PDA

View Full Version : Players Who Are Not in Their Real Ranking


Nicolás89
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:17 PM
based on their 06 record and game

1.(3) Amelie Mauresmo: she has two slams but her overall performance is not so great for me

2. (1) Justine Henin-Hardenne: all slams finals:worship:

3. (2) Maria Sharapova: US Open and 3 tier I

11. (10) Nicole Vaidisova: for me she is a Top Ten

12. (8 - 10) Jelena Jankovic: impressive second half of the year:drool:

21. (17) Tatiana Golovin: Right now she is better than injured davenport and myskina, and way too better than bartoli and groennefeld

31. (top 50) Maria Kirilenko: she is not winning:sad:

36. (top 100) Martina Muller: :tape:

39. (top 50) Lucie Safarova: not winning

80. (top 150) Nicole Pratt: :help:



what do you think?:wavey:

Dani12
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:24 PM
I don't think its fair to say that Martina and Nicole are outside the top 100, they have both reached 3rd round GS matches, Nicole reaching 2nd round of wimbledon too.

Martina Muller (49)

Tathiana Garbin (51)

Anastasia Yakimova (82)

Ben.
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:28 PM
all active players who have reached no.1 is actually their real ranking i reckon. but that's me personally.

davenport's ranked 18 at the moment & we all know she's better than that ranking, who wouldn't no. she should be ranked in the top 5 at least.

rated_next
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:30 PM
I'm sick and tired of posters insulting Martina Muller and Nicole Pratt. :yawn: At least they can keep the ball in play unlike so many mindless, stupid players who just smack everything into the net or the fence or outside the stadium.

Viktymise
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:39 PM
Pironkova 63 now sould be top 50

The Daviator
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:41 PM
Davenport should be #4 after the Belgians and Sharapova...

rhz
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:42 PM
muller.. so wrong!

spencercarlos
Oct 28th, 2006, 11:55 PM
based on their 06 record and game

1.(3) Amelie Mauresmo: she has two slams but her overall performance is not so great for me

2. (1) Justine Henin-Hardenne: all slams finals:worship:

3. (2) Maria Sharapova: US Open and 3 tier I

11. (10) Nicole Vaidisova: for me she is a Top Ten

12. (8 - 10) Jelena Jankovic: impressive second half of the year:drool:

21. (17) Tatiana Golovin: Right now she is better than injured davenport and myskina, and way too better than bartoli and groennefeld

31. (top 50) Maria Kirilenko: she is not winning:sad:

36. (top 100) Martina Muller: :tape:

39. (top 50) Lucie Safarova: not winning

80. (top 150) Nicole Pratt: :help:



what do you think?:wavey:
2 GS > 1 GS and 3 Tier I

Thinking that Sharapova deserves one of the top two spots in the world in 2006 is ridiculous.

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:00 AM
for the players that have played a full season, their rankings and results are in their own hands

Nicolás89
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:15 AM
2 GS > 1 GS and 3 Tier I

Thinking that Sharapova deserves one of the top two spots in the world in 2006 is ridiculous.

is not ridiculous is just a thought:D

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Erakovic should be top 100 at the way shes playing recently (won 17 out of her last 18 matches including 2 titles and playing in another 50k final today)

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:45 AM
If every player who won a couple of 25Ks and reached a 50K final was in the top 100, then we'd have a VERY overcrowded top 100. The highest ranked player Marina beat in those 25Ks was Casey ranked 180ish. Beijing on the other hand, while the win over Chan was relatively impressive, the whole draw is rather weak. I mean Tongsalee isn't even ranked in the top 300. Give Marina a bit more time before proclaiming her as top 100 already.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:47 AM
If every player who won a couple of 25Ks and reached a 50K final was in the top 100, then we'd have a VERY overcrowded top 100.

No but the point im saying is that shes only been playing well for the the last 2 months, if you she had played like this the whole year (eg won something like 7 25k titles and maybe even entered in some wta events) then she would be top 100 by now

spencercarlos
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:48 AM
is not ridiculous is just a thought:D
A biased and ridiculous opinion.
I don´t think a well thought process would have that result.
As I said 2 GS in a year are WAY superior than 1 slam and 3 Tier I events, period.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:52 AM
A biased and ridiculous opinion.
I donīt think a well thought process would have that result.
As I said 2 GS in a year are WAY superior than a slam and a 3 Tier I events, period.

Well I completely disagree with you

I think your head is stuck back sometime before about 1990s, move with the times - dont lie in the meantime.

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:58 AM
Well I completely disagree with you

I think your head is stuck back sometime before about 1990s, move with the times - dont lie in the meantime.

Noone cares about who wins Tier 1s .... Most players would give 10 Tier 1s for a Grand Slam. Everybody remembers who won Grand Slams, Grand Slam winners go down in history.

Calling spencercarlos, something who obviously knows far more about tennis and is far more mature than you, stuck in the 1990s is idiotic. How is saying that Grandslams are more important than Tier 1s being stuck in the past :rolleyes:

Amelie's 2 slams are better than 1 slam and 3 finals, or 1 slam and 3 Tier 1s ANYDAY, and I'm a Maria fan.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Heres my list what I think the top 20 should look like

1. Maria Sharapova
2. Justine Henin-Hardenne (if it wasnt for her injury she would be number one on the list though)
3. Amelie Mauresmo
4. Martina Hingis
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Nadia Petrova
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova
8. Elena Dementieva (although when shes good she pretty much unstoppable)
9. Nicole Vaidisova
10. Patty Schnyder
11. Jelena Jankovic
12. Dinara Safina
13. Ana Ivanovic
14. Lindsay Davenport
15. Daniela Hantuchova
16. Francesca Schiavone
17. Anna Chakvetadze
18. Tatiana Golovin
19. Katarina Srebotnik
20. Anastasia Myskina

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:00 AM
No but the point im saying is that shes only been playing well for the the last 2 months, if you she had played like this the whole year (eg won something like 7 25k titles and maybe even entered in some wta events) then she would be top 100 by now

Not every challengers are as weak as the events Marina has played in the past 2 months, meanwhile it isn't a matter of ifs or buts, Marina HASN'T played well this year before the past month or so. Whether this is from injury or whatever is irrelevant.

mboyle
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:01 AM
A biased and ridiculous opinion.
I donīt think a well thought process would have that result.
As I said 2 GS in a year are WAY superior than 1 slam and 3 Tier I events, period.

It absolutely is not biased. Mauresmo, outside of the slams, has been far from the no. 1 player in the world. She was double bageled in the quarter-finals of a grand slam, for god's sake. Overall, Sharapova's year has been much better than Mauresmo's, which is indicated by their standings in the race to the YEC, Sharapova's per tournament average and her record this year.

Also, Sharapova has won 23/24 matches or something like that, and 14 in a row. Sharapova has basically owned the second half of the year. Mauresmo
never had that kind of a dominating period.

Grand Slams aren't everything. They are important enough that one can argue that Mauresmo's year is better than Sharapova's (though not really should Sharapova win both Linz and the YEC,) but not so important than an argument that Sharapova, who trumps Mauresmo in every other category, cannot logically be said to have had a better year.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Noone cares about who wins Tier 1s .... Most players would give 10 Tier 1s for a Grand Slam. Everybody remembers who won Grand Slams, Grand Slam winners go down in history.

Calling spencercarlos, something who obviously knows far more about tennis and is far more mature than you, stuck in the 1990s is idiotic. How is saying that Grandslams are more important than Tier 1s being stuck in the past :rolleyes:

Amelie's 2 slams are better than 1 slam and 3 finals, or 1 slam and 3 Tier 1s ANYDAY, and I'm a Maria fan.

I think if you really went to ask all the Wta Players if theyd rather have 1 Grand Slam title or 10 Tier I titles then you would see that most would go for the 2nd option.

Grandslams were worth alot more in the 70s, 80s and even early 90s because there was less tennis being played and it really was the only place to see really good competitive tennis - this has changed dramatically since.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:03 AM
It absolutely is not biased. Mauresmo, outside of the slams, has been far from the no. 1 player in the world. She was double bageled in the quarter-finals of a grand slam, for god's sake. Overall, Sharapova's year has been much better than Mauresmo's, which is indicated by their standings in the race to the YEC, Sharapova's per tournament average and her record this year.

Also, Sharapova has won 23/24 matches or something like that, and 14 in a row. Sharapova has basically owned the second half of the year. Mauresmo
never had that kind of a dominating period.

Grand Slams aren't everything. They are important enough that one can argue that Mauresmo's year is better than Sharapova's (though not really should Sharapova win both Linz and the YEC,) but not so important than an argument that Sharapova, who trumps Mauresmo in every other category, cannot logically be said to have had a better year.

I completely agree with you

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:05 AM
Not every challengers are as weak as the events Marina has played in the past 2 months, meanwhile it isn't a matter of ifs or buts, Marina HASN'T played well this year before the past month or so. Whether this is from injury or whatever is irrelevant.

So your saying Iroda Tulyganova, and Yung-Jan Chan are weak.... (I think fans of theirs are about to give you a hell of a lot of bad reps for saying that)

mboyle
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:08 AM
I think if you really went to ask all the Wta Players if theyd rather have 1 Grand Slam title or 10 Tier I titles then you would see that most would go for the 2nd option.

Grandslams were worth alot more in the 70s, 80s and even early 90s because there was less tennis being played and it really was the only place to see really good competitive tennis - this has changed dramatically since.

Well, no, at the top, players want slams and nothing else. That is true. However, just because that is true does not mean that other tournaments are not at all relevant when we are discussing who had a better YEAR.

In school, for example, yes midterms and finals are very important, but, if you get A's on your exams but C's and D's the rest of the year, your average will be lower than the person who got A's on all the regular tests but a B+ on the exam.

IceHock
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:08 AM
It absolutely is not biased. Mauresmo, outside of the slams, has been far from the no. 1 player in the world. She was double bageled in the quarter-finals of a grand slam, for god's sake. Overall, Sharapova's year has been much better than Mauresmo's, which is indicated by their standings in the race to the YEC, Sharapova's per tournament average and her record this year.

Also, Sharapova has won 23/24 matches or something like that, and 14 in a row. Sharapova has basically owned the second half of the year. Mauresmo
never had that kind of a dominating period.

Grand Slams aren't everything. They are important enough that one can argue that Mauresmo's year is better than Sharapova's (though not really should Sharapova win both Linz and the YEC,) but not so important than an argument that Sharapova, who trumps Mauresmo in every other category, cannot logically be said to have had a better year.

Actually Amelie dominated from the AO which she won to Antwerp which she won to Doha where she made the final.Pretty sure she was also the fastest to get 1 million bucks.

IceHock
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:10 AM
At the end of the year I would take 2 slams over anything, slams are more important, I could care les about the rankings, slams is what I want.

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:10 AM
I think if you really went to ask all the Wta Players if theyd rather have 1 Grand Slam title or 10 Tier I titles then you would see that most would go for the 2nd option.

Grandslams were worth alot more in the 70s, 80s and even early 90s because there was less tennis being played and it really was the only place to see really good competitive tennis - this has changed dramatically since.

:rolleyes: This must be why pretty much every Grand Slam winner is absolutely beside themselves when they win. Venus was jumping around like crazy, Federer cried at the Aus Open this year, Sharapova, Amelie all GS winners are estatic when they win Grand Slams, much MUCH MUCH more so than regular tournaments.

You ask any junior players what their goals are .... they are usually "to be the no.1 player in the world" or "to win a Grand Slam" .... I seriously doubt any of them aim to win a tier 1 as their life long ambition. Tennis player's childhood dreams are to win Grand Slams. If you honestly think they have lost their importance then it shows your lack of knowledge, and If you think a player wouldn't give any number of Tier 1s for even one Grand Slam, then you are once again incorrect.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:12 AM
Well, no, at the top, players want slams and nothing else. That is true. However, just because that is true does not mean that other tournaments are not at all relevant when we are discussing who had a better YEAR.

In school, for example, yes midterms and finals are very important, but, if you get A's on your exams but C's and D's the rest of the year, your average will be lower than the person who got A's on all the regular tests but a B+ on the exam.

True I can see what your saying, although put it this way - id be much happier if Marina Erakovic won 10 tier I titles and was ranked in the top 10 for the year than if she won the AO and then retired from tennis

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:13 AM
So your saying Iroda Tulyganova, and Yung-Jan Chan are weak.... (I think fans of theirs are about to give you a hell of a lot of bad reps for saying that)

I said the tournament was weak. I actually said the win over Chan was a good win .,... don't put words in my mouth :rolleyes: ... and I expect I'll get 0 badreps from Iroda & Chan fans considering I never mentioned either in a negative light.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:14 AM
At the end of the year I would take 2 slams over anything, slams are more important, I could care les about the rankings, slams is what I want.

Id much rather have 1 Grand Slam (Wimbledon please), and 10 Tier I titles (with alot of money) than win 2 Grand Slams

IceHock
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:15 AM
:rolleyes: This must be why pretty much every Grand Slam winner is absolutely beside themselves when they win. Venus was jumping around like crazy, Federer cried at the Aus Open this year, Sharapova, Amelie all GS winners are estatic when they win Grand Slams, much MUCH MUCH more so than regular tournaments.

You ask any junior players what their goals are .... they are usually "to be the no.1 player in the world" or "to win a Grand Slam" .... I seriously doubt any of them aim to win a tier 1 as their life long ambition. Tennis player's childhood dreams are to win Grand Slams. If you honestly think they have lost their importance then it shows your lack of knowledge, and If you think a player wouldn't give any number of Tier 1s for even one Grand Slam, then you are once again incorrect.


Totally agree, grand slams are the hardest to win and the most fun to win, everybody wants one, I doubt if you ask a kid what they wanna win when they get older, they're gunna say 10 tier 1 titles because they are better than grand slams, nah they want the wimbledon trophy.

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:16 AM
True I can see what your saying, although put it this way - id be much happier if Marina Erakovic won 10 tier I titles and was ranked in the top 10 for the year than if she won the AO and then retired from tennis

Would Marina be happier though? If in her career she won a ton of Tier 1s but never managed to get that Grand Slam she had always dreamed of winning, ever since she first started playing tennis when she was young ... I doubt she would be.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Not every challengers are as weak as the events Marina has played in the past 2 months

I said the tournament was weak. I actually said the win over Chan was a good win .,... don't put words in my mouth :rolleyes: ... and I expect I'll get 0 goodreps from Iroda & Chan fans considering I never mentioned either in a negative light.

The tournament is only as good as what quality players are in it....(A tier IV tournament with all the top 10 players would be more entertaining to watch than a tier II tournament with only one top 20 player)

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:19 AM
The tournament is only as good as what quality players are in it....(A tier IV tournament with all the top 10 players would be more entertaining to watch than a tier II tournament with only one top 20 player)

As much as I like Iroda ... Beijing was a weak event. A 50K where players ranked 250-350 get direct entry ... how can you not say it is weak? Sure it had a few good players, but generally 50K events are stronger.

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:19 AM
Would Marina be happier though? If in her career she won a ton of Tier 1s but never managed to get that Grand Slam she had always dreamed of winning, ever since she first started playing tennis when she was young ... I doubt she would be.

Being aware that im pretty sure I know Marina much better than you (I bet youve never even had a basic conversation with her)...
Marinas dream has always been to simply make a living out of playing the game shes always loved. Shed be very happy with winning a Tier I, or even just the ASB Classic Tier IV in front of her home fans.

floco
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:21 AM
It absolutely is not biased. Mauresmo, outside of the slams, has been far from the no. 1 player in the world. She was double bageled in the quarter-finals of a grand slam, for god's sake. Overall, Sharapova's year has been much better than Mauresmo's, which is indicated by their standings in the race to the YEC, Sharapova's per tournament average and her record this year.

Also, Sharapova has won 23/24 matches or something like that, and 14 in a row. Sharapova has basically owned the second half of the year. Mauresmo
never had that kind of a dominating period.

Grand Slams aren't everything. They are important enough that one can argue that Mauresmo's year is better than Sharapova's (though not really should Sharapova win both Linz and the YEC,) but not so important than an argument that Sharapova, who trumps Mauresmo in every other category, cannot logically be said to have had a better year.

If you're going to use short cuts, at least dont make this kind of mistakes... It was a semifinal against Sharapova, the eventual winner, whom she beat on every other occasion. Oh, and she also won a set...

Erika_Angel
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:15 AM
Being aware that im pretty sure I know Marina much better than you (I bet youve never even had a basic conversation with her)...
Marinas dream has always been to simply make a living out of playing the game shes always loved. Shed be very happy with winning a Tier I, or even just the ASB Classic Tier IV in front of her home fans.

As if I would have had a convo with some obscure New Zealand tennis junior :rolleyes:

She may be happy with mediocrity, but I'm sure she'd rather have a GS than a few tier 1s. Next time you chat to her, ask her :)

spencercarlos
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:18 AM
It absolutely is not biased. Mauresmo, outside of the slams, has been far from the no. 1 player in the world. She was double bageled in the quarter-finals of a grand slam, for god's sake. Overall, Sharapova's year has been much better than Mauresmo's, which is indicated by their standings in the race to the YEC, Sharapova's per tournament average and her record this year.

Also, Sharapova has won 23/24 matches or something like that, and 14 in a row. Sharapova has basically owned the second half of the year. Mauresmo
never had that kind of a dominating period.

Grand Slams aren't everything. They are important enough that one can argue that Mauresmo's year is better than Sharapova's (though not really should Sharapova win both Linz and the YEC,) but not so important than an argument that Sharapova, who trumps Mauresmo in every other category, cannot logically be said to have had a better year.
Very easy i will just leave it to the end of the year when Sharapova probably may get to number one, and see how they player of the year award goes to Henin or Amelie. Just like happened in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005 when the "number one ranked player" was not the player of the year.
:wavey:

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:26 AM
I'm sick and tired of posters insulting Martina Muller and Nicole Pratt. :yawn: At least they can keep the ball in play unlike so many mindless, stupid players who just smack everything into the net or the fence or outside the stadium.

Yeah but with Muller, she mostly got such a high ranking from playing ITFs - and that's not right. Plus Nicole got REALLY lucky in Montreal which helped her ranking too. ;)

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:29 AM
Noone cares about who wins Tier 1s .... Most players would give 10 Tier 1s for a Grand Slam. Everybody remembers who won Grand Slams, Grand Slam winners go down in history.

Calling spencercarlos, something who obviously knows far more about tennis and is far more mature than you, stuck in the 1990s is idiotic. How is saying that Grandslams are more important than Tier 1s being stuck in the past :rolleyes:

Amelie's 2 slams are better than 1 slam and 3 finals, or 1 slam and 3 Tier 1s ANYDAY, and I'm a Maria fan.

If no one cares who wins Tier 1's, why do we even have them? People DO care who wins tier 1's. Yes, people might care *MORE* about who wins GS's but to win a GS a 3xTier 1's in a year is nothing to be sneezed at - neither is winning 2 GSs. (And I'm even an Amelie fan, and not of Justine or Maria)...but to say that people don't care at all about who wins Tier 1's is kinda dumb too.

Si_Hi
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:51 AM
Davenport.....

xin_hui
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:10 AM
I think if you really went to ask all the Wta Players if theyd rather have 1 Grand Slam title or 10 Tier I titles then you would see that most would go for the 2nd option.



CRAP :rolleyes: this is your own opinion, dont lump it onto the players and think they have the same brain as you

if Tier 1s are that prestigous, why are we seeing tons of pullouts at every Tier 1?

Nicolás89
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:31 AM
A biased and ridiculous opinion.
I donīt think a well thought process would have that result.
As I said 2 GS in a year are WAY superior than 1 slam and 3 Tier I events, period.

im agree with you

all what im saying is that maria and justine overall performance is better than amelie overall performance i really think that thats is the way that the rankings works with overall performance, im just writing hightlights:wavey:

spencercarlos
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:46 AM
im agree with you

all what im saying is that maria and justine overall performance is better than amelie overall performance i really think that thats is the way that the rankings works with overall performance, im just writing hightlights:wavey:
It´s exactly the opossite, the 2006 race has Sharapova ahead of Mauresmo , and i think Sharapova will rank ahead of her when the year is over, but OVERALL the most impressive season is owned by Amelie.
Sharapova has been incredibly consistent, rarely losing to a player she should not, unlike Amelie, but in the bigger events performed better than Sharapova, and that´s what the record books take in account.

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:47 AM
im agree with you

all what im saying is that maria and justine overall performance is better than amelie overall performance i really think that thats is the way that the rankings works with overall performance, im just writing hightlights:wavey:

Yeah, and for rankings, winning tier 1's is obviously good too. ;) That's why people care (when you look at the rankings). If someone got to #1 winning like 10 tier 4's, then something's wrong, obviously...

darrinbaker00
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:53 AM
Some of the arguments in this thread are beyond ridiculous. These are PROFESSIONAL tennis players, ladies and gentlemen; that means they play tennis for money. Winning all nine Tier I's in a season will put more money in your bank account than winning any one of the four majors, so I'm 99 percent sure that all players would rather do that. As Althea Gibson once said, you can't eat trophies.

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:54 AM
Some of the arguments in this thread are beyond ridiculous. These are PROFESSIONAL tennis players, ladies and gentlemen; that means they play tennis for money. Winning all nine Tier I's in a season will put more money in your bank account than winning any one of the four majors, so I'm 99 percent sure that all players would rather do that. As Althea Gibson once said, you can't eat trophies.

But this is meant to be about the rankings, not about money, or who is most remembered. ;)

darrinbaker00
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:04 AM
But this is meant to be about the rankings, not about money, or who is most remembered. ;)
That's even more ridiculous. Amelie Mauresmo earned her place at the top, Erin Liefeld earned her place at the bottom, and the 1,503 women in between earned their respective places. They all have their "real" ranking. Period.

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:06 AM
That's even more ridiculous. Amelie Mauresmo earned her place at the top, Erin Liefeld earned her place at the bottom, and the 1,503 women in between earned their respective places. They all have their "real" ranking. Period.

I know that. ;) I was just debating the worth of the Tier 1's (with regard to rankings) - coz some people here seemed to think that they are unimportant. ;)

spencercarlos
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:07 AM
That's even more ridiculous. Amelie Mauresmo earned her place at the top, Erin Liefeld earned her place at the bottom, and the 1,503 women in between earned their respective places. They all have their "real" ranking. Period.
So Hingis was the best player in 2000?

darrinbaker00
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:16 AM
So Hingis was the best player in 2000?
According to the rankings, yes. The Venus Williams fan in me says no, but that's based on subjective data (personal bias being the most prominent, of course). Like it or not, and it appears as if a lot of WTAworld posters don't, the computer ranking system is the only objective way we have to determine who's The Woman.

spencercarlos
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:28 AM
the computer ranking system is the only objective way we have to determine who's The Woman.
If thatīs true then i wonder why Hingis was not named the player of the year of 2000 :confused:

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:35 AM
According to the rankings, yes. The Venus Williams fan in me says no, but that's based on subjective data (personal bias being the most prominent, of course). Like it or not, and it appears as if a lot of WTAworld posters don't, the computer ranking system is the only objective way we have to determine who's The Woman.

Now this is about whether we like the ranking system or not? :lol:

And now we are discussing 2000? :lol: What does 2000 have to do with the rankings of this year? Nothing - the ranking system wasn't even the same!

There will never be a ranking system that will please everyone - and I don't particularly like the current one, but I still don't see how people can say that Tier 1's are completely unimportant? I did say that GSs are MORE important, but Tier 1's are still important - and if you can win more top tourneys (GS + tier 1's + tier 2's) in a year, the nyou deserve to be #1 at the end of the year. All players know the system, and can play it (scheduling) to their advantage or not - however they choose.

darrinbaker00
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:39 AM
If thatīs true then i wonder why Hingis was not named the player of the year of 2000 :confused:
Apples and oranges, my friend. The people who voted for that award obviously didn't think Hingis deserved it. Awards are subjective, not objective.

darrinbaker00
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:45 AM
Now this is about whether we like the ranking system or not? :lol:

And now we are discussing 2000? :lol: What does 2000 have to do with the rankings of this year? Nothing - the ranking system wasn't even the same!

There will never be a ranking system that will please everyone - and I don't particularly like the current one, but I still don't see how people can say that Tier 1's are completely unimportant? I did say that GSs are MORE important, but Tier 1's are still important - and if you can win more top tourneys (GS + tier 1's + tier 2's) in a year, the nyou deserve to be #1 at the end of the year. All players know the system, and can play it (scheduling) to their advantage or not - however they choose.
People are saying that Tier I's aren't important because their favorite players aren't winning enough (or any) of them. Venus and Serena have only managed to win tournament each in '05-'06, but since that one was a major, a lot of my fellow Williams fans are now saying that only the majors matter.

spencercarlos
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:47 AM
Apples and oranges, my friend. The people who voted for that award obviously didn't think Hingis deserved it. Awards are subjective, not objective.
It´s the award from the WTATOUR that nominates the best player for the year, it´s not an award she won in her hometown.
And it takes in consideration the big events, and certainly despite the ranking points difference (which was huge in favor of Hingis) she was not the best player out there in 2000.

PD. I used this year 2000 as an example.

darrinbaker00
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:54 AM
Itīs the award from the WTATOUR that nominates the best player for the year, itīs not an award she won in her hometown.
And it takes in consideration the big events, and certainly despite the ranking points difference (which was huge in favor of Hingis) she was not the best player out there in 2000.

PD. I used this year 2000 as an example.
I don't think Hingis was the best player in 2000 either, but that's our opinion. Hingis ended that year at #1, so by the only objective criterion the WTA Tour has, she was the best player.

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:22 AM
People are saying that Tier I's aren't important because their favorite players aren't winning enough (or any) of them. Venus and Serena have only managed to win tournament each in '05-'06, but since that one was a major, a lot of my fellow Williams fans are now saying that only the majors matter.

:lol: If Venus and Serena actually played more than like 5 tourneys a year, they could be #1 again. ;)

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:25 AM
I don't think Hingis was the best player in 2000 either, but that's our opinion. Hingis ended that year at #1, so by the only objective criterion the WTA Tour has, she was the best player.

I can't even be assed to go back and look at what tourneys who won in 2000. ;) Plus, as I said before, the ranking system was different in 2000. Hingis most likely played lots more matches in 2000, and also because they had quality points then, that helped her to be #1. I have no idea how many tourneys the WS played that year though - but Hingis obviously used the ranking system to her advantage. (Sorry that I reply to your posts, but I have spencer on ignore, only I can now see what he posts coz you are quitng it). ;)

And again: to spencercarlos: this about about the RANKINGS in 2006, not who the WTA named "best player" in 2000.

So Disrespectful
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:41 AM
Sad to say, but Groenefeld was playing top 15 tennis last year and the middle of this year, but right now she should only be 25 tops.

Sharapova is the best player at the moment in my opinion.

brayster87
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:54 AM
I'm sick and tired of posters insulting Martina Muller and Nicole Pratt. :yawn: At least they can keep the ball in play unlike so many mindless, stupid players who just smack everything into the net or the fence or outside the stadium.

Well you need to hit hard to reach the top 10. I don't see Nicole Pratt nor Muller ever reaching the top 10....so i think its a fair evaluation

Wiggly
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:19 PM
All Czechs girls should be WAY up.

Tennace
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:22 PM
All Czechs girls should be WAY up.

I wish :o

It just so happens though that they all suck at once :o

If they are having a good day, most of them can beat almost anyone, too bad some of them have lesser good days these days :sad:

FrenchY52
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Kirilenko and Bartoli should be top35/40

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:45 PM
Maria should be #1 and Henin #2 and Mauresmo #3

AnywhereButHome
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:19 PM
Venus and Serena

terjw
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:31 PM
Depends what do you want the rankings to mean?

If like me you believe the rankings should indicate who is the best player in the world right now - then the rankings aren't really right because no doubt Maria should be #1. She's been incredible lately, won the USO and has not lost a match since before then. Yes I know other players are injured - but in any ranking system you can't have players staying up at the top forever if they are not actually playing.

Anyway - Maria is now a clear favourite to win the YEC. Would you give shorter odds on any other player to win YEC if you were a bookie and it was your own real money? Even early in the year she wasn't bad - semi finalist at Wimbledon and AO and she won Indian Wells and was finalist at Miami.

The rankings give an assessment of a player's performance over the last 12 months and Amelie has tons of points from last year's YEC and also the AO at the beginning of the year.
These were a long time ago - and although they mean somethiing - I don't put too much on what happened way back then on who is the best player in the world right now.

This is why I always think the rankings aren't really that wrong - they just lag behind who the best player really is. IMO Maria will get the #1 spot but by the time she does someone else might be thought of as the best player. So Maria will then get what she should have now.

Same last year - Kim should really have been #1 after the USO. Everyone thought she was the best player then with more wins than anyone else and the most recently played slam. By the time she did get the #1 - it was at the AO this year and everyone had moved on to saying Amelie was the one who really deserved it.

mboyle
Oct 31st, 2006, 12:19 AM
If thatīs true then i wonder why Hingis was not named the player of the year of 2000 :confused:

If the ranking system is your school's class rank or GPA calculation, then the player of the year award is like Harvard or Stanford: the numerically best players don't always win, just like the numerically most qualified don't necessarily get in over numerically less qualified students. However, one must be at or near the top to be considered either for the award or the college.

LegionArgentina
Oct 31st, 2006, 12:52 AM
Clarisa Fernandez is ranking 115, but she is a top 50 material and Paola Suarez is ranking 190 or something like that and she is a top 25 material..

Aaron68
Oct 31st, 2006, 12:56 AM
Depends what do you want the rankings to mean?

If like me you believe the rankings should indicate who is the best player in the world right now - then the rankings aren't really right because no doubt Maria should be #1. She's been incredible lately, won the USO and has not lost a match since before then. Yes I know other players are injured - but in any ranking system you can't have players staying up at the top forever if they are not actually playing.

Anyway - Maria is now a clear favourite to win the YEC. Would you give shorter odds on any other player to win YEC if you were a bookie and it was your own real money? Even early in the year she wasn't bad - semi finalist at Wimbledon and AO and she won Indian Wells and was finalist at Miami.

The rankings give an assessment of a player's performance over the last 12 months and Amelie has tons of points from last year's YEC and also the AO at the beginning of the year.
These were a long time ago - and although they mean somethiing - I don't put too much on what happened way back then on who is the best player in the world right now.

This is why I always think the rankings aren't really that wrong - they just lag behind who the best player really is. IMO Maria will get the #1 spot but by the time she does someone else might be thought of as the best player. So Maria will then get what she should have now.

Same last year - Kim should really have been #1 after the USO. Everyone thought she was the best player then with more wins than anyone else and the most recently played slam. By the time she did get the #1 - it was at the AO this year and everyone had moved on to saying Amelie was the one who really deserved it.

This is the sanest, most senisble post in this whole thread.

I think part of the problem with the rankings is, as you say, the lag factor. Nobody on the planet was playing even close to the level of Clijsters last summer. No one. She was tearing through field after field. The same with Sharapova right now. 16 matches in a row, 32-2 in sets, the US Open, three straight tournament wins, etc. etc. etc.

Another part of the problem, in my opinion, is that not enough of a premium is placed on actually WINNING a tournament (in terms of ranking points). Right now, take the Slams for example:

W=700
F=492
SF=314

That means that the Runner-up gets 70% of the points of the Champion. The two SF get 44.9% of the Champion, and 63.8% of the Runner-up.

To me, that's just not right. Tennis is a sport. And the goal of any sport is to WIN. There should be a much bigger premium given to the Champion. Leave the relationship the same between all the other finishes. But increase the premium for winning.

If we are talking a Slam, then 128 players entered. 127 of them have one thing in common: they all lost 1 match. There is one player, though, who at the end is completely separated from everyone else. The Champion never lost. That deserves to be worth more in the rankings.