PDA

View Full Version : Only 8 year-end #1s in WTA History


Leo_DFP
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:58 AM
Since the rankings were put in place, there have only been eight year-ending #1 players. I just came across this stat while browsing tenniscorner.net, bored at work a minute ago. And I guess I never really thought about it before. I knew that, until the last few years, the #1 ranking had always been reserved for the elite. That has sort of changed when considering that players like Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, and Mauresmo have all held the #1 ranking at times in the past decade without holding a GS title; additionally, we have recent #1s like Ivanovic and Jankovic who are still relatively weak. Certainly not great champions... yet.

But for the moment, let us celebrate Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, S.Williams, and Henin!

Year End #1 Players1975 Chris Evert
1976 Chris Evert
1977 Chris Evert
1978 Martina Navratilova
1979 Martina Navratilova
1980 Chris Evert
1981 Chris Evert
1982 Martina Navratilova
1983 Martina Navratilova
1984 Martina Navratilova
1985 Martina Navratilova
1986 Martina Navratilova
1987 Steffi Graf
1988 Steffi Graf
1989 Steffi Graf
1990 Steffi Graf
1991 Monica Seles
1992 Monica Seles
1993 Steffi Graf
1994 Steffi Graf
1995 Steffi Graf
1996 Steffi Graf
1997 Martina Hingis
1998 Lindsay Davenport
1999 Martina Hingis
2000 Martina Hingis
2001 Lindsay Davenport
2002 Serena Williams
2003 Justine Henin
2004 Lindsay Davenport
2005 Lindsay Davenport
2006 Justine Henin
2007 Justine Henin

I think it would be fitting for Serena to end 2008 at the top of the rankings. She's been the best, she deserves it, and it would follow suit with history. Jankovic or Safina sliding in there with such greats as Navratilova, Graf, etc. would be a bit disapppointing. IMO.

Leo_DFP
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:00 AM
Full link charts week-by-week changes: http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=w&action=stats&stats=no1

hankqq
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:24 AM
wow. I forgot Davenport held it at the end of 4 different years :eek:
Graf and Navratilova :worship:

thanks for posting :yeah:

Go Serena-hold that ranking :rocker: :drool:

Szczecin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:39 AM
Surprisingly enough Serena is the odd one out there...

Everyone else has held it at least 2 times... Many with more...

Roookie
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:45 AM
You got that right. Serena totally deserves to finish no. 1 this year. Can't believe Venus is not in that list though.

tennisIlove09
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:51 AM
You got that right. Serena totally deserves to finish no. 1 this year. Can't believe Venus is not in that list though.
She's not, but I think in the tennis publics eyes she was the best player in 2000 and 2001.

I think Safina may sneak out the #1 ranking this year. She is playing so well, and she will actually show up to play. Serena is such a wildcard of whether she'll play or not ... especially in the fall.

hankqq
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:54 AM
You got that right. Serena totally deserves to finish no. 1 this year. Can't believe Venus is not in that list though.

I know. For shame Venus, for shame. :o

OsloErik
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:03 AM
I think it's stunning that Davenport finished #1 four different years, but only won a slam during one of them. That's pretty remarkable. I think Hingis is the only player who also finished #1 without a slam, but she just did it the once. Pretty incredible.

LindsayRulz
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:36 AM
Hopefully Serena will finish the year ranked #1! It's surpring to see that only few players within the elite have finished the year at the top spot. :worship:

friendsita
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:46 AM
I think it would be fitting for Serena to end 2008 at the top of the rankings. She's been the best, she deserves it, and it would follow suit with history. Jankovic or Safina sliding in there with such greats as Navratilova, Graf, etc. would be a bit disapppointing. IMO.

Even though I like JJ and Dinara, it is true.

PLP
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:58 AM
I think it's stunning that Davenport finished #1 four different years, but only won a slam during one of them. That's pretty remarkable. I think Hingis is the only player who also finished #1 without a slam, but she just did it the once. Pretty incredible.

What struck me about looking at those stats was that
A. Hingis was #1 until October of 1998 so Davenport took the #1 ranking a month before the end of the year.
B. While Venus had a difficult start to 2000 it is understandable she didn't get to #1 that year but it still always shocks me that she hasn't held the #1 ranking more than 11 weeks&
C. 2001 was all about Jennifer and Venus, what fantastic accomplishments for both but kudos to Lindsay for being so consistent ans ending the year at #1 (and Martina who held the ranking almost that entire year)

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 11:03 AM
She's not, but I think in the tennis publics eyes she was the best player in 2000 and 2001.


No, she wasn't.

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 11:52 AM
She's not, but I think in the tennis publics eyes she was the best player in 2000 and 2001.

Unfortunately, being the best player in the "tennis publics eyes" doesn't mean squat.

Xanadu11
Sep 23rd, 2008, 12:02 PM
Hingi :hearts: All while being a coke whore and without any slams in 2000 :hearts:

Hardiansf
Sep 23rd, 2008, 12:20 PM
Serena, make it 2!

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 12:54 PM
Lindsay :worship: She + Evert/Navratilova/Graf are the only ones to have done this at least 4 times.

I think some of these years show that you can win all the slams you want, but if you can't play at that level throughout the year and produce consistent results then you're not worthy of the number 1 ranking.

Olórin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 01:37 PM
Unfortunately, being the best player in the "tennis publics eyes" doesn't mean squat.

One of the most ridiculous statements I have read. Doesn't mean squat? If you ask people who was the best tennis player in 2001, I guarantee you more people will say Venus Williams than Lindsay Davenport. So yes, it actually does mean quite a lot.

Olórin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 01:42 PM
Lindsay :worship: She + Evert/Navratilova/Graf are the only ones to have done this at least 4 times.

I think some of these years show that you can win all the slams you want, but if you can't play at that level throughout the year and produce consistent results then you're not worthy of the number 1 ranking.

I don't think it shows anything like that.

I think it shows that you need to play throughout the entire year to be number one. In 2000 and 2001 Venus had a 90%+ winning percentage, was winning over half the tournaments she entered, winning half the Grand Slams being played. She was beating everyone, playing very much like a number one player. I think it was more a case of other players playing more, and the best player in the world not playing at enough tournaments.

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 02:02 PM
I don't think it shows anything like that.

I think it shows that you need to play throughout the entire year to be number one. In 2000 and 2001 Venus had a 90%+ winning percentage, was winning over half the tournaments she entered, winning half the Grand Slams being played. She was beating everyone, playing very much like a number one player. I think it was more a case of other players playing more, and the best player in the world not playing at enough tournaments.

In 2001 Lindsay actually missed the whole claycourt season including the French, so it's not like she was whoring up the tournaments. You can say Venus should have played more, but there's no way of telling that she would have won these extra tournaments, and had she played more, she may not have performed as well in the slams. Venus was obviously playing the amount of tennis comfortable for her, but it wasen't enough to get to the top of the rankings. In that year, with 2 Grand Slams and going unbeaten against Davenport and Capriati, Venus clearly achieved the highest level of tennis. But it didn't last the whole year so she didn't deserve the year-end number 1 ranking.

Donny
Sep 23rd, 2008, 02:13 PM
Lindsay :worship: She + Evert/Navratilova/Graf are the only ones to have done this at least 4 times.

I think some of these years show that you can win all the slams you want, but if you can't play at that level throughout the year and produce consistent results then you're not worthy of the number 1 ranking.

Actually, I think this shows that in the last decade or so, the number one ranking has been in no way indicative of the actual best player on tour was. Any overlap between the clear best player and number one player, in fact, seems to be almost coincidental.

pov
Sep 23rd, 2008, 02:30 PM
Unfortunately, being the best player in the "tennis publics eyes" doesn't mean squat.
Often that might be so. Let's check the results in 2001

Venus Williams: 2 GS titles, 1 Tier I title, 12 tournaments - 6 wins, 90% win percentage
Lindsay Davenport: 2 Tier I titles, 17 tournaments - 7 wins, 88% win percentage

markhingis
Sep 23rd, 2008, 02:36 PM
If I wasn't into tennis, reading those stats, I could think that Lindsay was #1 for longer time than Martina. So this kind of statistic doesn't exactly present who was a better player during an entire year...

markhingis
Sep 23rd, 2008, 02:38 PM
Often that might be so. Let's check the results in 2001

Venus Williams: 2 GS titles, Olympic gold, 1 Tier I title
Lindsay Davenport: 2 Tier I titles

I think it's clear who had the better year.

That's why I claim that this kind of stat isn't reliable. Hingis injured herself badly during Filderstand, which cost her #1 spot. However, Venus should be year-end #1 that year.

Vamos.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:07 PM
:help: Jelena or Safina would totally ruin that.

First Slamless Year End #1 ever. :help: :tape:

Play some tournaments ffs, Serena!

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:14 PM
Actually, I think this shows that in the last decade or so, the number one ranking has been in no way indicative of the actual best player on tour was. Any overlap between the clear best player and number one player, in fact, seems to be almost coincidental.

The best player on tour is the one who produces the highest level of tennis on the most regular basis over the entire year, not the one who wins the most grand slams.

Often that might be so. Let's check the results in 2001

Venus Williams: 2 GS titles, Olympic gold, 1 Tier I title, 12 tournaments - 6 wins, 90% win percentage
Lindsay Davenport: 2 Tier I titles, 17 tournaments - 7 wins, 88% win percentage

2001 Olympic Gold? Anyway, with 2 slams Venus did play at the highest level in 2001 but it was short lived. She didn't play at all after the USO, and lost in her first or second match at 3 tournaments (including the French Open). Davenport won 17 more matches, 1 more title, and made at least the QF of every tournament, and only 3 times failing to make the SF. So it's a matter of consistency/quality of results vs peak level reached.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:21 PM
:help: Jelena or Safina would totally ruin that.

First Slamless Year End #1 ever. :help: :tape:

Play some tournaments ffs, Serena!

Wrong. Read the thread for damn sake. Lindsay Davenport was a slamless year end #1 three times. Martina Hingis was a slamless year end #1 once as well.

The Kaz
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:21 PM
The best player on tour is the one who produces the highest level of tennis on the most regular basis over the entire year, not the one who wins the most grand slams.



2001 Olympic Gold? Anyway, with 2 slams Venus did play at the highest level in 2001 but it was short lived. She didn't play at all after the USO, and lost in her first or second match at 3 tournaments (including the French Open). Davenport won 17 more matches, 1 more title, and made at least the QF of every tournament, and only 3 times failing to make the SF. So it's a matter of consistency/quality of results vs peak level reached.

Exactly.

Venus is a patchy player and can only play decent tennis for 2-4 weeks max.

Lindsay deserved the #1 sport cos she was the most consistent :)

I hope to see someone new at the top and the end of this year :D

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:22 PM
Actually, I think this shows that in the last decade or so, the number one ranking has been in no way indicative of the actual best player on tour was. Any overlap between the clear best player and number one player, in fact, seems to be almost coincidental.

Reading this, one would think that Hingis and Davenport weren't the best players in women's tennis in 1998-2000. Are you seriously claiming Venus or Serena had better records in any one of those years?

The Kaz
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:22 PM
Wrong. Read the thread for damn sake. Lindsay Davenport was a slamless year end #1 three times. Martina Hingis was a slamless year end #1 once as well.

I think they meant career-wise. But your point is still valid ;)

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:25 PM
I think they meant career-wise. But your point is still valid ;)

Well judging it any other way is silly. Nobody knows whether Jankovic or Safina will finish their careers without a Slam.

Pheobo
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:33 PM
Linds :worship:

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:33 PM
Well judging it any other way is silly. Nobody knows whether Jankovic or Safina will finish their careers without a Slam.

He meant that nobody who haden't previously won a slam has ever finished as no.1. But I agree with you that Jankovic or Safina could very well in a slam in the future, even next year. I think whoever gets there deserves it. If someone does it without a slam title, then all the more credit to them.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:48 PM
He meant that nobody who haden't previously won a slam has ever finished as no.1. But I agree with you that Jankovic or Safina could very well in a slam in the future, even next year. I think whoever gets there deserves it. If someone does it without a slam title, then all the more credit to them.

Yup. I think the fact that Lindsay earned the end of the year ranking three times without winning a Slam is a testament to her consistancy. The fact that only one other time has this been done reflects that it isn't easy to accumulate more ranking points than anyone else without winning a Slam. And if a player can do that, well good for them. :yeah:

pov
Sep 23rd, 2008, 03:55 PM
2001 Olympic Gold?
:haha: ouch .yeah . . .that was when they were having the Olympics every 5 or 3 years. lol. My apologies for the glaring blooper.

darkchild
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:11 PM
You people bash Lindsay and Martina for finishing No.1 without slam titles, but they are the only people who have accomplish that.
You cannot argue that Jennifer, Amelie and Co. did not try.
Oh, right, they failed. :o

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Sep 23rd, 2008, 04:19 PM
Andy Roddick in 2003

kwilliams
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:04 PM
Exactly.

Venus is a patchy player and can only play decent tennis for 2-4 weeks max.

Lindsay deserved the #1 sport cos she was the most consistent :)

I hope to see someone new at the top and the end of this year :D

We're largely talking about 2000 and 2001 here. Do you remember 2000? Venus won 6 straight tournaments: Wimbledon, Stanford, San Diego, New Haven, U.S. Open and the Olympics. In her next tournament, Linz, she made the final. Her 35 match win streak in 2000 is the longest of the decade (or century or millenium!) so far! Her hot streak lasted over 3 months.

In 2001 Venus had an 11 match win streak in early summer and a 3 tournament/16 match win streak in late summer (San Diego, New Haven and the U.S. Open). She didn't play in the autumn but technically that 16 match win streak extended to a 24 match win streak in early 2002!

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:18 PM
We're largely talking about 2000 and 2001 here. Do you remember 2000? Venus won 6 straight tournaments: Wimbledon, Stanford, San Diego, New Haven, U.S. Open and the Olympics. In her next tournament, Linz, she made the final. Her 35 match win streak in 2000 is the longest of the decade (or century or millenium!) so far! Her hot streak lasted over 3 months.

In 2001 Venus had an 11 match win streak in early summer and a 3 tournament/16 match win streak in late summer (San Diego, New Haven and the U.S. Open). She didn't play in the autumn but technically that 16 match win streak extended to a 24 match win streak in early 2002!

Seles, Graf, Henin, Navratilova, and Hingis have all had longer win streaks. And this is just off the top of my head.

Hingiswinsthis
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:22 PM
lol the good old glory days...i remember how Hingis was bamboozled in and out for that 2000 season that she was year-end #1. but Lindsay Davenport takes the cake on this one!
as much as i heart sweetie Dinara, i really hope Serena Williams can hang on to finish the year-end #1 to salvage a year that was really....a mess for the WTA if you think about it. If Dinara can finish #2, that it self is a huge success.

kwilliams
Sep 23rd, 2008, 05:51 PM
Seles, Graf, Henin, Navratilova, and Hingis have all had longer win streaks. And this is just off the top of my head.

Of this decade.

OsloErik
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:03 PM
Andy Roddick in 2003

...didn't he win the US Open that year? If that's not the point you were making, I don't understand why this post is here.

Olórin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:06 PM
Seles, Graf, Henin, Navratilova, and Hingis have all had longer win streaks. And this is just off the top of my head.

Henin has not had a longer winning streak. Do some research for a change.

Olórin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:09 PM
In 2001 Lindsay actually missed the whole claycourt season including the French, so it's not like she was whoring up the tournaments. You can say Venus should have played more, but there's no way of telling that she would have won these extra tournaments, and had she played more, she may not have performed as well in the slams. Venus was obviously playing the amount of tennis comfortable for her, but it wasen't enough to get to the top of the rankings. In that year, with 2 Grand Slams and going unbeaten against Davenport and Capriati, Venus clearly achieved the highest level of tennis. But it didn't last the whole year so she didn't deserve the year-end number 1 ranking.

She did deserve the number one ranking, she was playing like a number one player for a large part of the year, that's the point I was making; if Venus had been ranked one it would have been deserved, while you seemed to imply that it wouldn't be. It happened to be the case, and I concede that Lindsay deserved it more based on her previous 12 month results. I hope I never implied that Linds wasn't a deserving number one.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:11 PM
...didn't he win the US Open that year? If that's not the point you were making, I don't understand why this post is here.

It is not that important being the number 1 at the end of the year since that clown got this achievement

frenchie
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:13 PM
Venus should have finished number 1 in 2000 and 2001 based on her results

Serena would have finished 2003 at number 1 without her knee injury

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:17 PM
No, she wasn't.

Yes she was!

Serena for the love of GOD!

Do not let these SCRUBS! take the year-end #1. Well Safina isn't a scrub but she really shouldn't be up there!

Donny
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:17 PM
The best player on tour is the one who produces the highest level of tennis on the most regular basis over the entire year, not the one who wins the most grand slams.



Says who? You? Just because the ranking system (for the moment) agrees with you doesn't make it true.

What if the WTA had decided on a whim to award GS tournament wins exorbitantly high rankings points? To the tune of 4000 points? Venus would have surely ended up year end number one in 2001. Would she then have suddenly replaced Davenport as 2001's best player?

Not even the WTA agrees with you. Safina and Jankovic both are in contention for year end number one. Neither one is even close to being considered playr of the year.

Donny
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:17 PM
Reading this, one would think that Hingis and Davenport weren't the best players in women's tennis in 1998-2000. Are you seriously claiming Venus or Serena had better records in any one of those years?

Who mentioned Venus or Serena?

All I was implying was that there's no direct correlation between best player in the world, and the number one ranking. The ranking system is an arbitrary system created by those who have it in their interests to see players play a lot.

tennisIlove09
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:34 PM
Reading this, one would think that Hingis and Davenport weren't the best players in women's tennis in 1998-2000. Are you seriously claiming Venus or Serena had better records in any one of those years?
98 and 99 no.
Certainly you can not say either Hingis or Davenport had better records than Venus in 2000. Even though Hingis won 10 (?) titles that year, Venus won the bigger titles. Venus had 6 titles that year (4 less than Hingis) and didnt start playing until May. There's no way Hingis or Lindsay had better records in 2000.
Plus, Venus owned them both that year.
H2H vs. Hingis
2-0
Wimbledon QF Venus 63 46 64
US Open SF Venus 46 63 75

3-1 vs. Davenport
Wimbledon F Venus 63 76
Stanford F Venus 61 64
US Open F Venus 64 75
Linz F Davenport 64 36 62

darkchild
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:40 PM
Says who? You? Just because the ranking system (for the moment) agrees with you doesn't make it true.

What if the WTA had decided on a whim to award GS tournament wins exorbitantly high rankings points? To the tune of 4000 points? Venus would have surely ended up year end number one in 2001. Would she then have suddenly replaced Davenport as 2001's best player?

Not even the WTA agrees with you. Safina and Jankovic both are in contention for year end number one. Neither one is even close to being considered playr of the year.

The ranking system is different now, quality points do make a difference.
Jankovic and Safina are both in contention for year-end No.1 because they overplay and every point counts. They respectively have 17 and 18 tournaments after PPO.
In 2001, 2004, 2005, Lindsay has played no more than 17 in a calender year.

Ciarán
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:42 PM
Justine :worship:

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:54 PM
Exactly.

Venus is a patchy player and can only play decent tennis for 2-4 weeks max.

Lindsay deserved the #1 sport cos she was the most consistent :)

I hope to see someone new at the top and the end of this year :D

35 match winning streak, DUDE!

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:55 PM
Venus should have finished number 1 in 2000 and 2001 based on her results


I disagree. Venus was pretty much non-existant in the first half of both years. Losing 1:6,2:6 to Dokic or losing to Schett in the first round of a Slam doesn't automatically make you a #1 :lol:



Serena would have finished 2003 at number 1 without her knee injury


That is speculation, and again I disagree. Considering how well Justine played at USO 2003, I dare to say that Serena would have had to play her absolute best to have a chance against her.

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:57 PM
She did deserve the number one ranking, she was playing like a number one player for a large part of the year, that's the point I was making; if Venus had been ranked one it would have been deserved, while you seemed to imply that it wouldn't be. It happened to be the case, and I concede that Lindsay deserved it more based on her previous 12 month results. I hope I never implied that Linds wasn't a deserving number one.

Certainly through the middle part of the year when she won Wimbledon/San Diego/New Haven/USO, she was the best player on tour. Nobody else reached that kind of level in the year 2001. But my point was outside of that run, Venus didn't do an awful lot in the rest of the year (a couple of titles in the 1st half of the year and AO SF being it).

Says who? You? Just because the ranking system (for the moment) agrees with you doesn't make it true.

What if the WTA had decided on a whim to award GS tournament wins exorbitantly high rankings points? To the tune of 4000 points? Venus would have surely ended up year end number one in 2001. Would she then have suddenly replaced Davenport as 2001's best player?

Not even the WTA agrees with you. Safina and Jankovic both are in contention for year end number one. Neither one is even close to being considered playr of the year.

The WTA TOUR ranking system is based on WTA TOUR results from the last 52 weeks. Grand Slams are merely 8 weeks of that, and while they are the most important tournaments, there are still 44 other weeks in the year. If the rankings were only based on Slams then it wouldn't be a "Tour Ranking".

98 and 99 no.
Certainly you can not say either Hingis or Davenport had better records than Venus in 2000. Even though Hingis won 10 (?) titles that year, Venus won the bigger titles. Venus had 6 titles that year (4 less than Hingis) and didnt start playing until May. There's no way Hingis or Lindsay had better records in 2000.
Plus, Venus owned them both that year.
H2H vs. Hingis
2-0
Wimbledon QF Venus 63 46 64
US Open SF Venus 46 63 75

3-1 vs. Davenport
Wimbledon F Venus 63 76
Stanford F Venus 61 64
US Open F Venus 64 75
Linz F Davenport 64 36 62

2000 is pretty similar to 2001. Venus of course played the best tennis at any point in 2000, but again, her dominance of the tour lasted in and around 3 months out of 12. The fact that she didn't play at all in the first 4 months of the season and only 1 tournament after OG means she cannot really be considered for no.1 player of 2000 JAN-DEC against players (Hingis/Davenport) who played a full schedule and were winning matches more regularly. I think Venus was rightfully ranked no.3 in 2000, but I think she was also rightfully considered the most dangerous player due to the level she displayed in the summer. But tennis is a game of consistency.

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:58 PM
Seles, Graf, Henin, Navratilova, and Hingis have all had longer win streaks. And this is just off the top of my head.

:confused:

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:00 PM
I disagree. Venus was pretty much non-existant in the first half of both years. Losing 1:6,2:6 to Dokic or losing to Schett in the first round of a Slam doesn't automatically make you a #1 :lol:





That is speculation, and again I disagree. Considering how well Justine played at USO 2003, I dare to say that Serena would have had to play her absolute best to have a chance against her.

Justine's SF opponent would disagree with that.

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:02 PM
WOW!!!

Just try and keep your mouth SHUT, yes SHUT unless you have something intelligent to say!


LOL...oversensitive much? :lol:

You know that I speak the truth :p

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:02 PM
Dodoboy learn to use multiquote :ras: :p

tennisIlove09
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:03 PM
Certainly through the middle part of the year when she won Wimbledon/San Diego/New Haven/USO, she was the best player on tour. Nobody else reached that kind of level in the year 2001. But my point was outside of that run, Venus didn't do an awful lot in the rest of the year (a couple of titles in the 1st half of the year and AO SF being it).



The WTA TOUR ranking system is based on WTA TOUR results from the last 52 weeks. Grand Slams are merely 8 weeks of that, and while they are the most important tournaments, there are still 44 other weeks in the year. If the rankings were only based on Slams then it wouldn't be a "Tour Ranking".



2000 is pretty similar to 2001. Venus of course played the best tennis at any point in 2000, but again, her dominance of the tour lasted in and around 3 months out of 12. The fact that she didn't play at all in the first 4 months of the season and only 1 tournament after OG means she cannot really be considered for no.1 player of 2000 JAN-DEC against players (Hingis/Davenport) who played a full schedule and were winning matches more regularly. I think Venus was rightfully ranked no.3 in 2000, but I think she was also rightfully considered the most dangerous player due to the level she displayed in the summer. But tennis is a game of consistency.

In 2001 Lindsay Davenport ended the year #1. She pretty much admitted that she would have rather have had Venus' year with Wimbledon and the US Open over the number one ranking.

You can not tell me that Hingis-Davenport (who were ranked higher than Venus in 2000) would rather have had their years and ranks over Venus :)

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:05 PM
Justine's SF opponent would disagree with that.


Did you see that match? It was high quality tennis and one of the best matches of the century. Lots of top players in their normal form would have lost in two easy sets against either player (Jen or Justine) that day.

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:06 PM
In 2001 Lindsay Davenport ended the year #1. She pretty much admitted that she would have rather have had Venus' year with Wimbledon and the US Open over the number one ranking.

You can not tell me that Hingis-Davenport (who were ranked higher than Venus in 2000) would rather have had their years and ranks over Venus :)


No offense, but this thread is not about which players would have rather have the year of which other player.

Olórin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:09 PM
Certainly through the middle part of the year when she won Wimbledon/San Diego/New Haven/USO, she was the best player on tour. Nobody else reached that kind of level in the year 2001. But my point was outside of that run, Venus didn't do an awful lot in the rest of the year (a couple of titles in the 1st half of the year and AO SF being it).


Well I find you quite dismissive of Venus' achievements, first saying she wasn't worthy of the number one ranking in 2000/2001 and now saying a Miami title, Grand Slam semi-final, and clay title are not really a noteworthy achievement. The only bad loss she had was in the French. 22-4 and two titles are pretty impressive first half of the year results for any player. In fact the world number one herself achieved very little more.

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:09 PM
In 2001 Lindsay Davenport ended the year #1. She pretty much admitted that she would have rather have had Venus' year with Wimbledon and the US Open over the number one ranking.

You can not tell me that Hingis-Davenport (who were ranked higher than Venus in 2000) would rather have had their years and ranks over Venus :)

I think anybody would like a Wimbledon/USO and lose 1R of all there other events, but it doesn't mean they would deserve to be ranked no.1. ;) Nobody would pick to have a ranking over a slam.

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:12 PM
Of this decade.

I was sure of the others, except Henin, even though I said off the top of my head. You'd mentioned century and millenium as well. Regardless, I stand corrected.

Henin has not had a longer winning streak. Do some research for a change.

Read above.

Who mentioned Venus or Serena?

All I was implying was that there's no direct correlation between best player in the world, and the number one ranking. The ranking system is an arbitrary system created by those who have it in their interests to see players play a lot.

You'd stated in the last decade, which spans to 1998. Venus and Serena ended 1999 #3 and #4 behind Hingis and Davenport, hence the mention.

98 and 99 no.
Certainly you can not say either Hingis or Davenport had better records than Venus in 2000. Even though Hingis won 10 (?) titles that year, Venus won the bigger titles. Venus had 6 titles that year (4 less than Hingis) and didnt start playing until May. There's no way Hingis or Lindsay had better records in 2000.
Plus, Venus owned them both that year.
H2H vs. Hingis
2-0
Wimbledon QF Venus 63 46 64
US Open SF Venus 46 63 75

3-1 vs. Davenport
Wimbledon F Venus 63 76
Stanford F Venus 61 64
US Open F Venus 64 75
Linz F Davenport 64 36 62

But they did have better records than Venus. Both won more matches. Hingis won more titles. Venus won the 2 Slams, but Hingis and Davenport won more matches at the GS events than Venus. Also, if I am not mistaken, the Olympics did not award ranking points in 2000, so as far as the year-end rankings are concerned, that never happened. As has already been mentioned, Venus was out for till May and didn't play much after September. Being #1 is not a part-time job. At least it wasn't then.

Regarding 2001, Capriati had a better record in the GS events than Venus. How come no one is clamoring to hand her year-end #1 for '01? Could it be because GS events are not all that contribute to the year-end ranking?

Olórin
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:13 PM
Did you see that match? It was high quality tennis and one of the best matches of the century. Lots of top players in their normal form would have lost in two easy sets against either player (Jen or Justine) that day.

I don't think you've seen the match. Both have played many, many matches where they produced better tennis. It was the closeness and scrappiness of the encounter that made it a classic one.

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:15 PM
Dodoboy learn to use multiquote :ras: :p

No :p

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:16 PM
Did you see that match? It was high quality tennis and one of the best matches of the century. Lots of top players in their normal form would have lost in two easy sets against either player (Jen or Justine) that day.

I didn't say anything about the quality of the match :confused: I just said Jen wouldn't agree with your comment .

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:18 PM
Well I find you quite dismissive of Venus' achievements, first saying she wasn't worthy of the number one ranking in 2000/2001 and now saying a Miami title, Grand Slam semi-final, and clay title are not really a noteworthy achievement. The only bad loss she had was in the French. 22-4 and two titles are pretty impressive good first half of the year results for any player. In fact the world number one herself achieved very little more.

I'm not dismissing them. What she did in the first half of the year was still very impressive, but I was comparing to what Davenport did for the rest of the year. Apart from losing 1R of the French, Venus did not play after the US Open. It's the same thing, she wasen't adding points onto her ranking. I don't think there was anything wrong with saying Venus was not worthy of the no.1 ranking in 2000 and 2001 because she never was no.1 then.

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:19 PM
I was sure of the others, except Henin, even though I said off the top of my head. You'd mentioned century and millenium as well. Regardless, I stand corrected.



Read above.



You'd stated in the last decade, which spans to 1998. Venus and Serena ended 1999 #3 and #4 behind Hingis and Davenport, hence the mention.



But they did have better records than Venus. Both won more matches. Hingis won more titles. Venus won the 2 Slams, but Hingis and Davenport won more matches at the GS events than Venus. Also, if I am not mistaken, the Olympics did not award ranking points in 2000, so as far as the year-end rankings are concerned, that never happened. As has already been mentioned, Venus was out for till May and didn't play much after September. Being #1 is not a part-time job. At least it wasn't then.

Regarding 2001, Capriati had a better record in the GS events than Venus. How come no one is clamoring to hand her year-end #1 for '01? Could it be because GS events are not all that contribute to the year-end ranking?

Because she didn't win two slams/

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:21 PM
I didn't say anything about the quality of the match :confused: I just said Jen wouldn't agree with your comment .


And why would she disagree? And how is this relevant for this thread?

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:22 PM
I don't think you've seen the match.


Fact is that I have seen the match. You are wrong. As often.

Matt01
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:23 PM
Because she didn't win two slams/


:wavey:

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:24 PM
Because she didn't win two slams/

But she did.

Capriati:

AO - W
RG - W
Wim - SF
US - SF

Venus:

AO - SF
RG - R1
Wim - W
US - W

Donny
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:29 PM
You'd stated in the last decade, which spans to 1998. Venus and Serena ended 1999 #3 and #4 behind Hingis and Davenport, hence the mention.



I didn't say that Hingis and Davenport weren't the best in the world at that time. I'm saying that their rankings were in no way reflective of if they were in fact, the best.


Currently, Serena is number one. As a Serena fan, I still think that the ranking is close to meaningless.

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:37 PM
But she did.

Capriati:

AO - W
RG - W
Wim - SF
US - SF

Venus:

AO - SF
RG - R1
Wim - W
US - W

In 2000?

VRee_Willario
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:39 PM
Yeah :rolls:

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:41 PM
And why would she disagree? And how is this relevant for this thread?

Fact is that I have seen the match. You are wrong. As often.

:wavey:

There is something called multi-quote!! :angel:

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:43 PM
I didn't say that Hingis and Davenport weren't the best in the world at that time. I'm saying that their rankings were in no way reflective of if they were in fact, the best.


Currently, Serena is number one. As a Serena fan, I still think that the ranking is close to meaningless.

But they were. Hingis and Davenport won the same number of Slams and tournament titles in 1999. Hingis ended the year at #1 because she reached 3 Slam finals to Davenport's 1. This was a case where Slam results acted as a tie-breaker, since they were so even in all other areas.

Regarding Serena being ranked number one, she unquestionably deserves it. Only she and Ana have two Slam finals this year, with one win each. Ivanovic has a R3 and R2 while Serena has a QF and R3. However, Serena's won more tournaments than Ana this year, which adds to the case for Serena being #1. Besides, in the last 52 weeks she's accumulated the most points.

hingis-seles
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:46 PM
In 2000?

In 2001, which is also stated in the original post you quoted.

Are you related to Denise? The similarities are eerie.

Dodoboy.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:50 PM
In 2001, which is also stated in the original post you quoted.

Are you related to Denise? The similarities are eerie.

Sorry :lol:

I'll ignore that last part of the post, rude person!

Donny
Sep 23rd, 2008, 07:51 PM
But they were. Hingis and Davenport won the same number of Slams and tournament titles in 1999. Hingis ended the year at #1 because she reached 3 Slam finals to Davenport's 1. This was a case where Slam results acted as a tie-breaker, since they were so even in all other areas.

But their ranking had no bearing on how good they were. Example: Henin ended up year end n1 last year. She was clearly head and shoulder above everyone else on tour. This year, there's a very real possibility that Jankovic could eke out year end n1. She is not the clear best player. Not by a long shot. The rankings aren't designed to measure the best.

Regarding Serena being ranked number one, she unquestionably deserves it. Only she and Ana have two Slam finals this year, with one win each. Ivanovic has a R3 and R2 while Serena has a QF and R3. However, Serena's won more tournaments than Ana this year, which adds to the case for Serena being #1. Besides, in the last 52 weeks she's accumulated the most points.

You don't deserve a given ranking- it's a mathematical forumla. Either you achieve it or you don't. I just don't put the stock in it others do.

Dave.
Sep 23rd, 2008, 08:17 PM
But their ranking had no bearing on how good they were. Example: Henin ended up year end n1 last year. She was clearly head and shoulder above everyone else on tour. This year, there's a very real possibility that Jankovic could eke out year end n1. She is not the clear best player. Not by a long shot. The rankings aren't designed to measure the best.

Regarding Serena being ranked number one, she unquestionably deserves it. Only she and Ana have two Slam finals this year, with one win each. Ivanovic has a R3 and R2 while Serena has a QF and R3. However, Serena's won more tournaments than Ana this year, which adds to the case for Serena being #1. Besides, in the last 52 weeks she's accumulated the most points.

You don't deserve a given ranking- it's a mathematical forumla. Either you achieve it or you don't. I just don't put the stock in it others do.

So who is the best player in the world right now in your opinion?

simonsaystennis
Sep 23rd, 2008, 08:38 PM
Wow, the rivalry between Navratilova and Evert must have been crazy.
Serena will become year-end #1 again this year, and is the most deserving of it! Go Serena!!

tennisIlove09
Sep 23rd, 2008, 09:22 PM
In 2000, the #1 ranking lost it's real meaning when Hingis, not Venus ended the year #1. I do not think it really matters that Hingis 1 - played more matches (Jankovic won more matches than Henin last year, does that mean she should have been #1?) or 2 - won more titles (she didnt win the titles that counted. 0 - 4 in Slams).

It was followed by Davenport who ended the year #1 in 2001 despite Venus winning 6 of 10 events played (3-0 against Capriati) and despite Capriati winning two slams. Nothing anyone says will change most peoples minds that Venus was not the best player in the world in 2000 and 2001. She had the best H2H against everyone else, won more Slams (the events that really matter) than anyone else.

The #1 rank has never really been solid again after Serena's knee injury until Henin/Mauresmo were dominating in 2006, 2007. The ranking has been a joke with Davenport, Mauresmo (before she had a slam), Clijsters (before she had a slam) and the list goes on and on.

Serena, hopefully, will end the year #1 because of everyone that possibly could end the year, she is the one that deserves the most based on her results.

Donny
Sep 23rd, 2008, 09:24 PM
So who is the best player in the world right now in your opinion?

Serena. Being the best and being number one are not mutually exclusive. But one does not naturally follow the other.

danieln1
Sep 23rd, 2008, 09:31 PM
4X Lindsay!!!! The most consistent of them all! Now Serena must continue the tradition

LindsayRulz
Sep 23rd, 2008, 09:51 PM
In 2000, the #1 ranking lost it's real meaning when Hingis, not Venus ended the year #1. I do not think it really matters that Hingis 1 - played more matches (Jankovic won more matches than Henin last year, does that mean she should have been #1?) or 2 - won more titles (she didnt win the titles that counted. 0 - 4 in Slams).

It was followed by Davenport who ended the year #1 in 2001 despite Venus winning 6 of 10 events played (3-0 against Capriati) and despite Capriati winning two slams. Nothing anyone says will change most peoples minds that Venus was not the best player in the world in 2000 and 2001. She had the best H2H against everyone else, won more Slams (the events that really matter) than anyone else.

The #1 rank has never really been solid again after Serena's knee injury until Henin/Mauresmo were dominating in 2006, 2007. The ranking has been a joke with Davenport, Mauresmo (before she had a slam), Clijsters (before she had a slam) and the list goes on and on.

Serena, hopefully, will end the year #1 because of everyone that possibly could end the year, she is the one that deserves the most based on her results.

Like many of the williamses fans you seem to forget the main aspect of the ranking. The ranking is about constancy, not about who won slams and who didn't.

If we look at the 2000 year ending ranking for example, it's clear that either Martina or Lindsay deserved it A LOT more than Venus as Venus started her season around Wimbledon and finished around the US Open (as usual). Martina held the top spot at the end of the year because she had been the most constant throught the whole year. And if you look at her results in 00, she clearly was the most constant player IMO.

And as for 00, Venus didn't get the #1 spot at the end of 2001 because she didn't play a complete shedule not even playing a single match after the US Open :shrug:

-VSR-
Sep 24th, 2008, 01:38 AM
I'll take 4 gland slams, olympic gold and other titles than the Year-End #1 ranking any day, for 2000-2001. :bowdown:

Geisha
Sep 24th, 2008, 04:01 AM
In 2000, the #1 ranking lost it's real meaning when Hingis, not Venus ended the year #1. I do not think it really matters that Hingis 1 - played more matches (Jankovic won more matches than Henin last year, does that mean she should have been #1?) or 2 - won more titles (she didnt win the titles that counted. 0 - 4 in Slams).

It was followed by Davenport who ended the year #1 in 2001 despite Venus winning 6 of 10 events played (3-0 against Capriati) and despite Capriati winning two slams. Nothing anyone says will change most peoples minds that Venus was not the best player in the world in 2000 and 2001. She had the best H2H against everyone else, won more Slams (the events that really matter) than anyone else.

The #1 rank has never really been solid again after Serena's knee injury until Henin/Mauresmo were dominating in 2006, 2007. The ranking has been a joke with Davenport, Mauresmo (before she had a slam), Clijsters (before she had a slam) and the list goes on and on.

Serena, hopefully, will end the year #1 because of everyone that possibly could end the year, she is the one that deserves the most based on her results.

I don't agree that the #1 ranking lost its real meaning in 2000. Venus was injured for the first four or five months of 2000. The people who were educated about tennis and the rankings knew that Venus would probably have finished the year ranked #1 had she not been injured. That situation was not the same as it is now, where Jelena clearly plays way more tennis than everyone else and isn't winning almost every week like Martina was. Regardless, Hingis reached the SFs or better at three of the four Grand Slams, won Miami and a whole slew of other Tier I tournaments. Plus, she beat Davenport, Serena, and Venus, the four best players that year.

I think the ranking lost meaning when Clijsters and Henin got injured/sick. Serena lost her ranking way too early in 2003, in my opinion, but she would have lost it anyways because she didn't play the next eight months after injuring her knee. Kim was also deserving - she won nine tournaments, two GS finals and two semifinals. And, Justine held the ranking for most of the end of 2003 and 2004, anyway.

Mauresmo getting to #1 in 2004 was a joke. Sharapova should've gotten hers earlier because when she did end up getting it, she shouldn't have. Jankovic is a joke now. The fact that Safina, Dementieva, and Kuznetsova were all in the running is also a joke.

Navratil
Sep 24th, 2008, 08:57 AM
It's amazing that Davenport finished the year as a # 1 player 4 times!!!
She's only been on top for 99 weeks!
Good timing, Lindsay!!

Olórin
Sep 24th, 2008, 03:53 PM
Fact is that I have seen the match. You are wrong. As often.

I don't believe you.

By the way. Full stops. Only come. At the end. Of a sentence.

SAEKeithSerena
Sep 24th, 2008, 03:54 PM
Venus should have finished number 1 in 2000 and 2001 based on her results

Serena would have finished 2003 at number 1 without her knee injury

coulda woulda shoulda:kiss:

Matt01
Sep 24th, 2008, 03:55 PM
I don't believe you.

By the way. Full stops. Only come. At the end. Of a sentence.


:lol:

:weirdo:

BTW, I liked the first version of your post better.

Olórin
Sep 24th, 2008, 03:56 PM
:lol:

:weirdo:

BTW, I liked the first version of your post better.

Nah, this one's less rude and more sarcastic ;)

Anabelcroft
Sep 24th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Steffi Graf holds the record with 8 times...

Olórin
Sep 24th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Steffi Graf holds the record with 8 times...

I would just like to point out to those who aren't aware that there were ranking systems and Year End Number One ranked players before the WTA ranking system came into place. I don't think they should be ignored.

Leo_DFP
Sep 29th, 2008, 07:41 AM
In 2000, the #1 ranking lost it's real meaning when Hingis, not Venus ended the year #1. I do not think it really matters that Hingis 1 - played more matches (Jankovic won more matches than Henin last year, does that mean she should have been #1?) or 2 - won more titles (she didnt win the titles that counted. 0 - 4 in Slams).

It was followed by Davenport who ended the year #1 in 2001 despite Venus winning 6 of 10 events played (3-0 against Capriati) and despite Capriati winning two slams. Nothing anyone says will change most peoples minds that Venus was not the best player in the world in 2000 and 2001. She had the best H2H against everyone else, won more Slams (the events that really matter) than anyone else.

The #1 rank has never really been solid again after Serena's knee injury until Henin/Mauresmo were dominating in 2006, 2007. The ranking has been a joke with Davenport, Mauresmo (before she had a slam), Clijsters (before she had a slam) and the list goes on and on.

Serena, hopefully, will end the year #1 because of everyone that possibly could end the year, she is the one that deserves the most based on her results.

I am a Lindsay fan and I agree with all of this.

faboozadoo15
Sep 29th, 2008, 09:13 AM
Lots of crazy arguments going on in here!

I don't see how people can go on and on about how Jankovic is such a joke #1. The four majors have been split this year, and Jankovic has a really comparable slam record with Serena and plays a lot more.

It's really odd a) that Serena's fans are oddly fixated on the current rankings, when they usually bash the system and the players who achieve the top ranking, and b) that everyone seems to be forgetting that either Serena or Jankovic are really fortunate to have had Sharapova and Ivanovic ride the bench late this year because they were the dominant players for a good part of the year.

In The Zone
Sep 29th, 2008, 09:28 AM
Lots of crazy arguments going on in here!

I don't see how people can go on and on about how Jankovic is such a joke #1. The four majors have been split this year, and Jankovic has a really comparable slam record with Serena and plays a lot more.

It's really odd a) that Serena's fans are oddly fixated on the current rankings, when they usually bash the system and the players who achieve the top ranking, and b) that everyone seems to be forgetting that either Serena or Jankovic are really fortunate to have had Sharapova and Ivanovic ride the bench late this year because they were the dominant players for a good part of the year.

Logic doesn't work around here. :)