PDA

View Full Version : The Top 10 has been locked for a year: for how much longer?


Steffica Greles
Nov 5th, 2002, 03:46 AM
If you look at the top ten now and compare it to a year ago, there is only one new member - Daniela Hantuchova. The rest of the players remain the same.

And we all know that Hantuchova would probably not be in the top 10 yet had Lindsay played all year. True, she's above Dokic and it would therefore have knocked Dokic out the top 10(had Hingis remained injury free), but Dokic is more of a consistent tour performer.

Daniela gained a great deal of her points from winning Indian Wells. Had Lindsay have played I.W, I doubt Daniela would have walked away with the trophy.

Lindsay's 7 month absence, therefore, benefitted Hantuchova, in my opinion, more than any other top 10 player.

So here's my point....

It is normal most years for there to be 3-4 members of the top 10 different to the previous year. Sometimes as many as 3 of them are first timers to the top 10, and 1 is returning. Or it can be vice versa.

This year, had Davenport played the full year, the top 10 would have been entirely the same as last year.

People say these are exciting times in women's tennis, but the top ten is almost impenetrable.

For how many more years?

disposablehero
Nov 5th, 2002, 04:04 AM
2 more years before you see big changes. There was not a good crop of players born in 84, so it's the 85-86-87 players who will have to step up. Additionally, two years from now Monica will be 30 and Lindsay/Jennifer both 28. Odds are that at least one of them will be retired or fallen out of the top 10.

Freefall
Nov 5th, 2002, 04:25 AM
Elena B., Nadia, Eleni, Chanda, Meghann & even Alex, Anna & Elena D are all players older then Dani, who with some luck might get in the top ten sometime soon.

Also I'm sure Lina K. was born in 84 & if she can stay away from injuries, she has the talent to get in the top 10.

Then yes, you have a LOT of VERY talented 85-87 players too.

BTW, Dani would be Top 10 with or without Marti & Lindsay playing! :rolleyes: :p :)

fhkung
Nov 5th, 2002, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by disposablehero
2 more years before you see big changes. There was not a good crop of players born in 84, so it's the 85-86-87 players who will have to step up. Additionally, two years from now Monica will be 30 and Lindsay/Jennifer both 28. Odds are that at least one of them will be retired or fallen out of the top 10.

make it 4 yrs......
with the AER factor in it,
the young players dont have as many chances,
also, the tour is different then in 97 when
Hingis is dominating and many young players
come up with some surprise wins.....
a lot of players have become consistent
and a lot of the youngsters back then
will become consistent as well.........
so it's more likely that people will end up in TOP 10
in their 20's rather than teens, unless extremely talented that is.

niratti
Nov 5th, 2002, 08:44 PM
Myskina has a chance but need a better tour result.

Also chanda has a chance to come back to top ten.

Richie77
Nov 6th, 2002, 04:00 AM
Right now a position should open up, because Hingis has too many points to defend from her hot January. More than likely, it'll be Lindsay who'll take her place.

After that...I'm stumped. The only players who are past peak are Jennifer, Lindsay and Monica.
Serena and Venus are both at their peak, and will probably be on top for another couple of years. The other players are still only midway up the bell curve, and could easily stay in the Top 10 for another 3-5 years (maybe not Dokic, though...it depends on how much she wants to play.)
The "1985-87" group are just now starting to make an impact, and some will probably be in the Top 30 next year. I don't know if they'll be able to get into the Top 10, though. That might not happen until 2004.

Volcana
Nov 6th, 2002, 05:09 AM
It's not really so locked up. Myskina, Rubin, Schnyder, maybe even Smashnova or Stevenson all should there runs into the #8, #9, #10 positoins for a couple weeks. Maybe one of them even inches into the year end top ten, if the right people are injured long enough. Players over 25 are injured more and off court longer than players between 20 and 25. I'd look for Myskina to make an opportunistic run to #10 before Scottsdale. IF she can get to the QFs at OZ. Who knows how Martina will be? Who knows how Lindsay will be? Who knows how Jenn will be?

There will be an opportunity. The question is, who's going to be ready to take advantage?

Gowza
Nov 6th, 2002, 05:46 AM
i'd say only players in the top 20 and possibly top 30 have a chance to get to the top 10 next year. players like schnyder, stevenson, myskina, rubin, daniilidou, bovina, dementieva. other players like tulyaganova, pierce, mandula, petrova, lina k, lucic, bedanova, fernandez and schett as well as up-and-comers such as kuznetsova, safina, zvonareva, mikaelian, casanova, sharapova will improve their ranking just in time to reach the top 10 in 2004.

i think rankings #5 to #10 will be very competitve by the time 2004 comes around.

Sharapower
Nov 6th, 2002, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Steffica Greles
If you look at the top ten now and compare it to a year ago, there is only one new member - Daniela Hantuchova. The rest of the players remain the same.

And we all know that Hantuchova would probably not be in the top 10 yet had Lindsay played all year. True, she's above Dokic and it would therefore have knocked Dokic out the top 10(had Hingis remained injury free), but Dokic is more of a consistent tour performer.

Daniela gained a great deal of her points from winning Indian Wells. Had Lindsay have played I.W, I doubt Daniela would have walked away with the trophy.

Lindsay's 7 month absence, therefore, benefitted Hantuchova, in my opinion, more than any other top 10 player.

So here's my point....

It is normal most years for there to be 3-4 members of the top 10 different to the previous year. Sometimes as many as 3 of them are first timers to the top 10, and 1 is returning. Or it can be vice versa.

This year, had Davenport played the full year, the top 10 would have been entirely the same as last year.

People say these are exciting times in women's tennis, but the top ten is almost impenetrable.

For how many more years? The kind of statement that drives me mad... :fiery: not only because I'm a Daniela H. big fan but also because it indicates you don't understand the philosophy of rankings : the ranking rewards performance AND consistency so injuries are part of these concerns. By the way if Daniela hadn't played at all in IW she would still be in the top10 or at least #11.
Last thing, you cannot say what would have happened if so and so were not injured, and when a top player is injured, it's not like everybody can take the vacant place but you have to work hard to crack it up so, please, give credit to Dani who really is a great player.

Williams Rulez
Nov 6th, 2002, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Freefall
BTW, Dani would be Top 10 with or without Marti & Lindsay playing! :rolleyes: :p :)

Such big words..

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 6th, 2002, 11:40 AM
and non of the girls in the Top 10 would be there IF i had 10 sisters playing tennis :)

Steffica Greles
Nov 6th, 2002, 12:30 PM
I did not say Dani didn't deserve to be in the top ten, and I can assure you that I do understand the ranking system.

I was speaking hypothetically, as we all do.

You have to be honest that Davenport would almost certainly be top ten had she played all year, and that, therefore, one of the current top ten would have had to forfeit their place.

When I see the top ten players, Daniela, great as she is, is by far the most erratic, and a strikingly poor mover. True, Seles and Davenport are also slow, but they make far fewer inexplicable errors.

I spotted Daniela as being a superb talent before most, so you don't need to tell me how good she is. When I saw her at Birmingham 01, I was mesmerised.

But I think that she's the weakest of the current top ten.

wongqks
Nov 6th, 2002, 12:37 PM
I think you are wrong, Daniela had a much better year than Dokic and Dani is now no.8, she has hardly any points to defend until Indian Wells, so what make you think she will fall out of top 10, if she is not fall out of top 10, Martina and Dokic will be the one who will get bounced at the firt half of season not Daniela

Experimentee
Nov 6th, 2002, 01:06 PM
Daniela had a much better year than Dokic, with or without Davenports injury. I think if Lindsay and Martina had not been injured Daniela would still be in the top ten, at least #10. Shes had good results this year, and lets not forget that Lindsay has Dokics number, not Danielas.
On the topic, i think that its good the top ten is locked for the year coz it shows the top players are becoming consistent, not like the ATP where the top ten changes every second and its hard to build a solid fan base.

Sharapower
Nov 6th, 2002, 01:28 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steffica Greles
I did not say Dani didn't deserve to be in the top ten, and I can assure you that I do understand the ranking system.

I was speaking hypothetically, as we all do.

You have to be honest that Davenport would almost certainly be top ten had she played all year, and that, therefore, one of the current top ten would have had to forfeit their place.

When I see the top ten players, Daniela, great as she is, is by far the most erratic, and a strikingly poor mover. True, Seles and Davenport are also slow, but they make far fewer inexplicable errors.

I spotted Daniela as being a superb talent before most, so you don't need to tell me how good she is. When I saw her at Birmingham 01, I was mesmerised.

But I think that she's the weakest of the current top ten. /QUOTE]
LOL, you don't say she doesn't deserve top10 but you mean it somehow by saying she's erratic, poor mover and plagued by inexplicable errors (by the way, I absolutely don't agree with "poor mover", I don't find her errors that inexplicable but I grant you on "erratic" especially on low rated events).
But Okay, let's go on "speaking hypothetically" like you say : and what if daniela didn't fall on Serena on the quarters of both Wimby and USO ? She probably would have played the semi's so she would be ranked #6 or even #5 today (I laugh at myself playing that game of "IF... THEN...") and then your logic is not fair.
And how can you assess that Daniela would not have beaten Lindsay if the latter had been able to play the whole year long ?
You see that things are not that simple.

Anyway excuse me if my words sounded angry to you, it's just intellectual provocation, nothing personal.