PDA

View Full Version : Justine is the most deserving year-end #1 since...


Asmus
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:01 AM
...since Justine herself topped the rankings at the end of 2003.

That being said, Amelie and Maria would have been worthy of this honour as well. I think the year-end #1 should have won at least one major and have strong slam results. I think that Davenport's great and was worthy of the ranking in 1998, 1999 and 2000 but in 2004 and 2005 she didn't win any major titles, not even Indian Wells, Miami or the YEC.

<!Society!>
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:30 AM
the only thing that she deserves is face wipes to rid herself of the red rash constantly around her mouth and a good slap.

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:53 AM
the only thing that she deserves is face wipes to rid herself of the red rash constantly around her mouth and a good slap.

Oh, you're just projecting your disdain about the state of British tennis which has been in the toilet for so many decades.

CrossCourt~Rally
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:56 AM
Oh, you're just projecting your disdain about the state of British tennis which has been in the toilet for so many decades.

:haha:

CrossCourt~Rally
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:57 AM
Oh, you're just projecting your disdain about the state of British tennis which has been in the toilet for so many decades.

:haha:

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 12:58 AM
If Amelie beats her in another big final tomorrow, there is no way Justine is a deserving #1.

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:00 AM
If Amelie beats her in another big final tomorrow, there is no way Justine is a deserving #1.

The outcome of tomorrow's match is only for bragging rights because Justine Henin-Hardenne has already claimed the YE #1 ranking.

Whether you think its "deserving" or not, its reality and it will forever be recorded in tennis history that way.

All Justine had to do was show-up in Madrid and Amelie's chances at #1 were all but gone. Nothing was going to stop Justine's march towards tennis history. Not red-hot Petrova or Sharapova, or has-been Martina Hingis.

Stop with the denial. You are only hurting yourself.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:01 AM
If Amelie beats her in another big final tomorrow, there is no way Justine is a deserving #1.

i can teach you how to hack into the WTA computer and change that results.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:04 AM
I don't care who the ranking says is #1, Amelie won as many majors as the whole rest of the tour combined.

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:14 AM
I don't care who the ranking says is #1, Amelie won as many majors as the whole rest of the tour combined.

Amelie wins 50% of the majors, but only makes it to the finals of 41% of the tournaments she played in 2006.

Justine wins 25% of the majors, and makes it to the finals of 69% of the tournaments she played in 2006.

Bitch, please.

Justine has won more matches and has a better winning percentage.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:17 AM
I would say the same thing if Sharapova won today.
Both Justine and Maria would rather have Amelie's year.

.Andrew.
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:19 AM
Amelie wins 50% of the majors, but only makes it to the finals of 41% of the tournaments she played in 2006.

Justine wins 25% of the majors, and makes it to the finals of 69% of the tournaments she played in 2006.

Bitch, please.

Justine has won more matches and has a better winning percentage.

Totally agree! Hoping Justine will win the title tomorrow! On the other hand, Momo also had a great year but I think Justine deserves it!

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:21 AM
Both Justine and Maria would rather have Amelie's year.

and i would rather have the life of thierry henry and george bush

Kart
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:21 AM
If Amelie beats her in another big final tomorrow, there is no way Justine is a deserving #1.

The no.1 ranked player is not necessarily the best player of the year as we've all seen numerous times in recent years ;).

Congrats to Justine.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:21 AM
Amelie wins 50% of the majors, but only makes it to the finals of 41% of the tournaments she played in 2006.

Justine wins 25% of the majors, and makes it to the finals of 69% of the tournaments she played in 2006.

Bitch, please.

Justine has won more matches and has a better winning percentage.

This is absolute ludicrous. JHH has had a great year, but ANYONE who argues that her year has been better than Amelie's is ridiculous. 2 slams beat 1 and Amelie leads the head-to-head. I am certain that if JHH had the chance to take Amelie's year, even with the bad losses in smaller tournaments, she would.

MH0861
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:22 AM
...since Justine herself topped the rankings at the end of 2003.

That being said, Amelie and Maria would have been worthy of this honour as well. I think the year-end #1 should have won at least one major and have strong slam results. I think that Davenport's great and was worthy of the ranking in 1998, 1999 and 2000 but in 2004 and 2005 she didn't win any major titles, not even Indian Wells, Miami or the YEC.

Yeah, Lindsay was #1 in the computer at the end of '04 and '05, but it doesn't look right when the Year End #1 doesn't win a major. I agree with you.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:23 AM
I would say the same thing if Sharapova won today.
Both Justine and Maria would rather have Amelie's year.

Basically. Let's put it this way. Amelie could have played 20 tournaments this year and lost in the 1st round in all of them except the 2 slams she won and her year would still be better than Sharapova and JHH.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:23 AM
This is absolute ludicrous. JHH has had a great year, but ANYONE who argues that her year has been better than Amelie's is ridiculous. 2 slams beat 1 and Amelie leads the head-to-head. I am certain that if JHH had the chance to take Amelie's year, even with the bad losses in smaller tournaments, she would.Exactly. There's nothing to argue here.
Amelie had a better year.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:24 AM
but ANYONE who argues that her year has been better than Amelie's is ridiculous.
we are not saying better in the general way. we are saying that according to the ranking system, that rewards consistency, justine came up tops.

i dun disagree that mauresmo has a really great year, if not the best. but that's not what the world #1 rank is about.

you can't confuse the two together.

davenport124
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:28 AM
I think Amelie deserves the ranking more than Justine. She has played better this season. Justine deserves it over Maria though, but its a shame the true world number 1 of 2006 wont actually finish as number 1.

Asmus, I think in recent years, nobody has dominated the game totally. The last time that happened was in 02 with Serena. 04 and 05 had only one person that won 2 slams and there were alot of injuries. In those years, I think Lindsay really deserved those number 1 finishes as she was able to come through very competeitive fields, whilst not playing her best for alot of it.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:32 AM
I think Amelie deserves the ranking more than Justine. She has played better this season.

you are entitled to your opinion, albeit erroneous. that means if i'm a clay courter, and then i win another major, i can play crap on other surfaces, cos i deserve to be #1, just by merit of the number of grand slams?

you must not forget about consistency, the number of surfaces, and the other stats that justine has crawled up this year. and to say that amelie has played better this season is ludicrous. she is perhaps the most bagelled top player this year. and this reflects her consistency, if not capability.

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:36 AM
Exactly. There's nothing to argue here.
Amelie had a better year.

2006
not including the YEC

Grand Slam Finals:
Momo: 2
Justine: 4

Finals:
Momo Finals: 7/17
JHH Finals: 9/13

Matches Won:
Momo: 48 in 16 tournaments
Justine: 56 in 12 tournaments

Titles:
Momo: 4
Justine: 5

Fed Cup Singles:
Momo: 1-1
Justine: 4-0

Grand Slam Wins:
Momo: 2
Justine: 1

Bagels Received:
Momo: 4
Justine: 0

Fed Cup Finals:
Momo: 0
Justine: 1

Yeah, I think we know who has had the better year. :wavey: Justine Henin-Hardenne, be thy name.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Swami_Marjorie: you got those stats all wrong.

remember, only the number of majors matters, for the best year. that's the yardstick

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Justine would trade her year for Amelie's in one second.

Justine Fan
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:39 AM
2006
not including the YEC

Grand Slam Finals:
Momo: 2
Justine: 4

Finals:
Momo Finals: 7/17
JHH Finals: 9/13

Matches Won:
Momo: 48 in 16 tournaments
Justine: 56 in 12 tournaments

Titles:
Momo: 4
Justine: 5

Fed Cup Singles:
Momo: 1-1
Justine: 4-0

Grand Slam Wins:
Momo: 2
Justine: 1

Yeah, I think we know who has had the better year. :wavey: Justine Henin-Hardenne, be thy name.

As always ..... :worship: :worship: :worship:

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:41 AM
2006
not including the YEC

Grand Slam Finals:
Momo: 2
Justine: 4

Finals:
Momo Finals: 7/17
JHH Finals: 9/13

Matches Won:
Momo: 48 in 16 tournaments
Justine: 56 in 12 tournaments

Titles:
Momo: 4
Justine: 5

Fed Cup Singles:
Momo: 1-1
Justine: 4-0

Grand Slam Wins:
Momo: 2
Justine: 1

Bagels Received:
Momo: 4
Justine: 0

Fed Cup Finals:
Momo: 0
Justine: 1

Yeah, I think we know who has had the better year. :wavey: Justine Henin-Hardenne, be thy name.

GRAND SLAM WINS

MAURESMO: 2
HENIN-HARDENNE: 1

The numbers speak for themselves. :)

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:42 AM
she deserves it she really has had a magnificent year but will she fall short in the final

MinnyGophers
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:42 AM
The outcome of tomorrow's match is only for bragging rights because Justine Henin-Hardenne has already claimed the YE #1 ranking.

Whether you think its "deserving" or not, its reality and it will forever be recorded in tennis history that way.

All Justine had to do was show-up in Madrid and Amelie's chances at #1 were all but gone. Nothing was going to stop Justine's march towards tennis history. Not red-hot Petrova or Sharapova, or has-been Martina Hingis.

Stop with the denial. You are only hurting yourself.


That's funny you say that now that Justine is number one. But you were singing a much different tune when Amelie was.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:44 AM
man, was i right in my earlier post. only one stat matters. yay!

iPatty
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:45 AM
winning percentage in grand slam finals:

Mauresmo: 2/2 -- 100%
Henin-Hardenne: 1/4 -- 25%

amelie's year > justine's year.

i'm sure justine would trade in her roland garros title if she could take amelie's wimbledon and aussie open title. not to mention holding the #1 ranking for virtually the entire year.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:46 AM
That's funny you say that now that Justine is number one. But you were singing a much different tune when Amelie was.

Don't let it bother you. Anyone who can argue that anyone has had a better year than Maruesmo is on something seriously illegal.

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:46 AM
That's funny you say that now that Justine is number one. But you were singing a much different tune when Amelie was.

Well, gee Captain Obvious.

Everyone knows that YE #1 is much different from being ranked #1 during a calendar year. :rolleyes:

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:47 AM
Don't let it bother you. Anyone who can argue that anyone has had a better year than Maruesmo is on something seriously illegal.

You need to put that pipe down, fool:

2006
not including the YEC

Grand Slam Finals:
Momo: 2
Justine: 4

Finals:
Momo Finals: 7/17
JHH Finals: 9/13

Matches Won:
Momo: 48 in 16 tournaments
Justine: 56 in 12 tournaments

Titles:
Momo: 4
Justine: 5

Fed Cup Singles:
Momo: 1-1
Justine: 4-0

Grand Slam Wins:
Momo: 2
Justine: 1

Bagels Received:
Momo: 4
Justine: 0

Fed Cup Finals:
Momo: 0
Justine: 1

Yeah, I think we know who has had the better year. :wavey: Justine Henin-Hardenne, be thy name.

shibster
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:47 AM
GPlayer21: that makes the entire wta tour illegal? oh dear

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:48 AM
You need to put that pipe down, fool:

2006
not including the YEC

Grand Slam Finals:
Momo: 2
Justine: 4

Finals:
Momo Finals: 7/17
JHH Finals: 9/13

Matches Won:
Momo: 48 in 16 tournaments
Justine: 56 in 12 tournaments

Titles:
Momo: 4
Justine: 5

Fed Cup Singles:
Momo: 1-1
Justine: 4-0

Grand Slam Wins:
Momo: 2
Justine: 1

Bagels Received:
Momo: 4
Justine: 0

Fed Cup Finals:
Momo: 0
Justine: 1

Yeah, I think we know who has had the better year. :wavey: Justine Henin-Hardenne, be thy name.


Grand SLAMS:

Mauresmo: 2
Henin-Hardenne: 1

Simple math.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:49 AM
GPlayer21: that makes the entire wta tour illegal? oh dear

It was a joke. Anyway, I am looking at things objectively and Mauresmo has definitely had a better year. Nobody can argue otherwise.

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Grand SLAMS:

Mauresmo: 2
Henin-Hardenne: 1

Simple math.

Obviously, you are in denial who will be ranked YE #1.

Justine Henin-Hardenne, Queen of the WTA

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:51 AM
Obviously, you are in denial who will be ranked YE #1.

Justine Henin-Hardenne, Queen of the WTA

No argument there. But MAURESMO has had the better year. Touche.

Lindsay Davenport finished 3 years at #1 and ALL of those 3 years she DID not have the better year than some others. :lick:

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:51 AM
It was a joke. Anyway, I am looking at things objectively and Mauresmo has definitely had a better year. Nobody can argue otherwise.

Amelie couldn't even win over 50 matches playing in 17 tournaments during the regular season. She was bageled four times as #1 and only made it to two grand slam finals.

Please. :rolleyes:

Mother_Marjorie
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:52 AM
No argument there. But MAURESMO has had the better year. Touche.

My apologies. I didn't initally figure out that you were retarded. Now I know.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:54 AM
All these bagel references. :lick:

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 01:55 AM
Amelie couldn't even win over 50 matches playing in 17 tournaments during the regular season. She was bageled four times as #1 and only made it to two grand slam finals.

Please. :rolleyes:

And she won those 2 Grand Slam finals. JHH was only 1/4. I agree that Mauresmo has been unimpressive in most of these smaller tournaments and JHH is probably more of a fitting #1 but JHH did not have a better year tha Mauresmo. Like I said, if Mauresmo played 20 tournaments and lost in the 1st round of all of them except bagging 2 Slams her yera would STILL be better than JHH. Besides the French Open, I don't remember what other titles JHH has won and don't really care either. Neither do many tennis analysts who agree hands down that Mauresmo is the player of the year. The only person I've seen arguing over this, although she has changed her stance some since Mauresmo has made the YEC final, is Pam Shriver and now all of a sudden she is deciding to sing a different tune.

goldenboi356
Nov 12th, 2006, 02:18 AM
JHH has had a great year, but ANYONE who argues that her year has been better than Amelie's is ridiculous. 2 slams beat 1 and Amelie leads the head-to-head. I am certain that if JHH had the chance to take Amelie's year, even with the bad losses in smaller tournaments, she would.

ok. but youre forgetting that juju is younger and already has 5 slams, while momo is older and only has 2...................so all i'm saying is if you're young, like pova, you have way more chances to win more and improve, which is what i assume juju to be thinking--that she rather have many chances to win slams than just 1 year.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 02:23 AM
Justine would rather have 6 right now, and have Amelie just one

goldenboi356
Nov 12th, 2006, 02:24 AM
Grand SLAMS:

Mauresmo: 2
Henin-Hardenne: 1

Simple math.

ok same to you, think juju woukd would have 1 slam than none at all; moreover, put herself in the position fore MORE than momo's 2, which may be her only year that she gets this chance because of upcoming talents.

darrinbaker00
Nov 12th, 2006, 02:53 AM
Swami_Marjorie: you got those stats all wrong.

remember, only the number of majors matters, for the best year. that's the yardstick
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. By my yardstick, whoever wins tomorrow's match will have the best year:

Justine Henin-Hardenne: $3,204,810
Amelie Mauresmo: $2,838,477
$1,000,000 to the winner, $500,000 to the runner-up

These are professional tennis players we're talking about, after all. ;)

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 02:59 AM
I would say the same thing if Sharapova won today.
Both Justine and Maria would rather have Amelie's year.

I dont think justine would be happy losing 4th round at the french

or being bagelled so many times

or being handed a gs title with three retirements

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:00 AM
I think she'd grab that 6th major, and not worry about bagels.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:01 AM
Wow...I'm not a huge Justine fan, but her year has been HISTORIC. Yeah, Amelie won 2 slams, Justine only won 1. I get it. We ALL GET IT, but like it or not there's more to the year than slams. And some of the stats that people use to defend Amelie are just ridiculous...I mean, winning percentage in slam finals? Iva Majoli was 100% successful in 1997, and no one would use that to say that she had a better year than Martina's 75%

Mauresmo and Henin are both great players, but OVERALL I would have to give the edge to Henin right now. I'll start to consider Mauresmo's year as superior if she wins the YEC final convincingly.

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:05 AM
Grand SLAMS:

Mauresmo: 2
Henin-Hardenne: 1

Simple math.

the question is who had the better year, no who was better in grand slams

I"m pretty sure amelie played more tournaments than just two slams, and one is questionable.

the points dont lie and justine played less tounaments than amelie

the only title amelie can get is either 'most retirements in a gs' or 'most bagels handed to number 1 player'

Justeenium
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Justine has won more slams that Amelie ever will!

Justine Fan
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:06 AM
I dont think justine would be happy losing 4th round at the french

or being bagelled so many times

or being handed a gs title with three retirements

:tape: :tape: :worship: :worship:

Robbie.
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:07 AM
Grand SLAMS:

Mauresmo: 2
Henin-Hardenne: 1

Simple math.

Well this is the exemplification of dumbass logic. Congratulations.

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:11 AM
No argument there. But MAURESMO has had the better year. Touche.

Lindsay Davenport finished 3 years at #1 and ALL of those 3 years she DID not have the better year than some others. :lick:


yeah but lindsay didn't reach all four gs singles finals and the YEC final or win a slam title.

people were saying that if justine won the US she would have had the better year, so why not if she wins the YEC beating amelie

that makes 1 GS title + 3gs finals + 4 other titles +(Yec title/final)

againts

2 gs titles + 4th round and semi + 2 other titles +(Yec title/ final)

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:11 AM
Well this is the exemplification of dumbass logic. Congratulations.


No Robbie. It's simple math. We can go over all the nooks and crannies and disect both JHH's and Mauresmo's year but it comes down to the slams. Mauresmo won more than anyone else. She SHOULD and rightfully so be heralded as the player of the year. Sorry, but if you think anything otherwise then it is pure and utter biased.

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:12 AM
If Amelie wins tomorrow, how can she not be POY.

Polikarpov
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:15 AM
...since Justine herself topped the rankings at the end of 2003.

That being said, Amelie and Maria would have been worthy of this honour as well. I think the year-end #1 should have won at least one major and have strong slam results. I think that Davenport's great and was worthy of the ranking in 1998, 1999 and 2000 but in 2004 and 2005 she didn't win any major titles, not even Indian Wells, Miami or the YEC.

Didn't Hingis ended the year No. 1 in 2000?

Anyway, I think the player who ends the year No. 1 most probably deserves it. Consistency is a big thing. Winning a grand slam title and losing early in other tournaments makes a the player appear like a fluke.

This is just my opinion.

LoveFifteen
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:15 AM
the only thing that she deserves is face wipes to rid herself of the red rash constantly around her mouth and a good slap.

*DEATH*

:haha:

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:17 AM
Didn't Hingis ended the year No. 1 in 2000?

Anyway, I think the player who ends the year No. 1 most probably deserves it. Consistency is a big thing. Winning a grand slam title and losing early in other tournaments makes a the player appear like a fluke.

This is just my opinion.

That is only if you win ONE grand slam title. Amelie Mauresmo proved this theory wrong by winning 2 grand slams. No fluke.

majuu
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:18 AM
Normally, the person who wins the most slams instantly gets the title of most deserving number 1. But here the circumstances are different, Justine was so amazingly consistent and consistently brang good results on ALL surfaces even though she struggled with injuries and entered a limited number of events. How often is it that a player reaches at least the final of EVERY SINGLE GRANDSLAM in a year (someone remind me), and now she comes back from a signifucant injury break to reach the finals of YEC.
Justine deserves it

MinnyGophers
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:23 AM
Justine has won more slams that Amelie ever will!

And the non sequitur award goes to....

darrinbaker00
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:24 AM
No Robbie. It's simple math. We can go over all the nooks and crannies and disect both JHH's and Mauresmo's year but it comes down to the slams. Mauresmo won more than anyone else. She SHOULD and rightfully so be heralded as the player of the year. Sorry, but if you think anything otherwise then it is pure and utter biased.
I can say the same about your opinion. You think whoever wins the most majors had the best year. I think whoever wins the most prize money had the best year. Others think whoever ends the year #1 had the best year. All three of those criteria are equally legitimate, so how can you say that someone who doesn't share your opinion in this case is wrong?

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:25 AM
And she won those 2 Grand Slam finals. JHH was only 1/4. I agree that Mauresmo has been unimpressive in most of these smaller tournaments and JHH is probably more of a fitting #1 but JHH did not have a better year tha Mauresmo. Like I said, if Mauresmo played 20 tournaments and lost in the 1st round of all of them except bagging 2 Slams her yera would STILL be better than JHH. Besides the French Open, I don't remember what other titles JHH has won and don't really care either. Neither do many tennis analysts who agree hands down that Mauresmo is the player of the year. The only person I've seen arguing over this, although she has changed her stance some since Mauresmo has made the YEC final, is Pam Shriver and now all of a sudden she is deciding to sing a different tune.

I'm sorry are two gs finals not better than a 4th round and a semi
if we only take into account the gs justine has the edge

ao amelie goes one further than justine = amelie +1

French justine goes 4 rounds better than amelie = justine +4

Wimbledon Amelie goes one better than ju = Amelie +1

Us Justine goes 1 better than Amelie = Ju +1

this means that amelie with 2 points

and justine with 5 points

justine performed better in the slams this year


in official; ranking points

Amelie 700+96+700+314 = 1810

Justine 492+700+492+492 = 2176

justine performed better in slams this year

there is nothing to support the amelie claim

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:25 AM
If Amelie beats her in 3 of those 5..
How can you even argue that?
You can only argue it if Justine wins tomorrow.
Even then, she'd rather have 2 majors

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:29 AM
That is only if you win ONE grand slam title. Amelie Mauresmo proved this theory wrong by winning 2 grand slams. No fluke.

what if you win one slam title and get the other one handed to you by three retirements including in the semis and final.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:29 AM
I can say the same about your opinion. You think whoever wins the most majors had the best year. I think whoever wins the most prize money had the best year. Others think whoever ends the year #1 had the best year. All three of those criteria are equally legitimate, so how can you say that someone who doesn't share your opinion in this case is wrong?

Soon as you said that you believed that whoever won the most prize money in a single calendar year I considered your opinion null and void. Hingis won the most prize money in 2000 so you mean to tell me that she had a better year than Venus or Lindsay? :lol: I am just saying that most tennis analysts believe that major wins are the stamp of approval in tennis and I would tend to think that they, like many, would say that Mauresmo has had the best yera because she has won more majors than any other woman. While JHH has had a great year as well she had four chances to win and blew three of them. She didn't come through until she was on her favorite surface while Amelie came through twice on two totally different surfaces and leads the head-to-head 3-0 against JHH but the head-to-head doesn't matter to me.

Polikarpov
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:31 AM
That is only if you win ONE grand slam title. Amelie Mauresmo proved this theory wrong by winning 2 grand slams. No fluke.

I'm not pin-pointing Mauresmo; all the players in general.

As I've said earlier, In my opinion, whoever ends the year No. 1 most probably deserves it. Be it Amelie, Justine or Maria.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:32 AM
what if you win one slam title and get the other one handed to you by three retirements including in the semis and final.

Doesn't matter. We can argue about those retirements all we want. JHH seemed perfectly fine in that 1st set against Mauresmo but Mauresmo was playing out of her mind. Maybe JHH did have an illness but the illness probably perpetuated when JHH noticed Mauresmo's inspired play and Mauresmo's heavy top spin and low slices take their toll on you if she is playing well and you are not at your best physically. I don't think JHH would have retired if she was facing someone like a Dementieva or some other low ranked player.

WonderfulLee
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:34 AM
amelie is #1 in my heart!

go Amelie...beat justine again!

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:35 AM
If Amelie beats her in 3 of those 5..
How can you even argue that?
You can only argue it if Justine wins tomorrow.
Even then, she'd rather have 2 majors

it doesn't matter what she'd rather have, your argument is only based on
the sentimental value of winning a slam

justine has more points from the slams and more points overall, she is number one therefore she had the best results throughout the year

or she wouldn't be number one.

sentimental value doesn't come into it, so what she won a slam and a half after not winning one fore like so many years doesn't change the fact that she only gets 700 points for each of her titles.

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:38 AM
Doesn't matter. We can argue about those retirements all we want. JHH seemed perfectly fine in that 1st set against Mauresmo but Mauresmo was playing out of her mind. Maybe JHH did have an illness but the illness probably perpetuated when JHH noticed Mauresmo's inspired play and Mauresmo's heavy top spin and low slices take their toll on you if she is playing well and you are not at your best physically. I don't think JHH would have retired if she was facing someone like a Dementieva or some other low ranked player.

I'm sorry moonballing is playing out of her mind, all she did was wait for the errors which justine was handing her

justine was firing unforced errors everwhere, she was moving sluggishly

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:39 AM
Lindsay had the most points the 2 years before this.
Compiling points is different from being a champion.
Amelie won as many championships as the rest of the tour combined.

tennisbear7
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:41 AM
what if you win one slam title and get the other one handed to you by three retirements including in the semis and final.

*DEATH*

:haha: :tape:

I dunno... Mauresmo was leading 6-1 2-0 when Justine decided to call it quits. Amelie has been long regarded the champion of the AO because of the convincing style in which she probably would have won the match. If it was 7-6 in the first set, okay, different story but Mauresmo was just playing out of her mind.

Justine is a deserving world number one, in my eyes. Why? Because simply, she's been more consistent than Amelie in both slams and smaller tournaments. No question. Consistency is a BIG factor and all JuJu haters should be aware of that: the world number one goes to the player who has been MOST consistent; it is the reward for the player who has been the most CONSISTENT.

We need to make that distinction between consistency and who has had the better year. In my opinion, Mauresmo's two slams basically take the cake on this one. She's had the better year, although it has been inconsistent. Because it's been inconsistent, she's won't be ending the year as world number one. Period.

Justine deserves it. It's been shown time after time that the world number one crown goes to the player most consistent. And Justine's been exactly that. And yeah I do think that Justine would trade her slam finals for 2/4 slams in a calendar year.

All in all, this is a dead discussion. Both are fantastic players and we're in for a treat when they play the YEC final. Allez Ame! Allez Juju!

Mileen
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:43 AM
I'm sorry are two gs finals not better than a 4th round and a semi
if we only take into account the gs justine has the edge

ao amelie goes one further than justine = amelie +1

French justine goes 4 rounds better than amelie = justine +4

Wimbledon Amelie goes one better than ju = Amelie +1

Us Justine goes 1 better than Amelie = Ju +1

this means that amelie with 2 points

and justine with 5 points

justine performed better in the slams this year


in official; ranking points

Amelie 700+96+700+314 = 1810

Justine 492+700+492+492 = 2176

justine performed better in slams this year

there is nothing to support the amelie claim

Agree! Ad the fact Justine has more total points than Amelie in less tourneys, resp. 14 against 18, and you're there.

MinnyGophers
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:43 AM
*DEATH*

:haha: :tape:

I dunno... Mauresmo was leading 6-1 2-0 when Justine decided to call it quits. Amelie has been long regarded the champion of the AO because of the convincing style in which she probably would have won the match. If it was 7-6 in the first set, okay, different story but Mauresmo was just playing out of her mind.

Justine is a deserving world number one, in my eyes. Why? Because simply, she's been more consistent than Amelie in both slams and smaller tournaments. No question. Consistency is a BIG factor and all JuJu haters should be aware of that: the world number one goes to the player who has been MOST consistent; it is the reward for the player who has been the most CONSISTENT.

We need to make that distinction between consistency and who has had the better year. In my opinion, Mauresmo's two slams basically take the cake on this one. She's had the better year, although it has been inconsistent. Because it's been inconsistent, she's won't be ending the year as world number one. Period.

Justine deserves it. It's been shown time after time that the world number one crown goes to the player most consistent. And Justine's been exactly that. And yeah I do think that Justine would trade her slam finals for 2/4 slams in a calendar year.

All in all, this is a dead discussion. Both are fantastic players and we're in for a treat when they play the YEC final. Allez Ame! Allez Juju!


:worship:

It does not matter who is more deserving. The point is, Amelie and Justine were the two best players this year. Justine was more consistent and thus was rewarded with the YE number one ranking. Amelie played better in important matches and was rewarded with two grand slams.
Let's just congratulate both girls and move on to watch an exciting final between the two current best players on tour.

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:44 AM
have poeple forgotten justines beatdown on amelie in berlin this year,

amelie deserved the wimbledon title she played better in the final and she is better on grass, but there is no way she would have got the AO if not for the retirement.


justine won 2 slams in 03 and they were her two first yet she still sees this year as her best year.



justine is no.1 amelie is not, therfore she had the better year get over it

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:47 AM
*DEATH*

:haha: :tape:

I dunno... Mauresmo was leading 6-1 2-0 when Justine decided to call it quits. Amelie has been long regarded the champion of the AO because of the convincing style in which she probably would have won the match. If it was 7-6 in the first set, okay, different story but Mauresmo was just playing out of her mind.

Justine is a deserving world number one, in my eyes. Why? Because simply, she's been more consistent than Amelie in both slams and smaller tournaments. No question. Consistency is a BIG factor and all JuJu haters should be aware of that: the world number one goes to the player who has been MOST consistent; it is the reward for the player who has been the most CONSISTENT.

We need to make that distinction between consistency and who has had the better year. In my opinion, Mauresmo's two slams basically take the cake on this one. She's had the better year, although it has been inconsistent. Because it's been inconsistent, she's won't be ending the year as world number one. Period.

Justine deserves it. It's been shown time after time that the world number one crown goes to the player most consistent. And Justine's been exactly that. And yeah I do think that Justine would trade her slam finals for 2/4 slams in a calendar year.

All in all, this is a dead discussion. Both are fantastic players and we're in for a treat when they play the YEC final. Allez Ame! Allez Juju!



good post, i agree i'm just too biased to write a post like this one

goldenlox
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:47 AM
Look at it this way. We're setting the stage for this final.
No matter who wins the YEC, it will be a lively debate tomorrow.

MinnyGophers
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:47 AM
have poeple forgotten justines beatdown on amelie in berlin this year,

amelie deserved the wimbledon title she played better in the final and she is better on grass, but there is no way she would have got the AO if not for the retirement.


justine won 2 slams in 03 and they were her two first yet she still sees this year as her best year.



justine is no.1 amelie is not, therfore she had the better year get over it

I'm sorry Miss Cleo, I did not know you could predict such things :rolleyes:
Justine got a beatdown at the AO, get over it, and she gave a beatdown to Amelie at Berlin, and it's all dandy as well.
They both are fantastic players who always match up well. That's all that matters.

Ntour
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:49 AM
:worship:

It does not matter who is more deserving. The point is, Amelie and Justine were the two best players this year. Justine was more consistent and thus was rewarded with the YE number one ranking. Amelie played better in important matches and was rewarded with two grand slams.
Let's just congratulate both girls and move on to watch an exciting final between the two current best players on tour.

lets just say they are the two best, us amelie and justine fans shouldn't be arguing anyway, our faves are the two best players around, with similar styles

MinnyGophers
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:51 AM
lets just say they are the two best, us amelie and justine fans shouldn't be arguing anyway, our faves are the two best players around, with similar styles

Exactly, if anything we should be all be arguing with Maria fans :haha:

just kidding. :angel:

Reuchlin
Nov 12th, 2006, 03:56 AM
Tennis is not just about 'majors'--- and Amelie-- while she played some good tennis at times-- was NOT the best tennis player OVER THE WHOLE YEAR (what the year end ranking should judge)

Robbie.
Nov 12th, 2006, 05:43 AM
No Robbie. It's simple math. We can go over all the nooks and crannies and disect both JHH's and Mauresmo's year but it comes down to the slams. Mauresmo won more than anyone else. She SHOULD and rightfully so be heralded as the player of the year. Sorry, but if you think anything otherwise then it is pure and utter biased.

Try telling Lorena Ochoa that Se Ri Pak has had a better year than her.

In fact try telling Annika Sorenstam that she has had a better year than Ochoa. She'd laugh at you.

It is only tennis fans that can't grasp the fact that winning a major is an analytically distinct achievement from being ranked #1 or POY. These are things to be strived for in and of themselves. Further, most ordinary people care a hell of a lot more about the rankings in determining who the best player is. And its for the simple fact that they are usually more accurate because they take into account a much larger time span and look past abberations. But you are convinced that Myskina and Kuznetsova were better players than Davenport in 2004 so there is no hope for you.

G1Player2
Nov 12th, 2006, 05:44 AM
Try telling Lorena Ochoa that Se Ri Pak has had a better year than her.

WTH are you talking about dude?

Robbie.
Nov 12th, 2006, 05:58 AM
WTH are you talking about dude?

Just trying to illustrate a simple concept that you can't grasp, which is that the entire year is actually longer than 8 weeks.

I had to laugh when you called me biased. Like I would ever defend Justine if I didn't have to :tape:

austennis
Nov 12th, 2006, 07:39 AM
since last year.. each YE No. 1 is the most deserving cause they had the best results of the year fullstop.. Amelie may have one 4 tournaments but three were in the 1st month and only one since and she failed to perform at the french.. maria had an awesome year but only made and won the 1 GS final.. Justine is the deserving and rightful no.1..

Justine Fan
Nov 12th, 2006, 08:55 AM
If Amelie beats her in 3 of those 5..
How can you even argue that?
You can only argue it if Justine wins tomorrow.
Even then, she'd rather have 2 majors

And Amelie would rather have 5 ;) and a GOLD medal thrown in for good measure :p

<!Society!>
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Oh, you're just projecting your disdain about the state of British tennis which has been in the toilet for so many decades.

i havn't once mentioned british tennis and really dont care much about the state it is in.

Only a retard like you could possibly draw such a conclusion from me talking about henin needing a wash

Mightymirza
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:01 PM
the only thing that she deserves is face wipes to rid herself of the red rash constantly around her mouth and a good slap.

No its YOU who deserves it and much more!!

Asmus
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:29 AM
I wasn't saying so much that Justine was more deserving than Amelie, but rather that she's more deserving than Lindsay has been the past two years (with all due respect). It truly is debatable whether Justine would trade years with Amelie; it was pretty amazing to reach all 4 finals, winning 1 and winning the YEC as well.

hdfb
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:56 AM
For me it's simple. Amelie had a breakthrough, won two majors, and hence, in my eyes, deserves that #1 ranking this year over JHH.

cecilija
Nov 16th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Justine would trade her year for Amelie's in one second.
:lol:
Justine wouldn't trade her RG title for any other title. :angel:

goldenlox
Nov 16th, 2006, 11:53 AM
:lol:
Justine wouldn't trade her RG title for any other title. :angel:
You don't think Justine wants a Wimbledon title?
Plus another AO title?

cecilija
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:00 PM
You don't think Justine wants a Wimbledon title?
Plus another AO title?

Of course she wants, but RG is the most important one. :)

arn
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:01 PM
I agree Mauresmo had the best year of all woman (because only the GS's count in this criteria), but the best year doesn't mean you deserve being ranked #1. For being ranked #1 more factors should be taken into account

The WTAtour is more than 4 GS's (luckily so, otherwise their woudn't be much tennis during the year) and being #1 should be about GS's and how you've done during the rest of the year (with the GS's as the biggest share).

Marcus1979
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:14 PM
remember in 2000 and 2001

where Injuries limited Venus schedule yet she didn't finish #1 even tho most people saw her as the best player in those years

samresmo
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:38 PM
In ten or more years, only the winner will be known!
It does not matter if justine reached all the major finals!

Justine deserves to be the year end numbor 1 because of her consistency like MAuresmo did when she reached the first spot! But I do think nobody will remember what Justine did compared to mauresmo's two victories!

TonyP
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:47 PM
The points work out the way they work out. Justine had a good year, Mauresmo had a better one in my opinion, but Justine came out ahead on points. And incidentally, going back to the post that started this thread, Davenport was not year end number one in '99 and 2000, Hingis was and deseerved to be.

And as for who will remember what in the years to come, Justine will be remembered for having won RG again, and perhaps for getting to the finals of the other three slams, but also be remembered for retiring in the AO.

treufreund
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:24 PM
Guys, puhleez, justine played 4 fewer tourneys than amelie and yet still had 607 more points than her!!!had juju played those four extra tourneys then she would have had approximately 1500 more pts on the year. she outclassed amelie on the whole but came up short in two big matches due to fatigue in one case and illness in the other. otherwise, she did way better at roland garros, us open, the yec, fed cup and several other tourneys. amelie had a great year but it doesn't objectively match justine's

griffin
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:53 PM
For me it's simple. Amelie had a breakthrough, won two majors, and hence, in my eyes, deserves that #1 ranking this year over JHH.

I adore Mauresmo. Suffice it to say, I do not adore Ms. Henin-Hardenne.

But neither she nor Lindsay got their rankings points from a cracker jack box. They didn't buy them, they didn't steal them, they earned them.

To me that means they earned and deserve the year end #1 ranking.

We can argue till we're blue in the face about who's accomplishments "meant more" or who had a better year, or who's year meant more to her, but the rankings can't be argued away.

goldenlox
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:04 PM
The way the rankings are computed can be disagreed with.
Winning a major gives you 700 points.
Losing the final gets you 492, but half the money.
The importance of winning that last match isn't reflected in the rankings.

buckyohare
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:25 PM
To me it's simple. Nr. 1 is reserved for the best player over the course of the year. Having 6 good matches, which is basically what winning 2 GS comes down to for a high ranked player( {QF,SF,F}x2, other rounds are a joke), is not enough to give you that claim.

Mauresmo may arguably have the more satisfying results, but there's no doubt that JHH is by far the most dominating player this year. A lot of players can beat Mauresmo or at least give her a match, while only a few can do that to Justine. And I am not sure it's just a matter of consistency, Mauresmo to me just doesn't have the game to put some other high ranked players away easily.
Let's put it this way. If you have to choose to bet your life on Momo vs a random top20 player or on JHH vs a random top 20 player, who would you choose ? I'd choose JHH without thinking.

goldenlox
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:32 PM
You can't say - there's no doubt that JHH is by far the most dominating player this year

You don't dominate by losing finals.

buckyohare
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:43 PM
You can't say - there's no doubt that JHH is by far the most dominating player this year

You don't dominate by losing finals.

Relatively speaking. Otherwise i would've said THE dominant player.