PDA

View Full Version : who still cares bout rankings?


polexia
Jan 29th, 2002, 11:33 PM
this year's finals, we had the then second seed and fourth seed play against each other. lindsay out with injury, venus out with sloppy tennis.
personally, i've given up on rankings yet don't really want it to change. the top 4/5 is an elite group of women who managed to be the best in the world in what they do best. but then of course, i'd give the top spot hands down to jen for foul language, marti for racquet throwing and injury prone to venus and davy. yet no matter what their rankings are, their fans root for them just as much.
i'd just like to hear what are your opinions

angele87
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:02 AM
Yeah I think the rankings in the women's game are really pointless because although although Lindsay didn't win one grand slam and venus and jen won two a piece, Lindsay was still number 1. It doesn't really make sense. On the atp if two players won 2 slams each they would more than likely be #1 and #2 at the end of the year.

QUEENLINDSAY
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:10 AM
Rankings is about consistency and all court supremacy.
I still care about the rankings and as of now jeniffer really deserves it. Jen was not inferior in any surfaces she played unlike Venus inability in clay and Rebound ace Hardcourt.

Keith
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:13 AM
Hmm...with my favorite as number one, Iwould like her to solidify that rank for many weeks to come, because she honestly was the number one player of 2001. Yes, it was close between her and Venus, I do not want to argue, but Jennifer and Venus should have split #1. Jen is making up for lost time now.


At least HIngis is not longer number one. I mean, I like Hingis, but she hasnt been revered by most of the public as number one for a while now. So, at least in that respect, the rankings are a bit better!

Plus, for the first time in like 3 years, the number one ranked player is the one that deserves it the most.

A4
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:15 AM
Well, rankings for objective analysis will certainly have someone at the bottom of the scale. AND I KNOW THE PERSON.

Dawn Marie
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:18 AM
Venus can play on clay and has won a clay title. I dont think she's ever played on carpet.. QueenLindsay.

Now I do think that you theory omitted your own favorite... Lindsay. I don't think she dominated or even won a title on clay. So right now Jennifer is the only dominated player of the 3 on ALL surface not just Venus. being a true Lindsay fan you should of realized that. lol:)

Queenlindsay I repeat to you LIndsay is not great on CLAY. Venus has never played much on carpet.

Kart
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:41 AM
I think the rankings are great :)

Just as long as we remember that they are NOT a measure of the best player in the world at any one moment, BUT a measure of who has played CONSISTENTLY well over the last 12 months.

Getting to the top of the rankings is no easy task and personally I think that whoever gets there deserves to be there :).

hugetennisfan
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:52 AM
Well stated, Kart. :)

treufreund
Jan 30th, 2002, 01:58 AM
Actually it would be quite possible in the ATP rankings for someone not to win a grand slam and be number one. It just did not happen because no non major winner did extremely well in the Tennis Masters Series tournies. Guga, Andre, Lleyton and Goran won majors last year with Guga winning two tennis Masters Series, Andre winning two and Lleyton Hewitt winning the championships and making it to the later rounds of some of the tennis masters series.

The theory that ATP ranking system was more logical that the WTA system was a FALLACY. Last year the WTA system gave 520 points for winning a major and 260 for winning a Tier 1 tournament which is a 2:1 ratio whereas guess what the ATP awarded 200 pts for the majors and 100 for the Tennis Masters Series tournaments. ALSO a 2:1 ratio. NO DIFFERENCE!!!!

So if, for example, Patrick Rafter had won Cincinnati and Indian Wells for example and then RCA in Indianapolis he would have had like 270 points there plus 110 for finals of Wimbledon and loads of other points from other tournaments and could have finished number one in the world. It is just that the depth in the men's tour has prevented that from happening. The fact remains that winning two Tier 1's or Tennis Masters Series was worth the same points as the four majors so it is quite possible to have a guy who won 2 or 3 tennis Masters Series and had solid results year round end up as #1 but it has not happened because the top men have done well in the Tennis Masters Series. The WTA has changed the point system a bit this year but still the Ericsson is worth 1/2 as much as the four majors and the other Tier 1's are not far behind.

Infiniti2001
Jan 30th, 2002, 02:29 AM
Dawn Marie, queen lindsay is not interested in facts, she just enjoys taking potshots at Venus and or her sister every chance she gets... So Venus has never won RG or the AO open, it's not like she avoids the surfaces :P

Dawn Marie
Jan 30th, 2002, 02:33 AM
True infiniti2001:)

I actually don't even think she/he is even a Lindsay fan. There more interested in hatin on Venus and Serena then cheerin for their favorite.