PDA

View Full Version : I get it : you're not allowed to be #1 unless you haven't won a Slam


LightWarrior
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:08 PM
In order to avoid having a #1 as embarassing as Safina, the WTA should create a rule that states that no player is allowed to be #1 unless she has not won a GS. It's not about maths and adding points, it's about prestige, dignity and credibility. I don't remember -ever- a top male player having made to the top without winning a GS. It would be a good thing for everyone, the public and the players themselves. It would be an incentive to be #1, that way you feel that you've really earned it and you're part of history.
Or change the fucking ranking system, but do something for God's sake !

Uranium
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:08 PM
Marcelo Rios.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Ivan Lendl , number one first and then GS Champion

disco_rage
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:17 PM
this point is getting boring..................... whenever there is a 52-week rolling ranking system, it will be a possibility of this happening.
you can;t put a rule like that in place (only being allowed to no1 if won a slam), its stupid. the player with the highest number of ranking points should be No.1. simple as.
a 52-week rolling ranking, which is the only way to do rankings, will some time bring cases, like Jankovic, Safina, Rios getting to no1... but in fairness Safina and Jankovic have some big tournament wins in the rankings, with decent slam results, also brings cases like Kafelnikov rising to No.1 when he had lost like 5 matches in a row or something, its just the way it happens sometimes....

LightWarrior
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:20 PM
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.

AndreConrad
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.
Very nice crystal ball you have there; I want one ;)... In your scenario when you don't have a slam you will be #2 behind...:confused: who is number one... ;)
Sorry for the bit of sarcasm, but you are taking the ranking system to literally... just my opinion :wavey:

LightWarrior
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:28 PM
this point is getting boring..................... whenever there is a 52-week rolling ranking system, it will be a possibility of this happening.
you can;t put a rule like that in place (only being allowed to no1 if won a slam), its stupid. the player with the highest number of ranking points should be No.1. simple as.
a 52-week rolling ranking, which is the only way to do rankings, will some time bring cases, like Jankovic, Safina, Rios getting to no1... but in fairness Safina and Jankovic have some big tournament wins in the rankings, with decent slam results, also brings cases like Kafelnikov rising to No.1 when he had lost like 5 matches in a row or something, its just the way it happens sometimes....

Who cares about that ? The players you mentioned won't be in ths tennis history books. #1 players should not have just "decent" results in slams, they MUST have good results. Suppose Safina still retains her Berlin points, then reach the FO Open final but - oh surprise - chokes again in the final. She will be the #1 seed at Wimbledon. Even Safina herself would be very embarassed.

apple123
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:29 PM
This is getting old. You never know what will happen. That's the intriguing part. Who would think a few years ago she was going to be top gun? BTW, it's "unless you have won a slam" :p
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.

terjw
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.

Ridiculous. Having been proved wrong as far as the ATP - you now start babbling that a player is not allowed to be #1 if in your opinion the player is unlikely to win a slam. :rolleyes::tape:

LindsayRulz
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:46 PM
There's nothing embarrassing with having a #1 with 3 Tier I titles + 2 slam finals and Olympics final on her ranking. :shrug:

The problem is that when they get the top spot, our #1s start playing badly ; Ivanovic last year, Jankovic and Serena this year and now we have Safina already playing like crap even before reaching the top. If Safina was as steady as last year she would definitively deserve the #1 ranking IMO.

In The Zone
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Clijsters.
Sharapova.
Hingis.
Mauresmo.
Davenport.
Jankovic.
Ivanovic [would have been #1 even without Roland Garros win].
Safina.

All have been #1 without a slam in their ranking. The system needs to reward the tour events or else the WTA would be meaningless.

Being #1 doesn't mean you will win a slam. You still have to win on the court. Safina is a placeholder.

SOA_MC
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:50 PM
To the OP

Do you really have nothing better to do?

tonythetiger
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:55 PM
I don't understand this topic. Do you mean to say, "you're not allowed to be #1 unless you have won a slam". That double negative you're using is making this topic confusing.

bobbynorwich
Apr 15th, 2009, 09:56 PM
The purpose of the ranking system is to determine the seeding at tournaments, not to determine who is the #1, #2, or #3 best player, et al. If a player gets the highest number of points --- regardless of how or where --- she deserves to be seeded first.

Besides, on the women's tour today, any one of the top 10 players could beat any other. This is easy to see by the closeness of their ranking points.

However, if there was a dominant player on the WTA with a 3400 point lead like Nadal's, that's a different story. Obviously that person could be talked about as the world's best player. No such person has this commanding margin on the women's side, so there is no "world's best" currently in the WTA.

madmax
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:02 PM
The purpose of the ranking system is to determine the seeding at tournaments, not to determine who is the #1, #2, or #3 best player, et al. If a player gets the highest number of points --- regardless of how or where --- she deserves to be seeded first.

Besides, on the women's tour today, any one of the top 10 players could beat any other. This is easy to see by the closeness of their ranking points.

However, if there was a dominant player on the WTA with a 3400 point lead like Nadal's, that's a different story. Obviously that person could be talked about as the world's best player. No such person has this commanding margin on the women's side, so there is no "world's best" currently in the WTA.
:worship::worship:That's probably the most intelligent post I read on these boards, well said and there is not much to add rreally

terjw
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:03 PM
I don't understand this topic. Do you mean to say, "you're not allowed to be #1 unless you have won a slam". That double negative you're using is making this topic confusing.

I doubt the OP understands what a double negative is.

Vanity Bonfire
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:07 PM
Who cares about that ? The players you mentioned won't be in ths tennis history books. #1 players should not have just "decent" results in slams, they MUST have good results. Suppose Safina still retains her Berlin points, then reach the FO Open final but - oh surprise - chokes again in the final. She will be the #1 seed at Wimbledon. Even Safina herself would be very embarassed.

This isn't a modelling agency honey. Anyway, Serena hasn't won a non-GS tourney since Charleston last year.

Volcana
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:37 PM
The purpose of the ranking system is to determine the seeding at tournaments, not to determine who is the #1, #2, or #3 best player, et al. If a player gets the highest number of points --- regardless of how or where --- she deserves to be seeded first.TO back up this point, it's used to be that the tournaments got to decide their own seeding. So if a bigtime sponsor of the tournament had a daughter who played at all, she got seeded. If she was decent, she got seeded really high. Not all the time of course, but the system was totally subjective.

And it matteed more then. If Margaret Court or Chris Evet was in a tournament, the difference between being #4 or #5 mattered. You were gonna lose when you played them, and making the semis was the money to travel to the next tournament.

Today, making the third round in a slam is worth more than players in the old Virginia Slims made for winning a tournament.

Dave.
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Clijsters.
Sharapova.
Hingis.
Mauresmo.
Davenport.
Jankovic.
Ivanovic [would have been #1 even without Roland Garros win].
Safina.

All have been #1 without a slam in their ranking. The system needs to reward the tour events or else the WTA would be meaningless.

Being #1 doesn't mean you will win a slam. You still have to win on the court. Safina is a placeholder.

Exactly.

and I think Serena had the same situation as Ivanovic so she too could be put on that list.

LightWarrior
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:45 PM
I doubt the OP understands what a double negative is.

Oh please, that's lame of you, I'm not a native speaker but I'm doing the best I can. And yes, obviously you should read "...unless you have won a slam".

LightWarrior
Apr 15th, 2009, 10:50 PM
This isn't a modelling agency honey. Anyway, Serena hasn't won a non-GS tourney since Charleston last year.

Right. Since '08 Charleston, Serena won 2 slams while Safina choked and made a fool of herself twice in 2 GS finals. The rest is history. Good point ! :lol:

jjcrew#1
Apr 15th, 2009, 11:21 PM
In order to avoid having a #1 as embarassing as Safina, the WTA should create a rule that states that no player is allowed to be #1 unless she has not won a GS. It's not about maths and adding points, it's about prestige, dignity and credibility. I don't remember -ever- a top male player having made to the top without winning a GS. It would be a good thing for everyone, the public and the players themselves. It would be an incentive to be #1, that way you feel that you've really earned it and you're part of history.
Or change the fucking ranking system, but do something for God's sake !


O thats a great idea... NOT!
Like we have never had this conversation before! get over it already please :rolleyes::fiery:

Donny
Apr 15th, 2009, 11:24 PM
Look people.

The number one ranking is not indicative of who the best player is. The best player in the world doesn't need the top ranking as some sort of validation. It's entirely possible for a mediocre player to become number one (as will happen when Safina takes the number one ranking.) Seriously, it's nothing to stress over.

In The Zone
Apr 15th, 2009, 11:26 PM
Exactly.

and I think Serena had the same situation as Ivanovic so she too could be put on that list.

If Safina defeated Serena in the final, wouldn't she have been #1? [At the USO, Jelena/Serena -- winner would be #1. ]


Australian Open women's final preview: Safina vs. Serena

Australian Open women's final tale of the tape: Dinara Safina vs. Serena Williams.
On the line: The year's first major and the No. 1 ranking. The winner will take over the top spot from Jelena Jankovic on Monday.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2009-01-29-aussie-women-final-preview_N.htm

LightWarrior
Apr 15th, 2009, 11:54 PM
And it matteed more then. If Margaret Court or Chris Evet was in a tournament, the difference between being #4 or #5 mattered. You were gonna lose when you played them, and making the semis was the money to travel to the next tournament.
.

Well it still did matter in 2007 when unlicky Serena had to face Henin 3 times in a row in quarter GS.

AcesHigh
Apr 16th, 2009, 12:35 AM
Look people.

The number one ranking is not indicative of who the best player is. The best player in the world doesn't need the top ranking as some sort of validation. It's entirely possible for a mediocre player to become number one (as will happen when Safina takes the number one ranking.) Seriously, it's nothing to stress over.

So 2 slam finals, an Olympic silver medal and several tier 1's is mediocre? I guess the tour must be a complete joke then :rolleyes:

AcesHigh
Apr 16th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Clijsters.
Sharapova.
Hingis.
Mauresmo.
Davenport.
Jankovic.
Ivanovic [would have been #1 even without Roland Garros win].
Safina.

All have been #1 without a slam in their ranking. The system needs to reward the tour events or else the WTA would be meaningless.

Being #1 doesn't mean you will win a slam. You still have to win on the court. Safina is a placeholder.

The purpose of the ranking system is to determine the seeding at tournaments, not to determine who is the #1, #2, or #3 best player, et al. If a player gets the highest number of points --- regardless of how or where --- she deserves to be seeded first.

Besides, on the women's tour today, any one of the top 10 players could beat any other. This is easy to see by the closeness of their ranking points.

However, if there was a dominant player on the WTA with a 3400 point lead like Nadal's, that's a different story. Obviously that person could be talked about as the world's best player. No such person has this commanding margin on the women's side, so there is no "world's best" currently in the WTA.

Great posts :worship:

bobbynorwich
Apr 16th, 2009, 12:47 AM
Look people.

The number one ranking is not indicative of who the best player is. The best player in the world doesn't need the top ranking as some sort of validation. It's entirely possible for a mediocre player to become number one (as will happen when Safina takes the number one ranking.) Seriously, it's nothing to stress over.

Yes, the number one ranking is not indicative of the best player.

But no, you can't be mediocre and earn the top ranking points. Mediocre is being ranked 500-700, poor is 700+.

All of this is no cause for stress.

Donny
Apr 16th, 2009, 01:34 AM
So 2 slam finals, an Olympic silver medal and several tier 1's is mediocre? I guess the tour must be a complete joke then :rolleyes:

I didn't say mediocre results. I said a mediocre player. Safina has does nothing in my eyes to make me consider her a world beater.


And the tour IS a complete joke.

dany.p
Apr 16th, 2009, 01:39 AM
I sort of agree with the sentiment behind your first post but this is not the way to go.
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.

This i just :help:. So Safina shouldn't get to number 1 Because she "probably" wont win a grandslam in the future?!?

morningglory
Apr 16th, 2009, 01:47 AM
I sort of agree with the sentiment behind your first post but this is not the way to go.


This i just :help:. So Safina shouldn't get to number 1 Because she probably wont win a grandslam in the future?!?

I think people just feel that Safina is simply not good enough ability-wise to deserve to be counted in among the company of #1's. Hence, that's why he brought up that she probably will not win a slam in the future. It's more of the lack of ability, rather than the lack of slams, I think, that people claim that Safina does not deserve her ranking. (Here though, I disagree. If Jankovic was #1, well... Safina and Jankovic aren't that different in terms of talent and ability anyways in my opinion. I would have to say that both of them are several notches below the other #1's we've had :p If we say whether Jankovic deserved it or not, we would have to say the same thing for Safina)

Svetlana.
Apr 16th, 2009, 03:46 AM
I think people just feel that Safina is simply not good enough ability-wise to deserve to be counted in among the company of #1's.

Not really, if Safina would take the #1 ranking not from Serena, but from someone like Sharapova or JJ the same kind of people (like the thread starter) would say that she's a savior of the tour or something like that. So, the best way to go is to ignore the trolls.

Donny
Apr 16th, 2009, 04:32 AM
Not really, if Safina would take the #1 ranking not from Serena, but from someone like Sharapova or JJ the same kind of people (like the thread starter) would say that she's a savior of the tour or something like that. So, the best way to go is to ignore the trolls.

I find it kind of amusing how some in this thread choose to be completely oblivious to the numerous posters who aren't fans of Serena, yet still think Safina doesn't make a good number 1. Makes it easier to dislike Serena and her fans.

PS The threadstarter has Sharapova as their avatar, which kind of invalidates your entire post.

Svetlana.
Apr 16th, 2009, 04:41 AM
PS The threadstarter has Sharapova as their avatar, which kind of invalidates your entire post.

:spit: are you blind? you can't be, unless you are using the 508 Compliant comp. :tape:

Donny
Apr 16th, 2009, 05:20 AM
:spit: are you blind? you can't be, unless you are using the 508 Compliant comp. :tape:

My bad. I swore the post above you was by the OP for some reason.

Svetlana.
Apr 16th, 2009, 05:26 AM
My bad. I swore the post above you was by the OP for some reason.

np :)

tommyk75
Apr 16th, 2009, 06:22 AM
Such a rule would never be passed for a bunch of reasons. However, I do think that the number of points awarded for winning a Slam should be increased considerably than what it is now.

PizzaMan
Apr 16th, 2009, 06:33 AM
I tend to agree with the original poster, except I'd be even harsher.

I say the rule should be that at any given point in time, the current slam holders are automatically ranked 1 through potentially 4. As for the actual ranking among the slam holders, the first measure is number of slams won, then YEC title, then points. Then, if the YEC champ isn't among the slam holders, she is ranked immediately after the slam holders. Then the rest of the field is ranked according to points.

Today, this would result in the following rankings:
1. Serena (current holder of two slams)
2. Venus (current holder of one slam and YEC)
3. Ana (current holder of one slam)
4. Dinara (most points of non-slam/YEC holders)
5. Elena (2nd most points of non-slam/YEC holders)
etc.

I proposed this system in the past as a system that would deliver what people intuitively want, but I didn't actually advocate it. But as I've thought it over, I now do advocate this system. I see nothing at all wrong with it. :wavey:

bobbynorwich
Apr 16th, 2009, 07:38 AM
I tend to agree with the original poster, except I'd be even harsher.

I say the rule should be that at any given point in time, the current slam holders are automatically ranked 1 through potentially 4. As for the actual ranking among the slam holders, the first measure is number of slams won, then YEC title, then points. Then, if the YEC champ isn't among the slam holders, she is ranked immediately after the slam holders. Then the rest of the field is ranked according to points.

Today, this would result in the following rankings:
1. Serena (current holder of two slams)
2. Venus (current holder of one slam and YEC)
3. Ana (current holder of one slam)
4. Dinara (most points of non-slam/YEC holders)
5. Elena (2nd most points of non-slam/YEC holders)
etc.

I proposed this system in the past as a system that would deliver what people intuitively want, but I didn't actually advocate it. But as I've thought it over, I now do advocate this system. I see nothing at all wrong with it. :wavey:

Imagine this hypothetical scenario with the proposed ranking system:
Dementieva wins the AO, her first event of the year. She's pleased as punch that she's guaranteed at least #4 and decides to take the year off until YEC (automatic entry as ranked in top 8). She hopes to win the YEC and be ranked #1, but doesn't. Ends the year with 2000 pts.
Bartoli wins Roland Garros. She gets injured and doesn't play for 6 months (including YEC), but had 1800 points prior to RG. Ends the year with 3800 points.
Safina wins Wimbledon. She's had a horrible year and earned only 800 points from all other tourneys. Ends the year with 2800 points.
Ivanovic wins the USO, beating SWilliams by default due to sprained ankle suffered in the final. She had an okay year with 1650 pts. Ends the year with 3650 points.
VWilliams wins YEC. She had a good year and ends the year with 5000 points.
SWilliams wins no GS or YEC but is a finalist in all of those tourneys and otherwise had a great year. She ends the year with 9500 points, highest of all players.Here's the year end rankings under this scenario:
Bartoli, 3800 pts (GS)
Ivanovic, 3650 pts (GS)
Safina, 2800 pts (GS)
Dementieva, 2000 pts (GS)
VWilliams, 5000 pts (YEC)
SWilliams, 9500 pts
Jankovic, 5600 pts
Zvonareva, 5100 ptsRemember this is hypothetical, but does illustrate the odd outcomes that might result.

Pristine
Apr 16th, 2009, 07:41 AM
Marcelo Rios was ranked at the top spot with no slam, BUT after he became number one from player and board input ATP did an overhaul on the rankings to try to prevent it from happening ever again.

WTA has done no such thing. Rios actually retired never winning a slam and is the only top ranked player MAN or WOMAN to have ended their career without a slam.

eck
Apr 16th, 2009, 08:34 AM
So what happens if no one in the top 10 is a GS winner?

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 16th, 2009, 09:22 AM
So what happens if no one in the top 10 is a GS winner?

The entire top-10 should kill themselves then.

faboozadoo15
Apr 16th, 2009, 09:25 AM
Rios is the only exception on the atp tour (#1 for just a few weeks). Lendl went on to win several GS titles. Very unlikely Safina will ever win even one.

Honestly, How can you say that?
Given the state of the tour, I'd be surprised in Jankovic and Safina don't win a major by the end of their careers.

dany.p
Apr 16th, 2009, 10:13 AM
The current ranking system fundamentally is not to bad. Though i think there should be an increase in points for winning a grandslam.

Imo, 1 GS > 2 Premiere mandatory tournaments

Matt01
Apr 16th, 2009, 10:42 AM
And the tour IS a complete joke.


No, your posts are :wavey:



I say the rule should be that at any given point in time, the current slam holders are automatically ranked 1 through potentially 4. As for the actual ranking among the slam holders, the first measure is number of slams won, then YEC title, then points. Then, if the YEC champ isn't among the slam holders, she is ranked immediately after the slam holders. Then the rest of the field is ranked according to points.

I proposed this system in the past as a system that would deliver what people intuitively want, but I didn't actually advocate it. But as I've thought it over, I now do advocate this system. I see nothing at all wrong with it. :wavey:


You can't be serious :lol:

Kart
Apr 16th, 2009, 11:17 AM
It's not about maths and adding points, it's about prestige, dignity and credibility.

Since when ?

PizzaMan
Apr 16th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Imagine this hypothetical scenario with the proposed ranking system:
Dementieva wins the AO, her first event of the year. She's pleased as punch that she's guaranteed at least #4 and decides to take the year off until YEC (automatic entry as ranked in top 8). She hopes to win the YEC and be ranked #1, but doesn't. Ends the year with 2000 pts.
Bartoli wins Roland Garros. She gets injured and doesn't play for 6 months (including YEC), but had 1800 points prior to RG. Ends the year with 3800 points.
Safina wins Wimbledon. She's had a horrible year and earned only 800 points from all other tourneys. Ends the year with 2800 points.
Ivanovic wins the USO, beating SWilliams by default due to sprained ankle suffered in the final. She had an okay year with 1650 pts. Ends the year with 3650 points.
VWilliams wins YEC. She had a good year and ends the year with 5000 points.
SWilliams wins no GS or YEC but is a finalist in all of those tourneys and otherwise had a great year. She ends the year with 9500 points, highest of all players.Here's the year end rankings under this scenario:
Bartoli, 3800 pts (GS)
Ivanovic, 3650 pts (GS)
Safina, 2800 pts (GS)
Dementieva, 2000 pts (GS)
VWilliams, 5000 pts (YEC)
SWilliams, 9500 pts
Jankovic, 5600 pts
Zvonareva, 5100 ptsRemember this is hypothetical, but does illustrate the odd outcomes that might result.

I realize that, but here's the thing:
I couldn't care less about how my system would affect the "year-end-rankings", as that designation is meaningless. If tennis were like auto racing, where the one with the most points at the end of the season is declared the "Champion" for that year, so that the year-end-rankings had some official import, then I wouldn't use my proposed system.

I recall the glory years of the Indy 500. That race overshadowed the whole season. Casual fans didn't even know about the season's points or the season title, and didn't even care that other races for the season even existed. It was all about the Indy 500. The fans knew it; the drivers knew it. And that was even with an official title awaiting the points leader at the end of the season. In a case where there is no title awaiting the points leader at the end of the year, as is the case in tennis, then even more so the prestigious titles should overshadow points. That's my perspective. My system essentially codifies the way casual fans look at it. Casual fans don't give a rip about points, they care about winning the big events.

The thing about my proposed system is that it's impossible for anybody to "back into" #1, like Safina will do next week. (That's not exactly true; it's impossible to "back into" the top 4, but once you're there you could back into #1 as your position shifted relative to the other slam winners, but nobody would care because you won a big title to get in position to do that.) Safina backing into #1 with no big titles to her name at all, let alone in the past 52 weeks, and as she plays a mediocre brand of tennis, and got absolutely destroyed by the true #1 at the last major is absurd.

However, since the rankings don't really mean anything (they don't count towards a official season championship), it's not a big deal to me. I only talk about this stuff for fun. :)

One modification I might make to my system, is that tournaments could still seed purely by points, if they so choose. In that case the #1 (and 2 thru 5 as well) ranking becomes even more meaningless from an official standpoint (though the ranking retains its symbolic importance), which is fine with me, since I don't really care about the rankings.

But I do think that if you win a slam, then you should automatically qualify for the YEC, as would happen under my system. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that that would be a bad thing. But my system would also ensure that the defending YEC champ qualifies for the YEC, which I'm iffy about.

EDIT:
I wanted to note a few things about your hypothetical scenario.
1. You say that Elena wins AO, then takes the year off until YEC, hoping to win that to become #1. But between AO and YEC, another player could win 2 or 3 slams, so she'd be higher than Elena even if Elena did win YEC. Meaning that if Elena had aspirations for #1, she wouldn't skip the other majors.

2. You say, "Safina wins Wimbledon. She's had a horrible year and earned only 800 points from all other tourneys." The point of my system is that if you win a major, then you haven't had a "horrible year" by definition, regardless of the points you obtain in other tournys. Dinara's Wimby is more significant than Serena's 9500 points, and that means Dinara had the better year. An NFL team squeaking into the playoffs with a 9-7 record, yet going on to win the Super Bowl had a better year than a team that went 15-1 but lost in the playoffs.

3. Your hypothetical year-end rankings do look intuitively off, but those rankings would only persist until the AO (the next major). Elena would HAVE to win that tournament to remain in the top 4. And if she succeeded, then she'd have won 2 of the last 5 slams and successfully defended a slam. I'd say that she would justly deserve to remain in the top 4 even if she had won nothing else in the meantime. If she failed to win the AO, then she'd fall out of the top 4, deservedly so. My point is that at times the rankings would look off, but that would be rectified or justified by the next major.

bobbynorwich
Apr 16th, 2009, 03:57 PM
It will be much harder --- but not impossible --- for a non-slam winner to reach the top with the WTA changes starting in 2009. These are:
players can only count their top 16 tourney points
runner-up points in slams are reduced to 1400 compared to 2000 for winner
grand slam winner points are double the winner of premier tourneysIf the WTA reduced the GS runner-up to 1200 like in the ATP that would help even more. Any player who does manage to make it to the number 1 ranking without winning a slam based on 16 premier or lower tourneys must be playing very well that year given the new point system, so no shame in giving her the top ranking.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 16th, 2009, 04:15 PM
It will be much harder --- but not impossible --- for a non-slam winner to reach the top with the WTA changes starting in 2009. These are:
players can only count their top 16 tourney points
runner-up points in slams are reduced to 1400 compared to 2000 for winner
grand slam winner points are double the winner of premier tourneys

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Runner-up points at slams (or any other events) were not reduced. Runner-up still gets 70% points the winner earns as it was before. And GS = Miami * 2 for many years now. Though the value of tier II (premier) events decreased.