in her only indoor event of the year thus far. To be fair, Maleeva was on fire there (beat Henin and Dementieva before taking out Venus) and Venus had some knee problems.

Henin was the only one she could possibly claim not being familiar with and she routinely lost to her in Berlin. Venus could have been overconfident with her win in Hamburg and Henin's physical stature doesn't intimidate anyone on first appearance.

The Schett loss is what she got for going into Roland Garros on the bad Berlin loss and pulling out of Rome.

Venus routinely beat Shaughnessy in the Hamburg final. At Stanford (where she was defending champion), she probably didn't expect Shaughnessy to beat her in a third-set tiebreaker.

They're not very bad losses. Hingis was the only one in the top ten at the time. Henin broke into the top ten 3-4 weeks after beating Venus. Schett and Maleeva are former top tenners. And Shaughnessy is just a bit outside.

Deira
Oct 21st, 2001, 07:21 PM
Viva, read the thread especially Infiniti2001's response to me. You are late, but that okay <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

Jakeev
Oct 21st, 2001, 07:43 PM
Yo Deira darling I am late too but I am going to tell it to you anyway: Lindsay has said in many interviews she felt Venus is the best player out there on tour.

I still love ya though <IMG SRC="smilies/hearts.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/hearts.gif" border="0"> <IMG SRC="smilies/hearts.gif" border="0">

HAIL-VENUS
Oct 22nd, 2001, 02:12 PM
quote
______________________________________
``Jennifer is No. 1 on the computer, but when I play Venus, in my mind, it feels like she's the best player in the world,'' said Davenport, the top-ranked player in the world on four occasions. ______________________________________

Venus is the REAL number 1, and it seems that Lindsay is saying exactly that. Isn't #1 considered as being "the best player in the world"?

thefreedesigner
Oct 22nd, 2001, 02:37 PM
Originally from BecoolSerenaLover:

Venus is the number one. She can't be there on the top, to show to everybody, but I am with Lindsay.

I'm sorry, but that is delusional???? Venus is not the #1. I've have no doubt at all that Venus could be, but she isn't. That's not the same thing.

You have to walk the walk and talk the talk, and when Venus does, she'll deserve it. She'll have it, and most likely, she may hold on to it. The ranking is a joke because the player you feel should be #1, isn't?? When (and I say when) Venus becomes #1 it'll still be a joke right?

Venus is the only consistent threat to Lindsay, Lindsay likes to say things and then take them back (I wouldn't be surprised if she refines this comment somewhat during Munich). Venus it Lindsay's #1 threat, but not the #1 player in the world to my mind.

incidentally, I feel there is a difference between being the 'best in the world' and being ranked #1.

I give Venus her due that when she plays, she's generally there or thereabouts as the best player on show (and so is Capriati atm). Capriati however, shows up more often. It's basic stuff here.

pisces
Oct 22nd, 2001, 06:48 PM
LINDSEY DID SAY ,BACK AT THE U.S. OPEN ,VENUS IN HER MIND WAS #1 PLAYER.HINGIS DIDN'T LIKE IT.BUT SO .2000,US OPEN. VENUS WON OVER HINGIS AND THE NEXT NIGHT WON OVER DAVENPORT.REMEMBER THAT WAS THE YEAR HINGIS AND DAVENPORT STATED THEY TALK ON THE PHONE ,THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT A ALL WILLAIMS FINAL.LINDSY STOP SERENA FROM REPEAT HER SECOND U.S. OPEN.SO VENUS TOOK IT HOME <IMG SRC="smilies/love.gif" border="0">

pisces
Oct 22nd, 2001, 07:00 PM
LINDEY WON OVER JENN TOO.

Viva
Oct 23rd, 2001, 02:41 PM
Deira - Sorry, I can't be bothered reading most of the posts, especially the ones that go on for aaaaages (not that yours did) but hey, I'm always late!

And shit! If I don't get to bed I'm gonna be late for school too!

The Crow
Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:41 PM
Venus is not the best player. The best player is the number 1 on the rankings. Who is to say that if Venus plays more tournaments she can hold the same high level? Maybe Venus needs to play less tournaments to stay focussed?

Adrian
Oct 23rd, 2001, 03:51 PM
Venus is not number 1...

Even if you go on form now, Lindsay is number 1

Jennifer is ranked number 1.

Venus is not number 1 for the same boring old reasons..she doesn't play enough...but hey here is a different channell of thought, maybe Venus is not capable of playing much more then she is and not that, if she played a full season, I bet she could not post half the results she is now....and before you bitch at me, only Venus can get out there and play a full season and proove me wrong, something not one of you can.

The Crow
Oct 23rd, 2001, 04:01 PM
That's exactly what I meant Adrian!

Infiniti2001
Oct 23rd, 2001, 04:03 PM
# 1 and part-time playing has been debated about ad nausaum lately.. Anyway, a Dear buddy of mine posted this over on an aohell board ... He hit the nail on it's head as far as I am concerned <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

<br /> [quote]what the Williams Sisters are doing is unprecedented. Serena is ranked in the top ten while playing only 9 tournies while Venus is ranked #4, soon to be #3 playing 12 tournies. Part-time players yes, but getting full time results. As far as the top ranking is concerned exactly what does it mean? <br />Does it mean you have won the most tournaments? NO! Does it means you have won the most slams? NO! Does it mean you have won the most money? NO! Does it mean you are the best player? HELL NO! Then what is so great about it? It's what Venus and Serena understand, it is recognition for playing the number of tournies deemed necessary by the greedy ruling bodies of tennis...nothing more. By declaring players #1 who actually are not. All they<br />are doing is placing pressure on those players. Because they have no hope of defeating certain players who are just flat out better.

Until the very best players are ranked in order of their ability and actual accomplishments, the #1 ranking will have little meaning.

As far as playing part-time being an advantage, name women players who have excelled doing this. I've tried and no names come to mind.<hr></blockquote>

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Infiniti2001 ]</p>

Adrian
Oct 23rd, 2001, 04:08 PM
You want to check Martina Navratilova's career out, it blows your theory out of the water....

<br />Venus is number 4, she may get to number 3 through injury of another player..that is the truth..live with it.

pisces
Oct 23rd, 2001, 09:01 PM
Adrain' I THINK YOU TALK ABOUT LINDY?.

thefreedesigner
Oct 23rd, 2001, 09:26 PM
Until the very best players are ranked in order of their ability and actual accomplishments, the #1 ranking will have little meaning.

inifiniti2001: I'll reply to you since you align yourself so closely with that quote. I agree that with their part-time antics, the Williams' ARE redefining the boundaries of professional tennis. Whether that's good for tennis I'm not sure, but it's good for them, and all power to them for it. But...

The player with the 'best ablity' as the #1 player in the world... I say to that best what? Best tennis brain? Best serve? Best forehand? Best court coverage? Best combination of all the above? There is no supreme barometer to say who has the best tennis 'abilites' so tennis (as in all other sports) compensates - very effectively in my view - by having a ranking system that seeks to address and to judge the fact that there is not, and never will be, such a barometer.

When Michael Johnson ran his 400m world record it included in it the fastest EVER 100m stretch. Does that mean he's the best 100m runner ever? No way, because that is not the barometer by which we judge greatness over that distance. That may be a poor analogy, but it goes to I think to illustrate what I'm getting at.

You also (well your friend does) mention 'actual accomplishments' so I guess Hingis having gotten to the final of every GS more than once (Wimbledon 1nce), having ripped it up indoors last year gotten to the s/f of every GS this year bar Wimbledon is not an actual accomplishment? Capriati having gotten to her first GS final and winning it. Having won RG and gotten to s/f or better in GS this year, isn't an actual achievement?

I salute Venus' achievements I really do., and I'm not seeking to diminish Venus' achievements (either this year, or through her career), just to put them into perspective.

Crazy Canuck
Oct 23rd, 2001, 09:47 PM
"Until the very best players are ranked in order of their ability and actual accomplishments, the #1 ranking will have little meaning."...<br />umm... last time I checked, players WERE ranked in order of actual accomplishments. Since when are they not? The entire bloody system is based on the players performance in a certain number of tournaments.

As for ranking players based on ability... that shouldn't even be a factor. Venus may be arguable the best player, but does that mean she should receive the same amount of points that Lindsay did after the US Open?

Infiniti2001
Oct 23rd, 2001, 10:49 PM
God response thefreedesigner, but an intellectual dodge <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> The best is not getting to s/f it is winnning and winning at a high percentage pure and simple. I know you know that ... Finishing second is only important if you win in significant numbers. Period!!! <br />As for that michael Johnson analogy...he ran the fastest 100m without having to start from a dead start. Not comparing apples to apples. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

HAIL-VENUS
Oct 24th, 2001, 12:54 PM
TheFreeDesigner, you have got to be kidding yourself. Jen's serve is NOT better than Venus'. Jen's tennis brains are NOT better than Venus'. If so, she will have beaten Venus at least once by now. Your theory of #1 is absurd.

Infinti, I agree with your friend's analysis. #1 doesn't really mean anything at all the way it's stands now. Players are not rewarded for defeating all the top players, or having the best overall record on the tour, as they should be. That's what being the best is all about. Not how close you get to 17 tourneys. The system is a joke.

thefreedesigner
Oct 24th, 2001, 09:49 PM
HAIL-VENUS, you really need to go and read what I wrote before lambasting it.

Where did I say or even imply that Jen has a better serve than Venus? Please do not put words into my mouth. You say that 'my theory' is absurd. Please read again what I said. Oh, wait a minute here you go: (please note the question marks)

[quote]Originally posted by thefreedesigner:

The player with the 'best ablity' as the #1 player in the world... I say to that best what? Best tennis brain? Best serve? Best forehand? Best court coverage? Best combination of all the above? There is no supreme barometer to say who has the best tennis 'abilites' so tennis (as in all other sports) compensates - very effectively in my view - by having a ranking system that seeks to address and to judge the fact that there is not, and never will be, such a barometer. <hr></blockquote>

If you cannot see that I am poo-pooing the idea that you can say X has a better serve than Y, therefore they deserve to be #1, then you need to get yourself a dictionary. Or maybe a thesaurus.

What I was saying is that there is no system you can invent that will objectively tell you who has the best 'skills'. Tennis skills and shot making are an emotive business. But, what you can do is have a ranking system that says... 'these are the things which we can objectively combine and put together (ie results, quality points etc, tournament value) to judge who is the better player over a 52 week period'. Period.

Re-read it , then come back and tell me where I'm wrong. I don't mind that, but at least trash me on things that I've either said or implied.

Venus is 'the real #1' (quote), because you say, and because some people you know who also happen to like Venus think so too??? Venus is not #1 currently on the only objective women's tennis ranking system that is ever going to matter. Now you (and others) say you don't mind this, before going on and on about how venus is the 'real' #1. [i] Can you see where you're blotting your copy-book?

Infinti2001, I agree that being #1 is about WINNING pure and simple. But nobody can win all the time, not even Venus. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> So you have to include next best results. Sorry to go with the track and field analogy once again... but if you think of it like the 'countback' system that operates in field events... or next best results. Venus does have the higher percentages winning-wise, but Venus is not standing up to be counted in enough events currently for us to extrapolate her success across a period of time imo.

Oh, and another thing infiniti2001, your remark about me not comparing apples with apples? <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> Johnson not starting from a standing start? I take that completely (which is why he of course wouldn't be considered the best 100m runner). But it comes back to what barometers you choose to use. I'm interested that Hail-Venus thinks that to count 17 tourneys is inappropriate... and we're back to barometers once again!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: thefreedesigner ]</p>

Keita
Oct 25th, 2001, 03:28 PM
Lindsey is quite frank . In a sense she doesn't win a lot of the tournaments that Venus plays. Its natural to say things like this but I think it would do<br />her good to acknowledge the new #1 as well.

QueenV
Oct 25th, 2001, 03:50 PM
FreeDesigner I agree with you on the ranking system. It is what it is. It's not perfect but it's the only system we have, and until it changes a player has to play by it's rules to get to #1. However I disagree on only people that like Venus thinkings she is the real #1. There are people that don't particularly like either Williams sister that admit that Venus is the best player and is the real #1. There are commentators that don't even like them that say the same thing. But I think #1 on the rankings system, and #1 by merit are two different things. I think when people say they think Venus is the real #1 they mean the best player. Believe it or not there are people in the world, like myself, who can admit when a player is good or not even if they don't like them. It's called being honest. Not eveyone judges people based on personal feelings.

Venus is the best player, and even when she wasn't I admitted that. Can anyone honestly say that when she steps on the court against Lindsay, Jennifer, Martina, Monica, Serena, Justine, or any of the elite players that she isn't the better player? Whether she plays full time or not at this point in her career she is the fav. against all players. That may change, but right now that's a fact. That's what Lindsay meant. And even if Venus doesn't ever get to #1 if she continues her recent results throughout the rest of her career then she won't need the computer system to define her abilities as a player. Her results will speak for itself. That's enough for me.

pisces
Oct 25th, 2001, 08:55 PM
YOU SAID THAT SO NICE QUEEN V.PEACE ONE LOVE. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

QueenV
Oct 25th, 2001, 10:55 PM
Thanks Pisces. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Sometimes it takes a lot of words to get your point through on this board.

Volcana
Oct 26th, 2001, 02:30 AM
Adrian, I'm taking your bet. You wrote "....if she (Venus) played a full season, I bet she could not post half the results she is now..."

Venus ALREADY went out, played a full season and proved youwrong. The season was 1999. Venus played 18 tournaments, 20 if you count Fed Cup.

Venus won six tournaments including a couple of Tier I's, and ending the season ranked #5. Pretty good results for a FULL season of play. And better than 'half the results.." she has now. You're right. WE can't prove you wrong. Venus already did that.

Crazy Canuck
Oct 26th, 2001, 02:40 AM
Queen V: that was wonderfully said.

I dont' like the use of "real number 1". The "real number 1" is the player at the top of the rankings.<br />The best player though, I admit, is Venus, untill proved otherwise.

Thats exactly what you said <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I just don't like hearing "the real Number 1"...cause the rankings aren't there to determine who is the most talented.

Anyhow...great post.

TSequoia01
Oct 26th, 2001, 04:48 AM
The rankings system rewards players who play at least 17 tournies. Players who play more than the required 17 are also rewarded because it gives them the opportunity to replace their lowest point total. So actually it is their best 17 tournies that are actually counted. This is an encouragement to play lots and lots of tournies and make lots and lots of money for the sponsor and tennis ruling bodies. There is no regard for the health and welfare of tennis players or even establishing who is the best. This places lots of pressure on the current #1 ranked player to play all the time to maintain their ranking. If they are not the real #1, this pseudo best player knows it. Another 400lb gorilla to carry. With their constant losing to better players and the oncoming criticism from fans, commentators, and other forms of media, this now maligned player is on track for a melt down.<br />Kind of reminds you of Hingis doesn't it? Guess what? Jennifer is next. The ranking system is in need of changes.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: TSequoia01 ]</p>