PDA

View Full Version : Has #1 become less meaningful?


tennisIlove09
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:23 AM
Since Hingis, there have been SO many #1's.
Capriati-Lindsay-Venus-Serena-Kim-Justine

That's 6, and 5 were first time #1's. Now consider that there have only been 13 # 1's EVER, and 5 of them since October 2001 for the first time. That's 2 years.

With all the changes at the top, is becoming #1, less meaningful?

I think not, but #1 is certainly given a bad rep. when you have players who don't win Slams #1. Again, no offence to Clijsters, but her 10 weeks are terrible for tennis, and the few weeks Lindsay regained #1 in 2001/2002 are terrible for tennis as well. Not to mention the weeks Hingis was #1 in her Slam drought (all of 2000/2001)

treufreund
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:27 AM
it's not terrible for tennis at all. the problem is that most people like to bitch and moan about the rankings when actually they make perfect sense. I have said it a million times, TENNIS is so much more than just the four GRAND SLAMS! And that is great otherwise we tennis fans would only have 8 weeks of tennis each year.

Knizzle
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:27 AM
The only time it's less meaningful is when a player who is not the best player in the world is ranked #1.

tennisIlove09
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:28 AM
I think it's terrible for the sport. I think it's terrible when the GENERAL Public (those who don't follow tennis) see players who haven't won a Slam in the last 52 weeks as #1.

treufreund
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:34 AM
stop being such a drama queen. the problem is that the "public" is too phucking stupid to understand mathematics. :rolleyes:

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:36 AM
The general public doesn't even know that Kim or Justine is #1, or even who they are. In their minds it's Venus and Serena (and probably still in that order!).

So don't concern yourself with what the general public thinks about rankings, because the general public doesn't have any idea about them in the first place.

tennisIlove09
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:39 AM
The general public doesn't even know that Kim or Justine is #1, or even who they are. In their minds it's Venus and Serena (and probably still in that order!).

So don't concern yourself with what the general public thinks about rankings, because the general public doesn't have any idea about them in the first place.

The general public in North America probably assume that Venus/Serena are #1/#2. I doubt that's likely in Europe.

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:40 AM
Yeah, but who cares about Europe :p

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:42 AM
I think it's great if there's a bunfight going on at the top among a few players for the # 1 position. I'd like to see about half a dozen players fighting it out.

Keep up the good work, Juju. Come back Vee and Ree. (And get your act together, Momo. :rolleyes: )

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:43 AM
My point was this: if people know WHO is #1, they'll know WHY they're number #1. And if people don't know the reasons behind the ranking system, they probably don't have any notions of the WTA Tour system and just assume that Venus and/or Serena are #1.

Even a casual observer of tennis telecasts in North America has Pam Shriver telling them every minute that Kim is Miss Consistency and blah blah blah blah blah.

cheo23
Oct 20th, 2003, 07:57 AM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!111@that Pam Shriver comment..So True..Anyways..I think the WTA Tour needs to like promote more about how the rAnkings work to the "PuBLiC"...like its about the previous 52 weeks that go into the current system..and they take the bEST 17 Tournament RESULTS of a player and calculates them like how they performed on Grand Slams and those Tier 1 tournaments and Tier 2...They also need to bring up the attention what tournaments are the Tier 1 and Tier 2..and why they call them Tier 1 and Tier 2...OH ONe MOre thing..Yeah the WTA Tour players complain about not receiving Equal Prize Money at the Grand SLams but when a player wins a like Tier 1 for Example the Nasdaq Tournament...She'll receive only like 125,000 compared to the Men's Winner getting like 350,000..The WTA tour needs to address those issues..U know what I'm saying People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7~ŒLęV3ņ―
Oct 20th, 2003, 08:04 AM
I guess, that its not really getting that meaningful in a way. But you know, i guess that if Serena wasnt injured, she would still be no.1 rite now. While Clijsters n Henin would be around 5000... i guess. just sad that the no.1 got injured, but hey someones got to be the representative of the no.1 while the real no.1 is injured, Justine or Kim are ms Serenas prime ministress at the moment.

rikvanlooy
Oct 20th, 2003, 08:05 AM
Since Hingis, there have been SO many #1's.
Capriati-Lindsay-Venus-Serena-Kim-Justine

That's 6, and 5 were first time #1's. Now consider that there have only been 13 # 1's EVER, and 5 of them since October 2001 for the first time. That's 2 years.

With all the changes at the top, is becoming #1, less meaningful?

I think not, but #1 is certainly given a bad rep. when you have players who don't win Slams #1. Again, no offence to Clijsters, but her 10 weeks are terrible for tennis, and the few weeks Lindsay regained #1 in 2001/2002 are terrible for tennis as well. Not to mention the weeks Hingis was #1 in her Slam drought (all of 2000/2001)

Well, we will see how many new number ones we will have in the next few years. I don't think we will see very many (Justine, Kim, Venus and Serena will domniate female tennis the next years).

malaye
Oct 20th, 2003, 08:13 AM
I don't think the number 1 position has less meaning just because there are more players who have reached it. On the other hand, it is a clear sign that there is more depth now than, say, 3 or 4 years ago. The Sisters have forced the other players to train harder. And we should be grateful for that. I can't wait for them to come back and fight it out with the other contenders. 2004 should be very exciting.

skanky~skanketta
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:30 AM
i think it just shows that the competition at the top is getting tougher. sure, there is a lack of depth, but now its not just the #1 vs the #2 like steffi vs seles/ASV or navratilova vs evert or lindsay vs martina anymore. now its lindsay vs venus vs serena vs kim vs jennifer vs justine. at least you can be sure to have better matches as these players have brought the game to a whole different level.

Rollo
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:40 AM
When the #1 gets blasted in the media for months about not being #1 as Hingis and Clijsters have? When the #1 tosses the honor away by declaring someone else #1 [Davenport]?

Yes. Monica Seles was right in 1997 when she circulated a petition against the WTA's new ranking system. It's no surprise to me that this mess all came after 1997.

Kart
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:45 AM
Frankly I don't know why any woman would aspire to be no.1 these days - from what I see they don't get more respect, they just get more abuse.

Maybe it's for the free WTA cake / tennis ball collage.

Rollo
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:49 AM
Maybe it's for the free WTA cake / tennis ball collage.

Stop-you're making me laugh Kart! :tape:

Martian Willow
Oct 20th, 2003, 12:37 PM
...they should change its name to the Entry System...then people wouldn't get so hung up about it... :)

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 12:41 PM
It still has prestige....but the thing is that the rankings-system rewards quantity over quality and so gives an untrue vision of who is the BEST player. No way should Justine with two GSīs and FOUR tier Iīs!! still being treatened by a Kim with only two tier Iīs and no slams! Thatīs pure non-sense......they have to come up with a rankings-system that makes losses count. Donīt replace them...if you lose it should count.

nubienne954
Oct 20th, 2003, 12:55 PM
I don't think the number one ranking means less. I think the current situation, where you have two very dominant players and the rest of the pack you get arguments about the ranking system.
Venus and Serena have dominated women's tennis since their ascension and when both went down with injuries the critical light fell on the pack.
I don't think anyone wanted it more than JHH and she went for it. Kim backed into the number one by just showing up so much and now, if we can believe what she said about fatigue, it is catching up with her.
After those two, it gets really touchy and IMO the quality of tennis declines somewhat. We had Myskina and several of the Russian women do well, but none of them has yet to prove they can compete at the highest levels.
As far as American women go, Jen Capriati and Chanda Rubin showed they are not ready for prime time. Jen should've won that Open match and Chanda's record over the summer leaves a lot to be desired. The newbies, Harkleroad(sp) included, don't seem quite ready yet. Lindsay tried to play on but in the end her injuries made that impossible.
The one woman I always thought had game and seems to be stepping away from the plate is Mauresmo. I saw her play on one of the outer courts against Clijsters at the 2002 Open and watched her gut it out and win. When she's on Center Stage however she seems to zone out.

Does JHH deserve number one? Despite my personal opinion of her she is the best of the rest right now. Did Kimmy deserve it? She was closest based on the point system. To paraphrase Samson from HBO's Carnivale, the WTA has a system. If you break the system you have nothing. Lobby for change, but live with the results of what exists now.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:00 PM
The main thing wrong with it, IMHO, is that it's (basically) your best 17 tournaments that get counted. I think that you always get a more intuitively accurate list if you count a smaller number of tournaments. I'm not sure what is the ideal, maybe about the best 12 or 15. If you go below that I suppose it could be distorted by flukey results.

Of course the WTA wants to encourage the players to play tournaments, so don't expect this change to be made very soon. :D

Volcana
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:02 PM
#1 doesn't MEAN less. It just never meant much.

Margaret Court didn't need a ranking system to tell everyone she was the best ever. She klcked every ass out there. Being ranked #1 never has meant you're the best player.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:05 PM
That's true of course. Still, it would be nice if the system were a bit more accurate against common intuitions of who the best players are. Over time, I've observed that the QP taken alone seem to give a better result in that sense. Likewise for doing a rough recalculation based on less than 17 tournaments.

TonyP
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:11 PM
Number one only seems to be meaningless when a Williams sister doesn't hold the spot.

This whole debate is some of the worst sour grapes I have ever heard.

Justine won two slams this year and other titles as well. How she does not deserve to be number one is baffling to me.

In the end, the ranking system represents the achievements of players over the course of the entire season.

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:12 PM
Number one only seems to be meaningless when a Williams sister doesn't hold the spot.

This whole debate is some of the worst sour grapes I have ever heard.

Justine won two slams this year and other titles as well. How she does not deserve to be number one is baffling to me.

In the end, the ranking system represents the achievements of players over the course of the entire season.


Justine IS no.1........but Kim?!

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:18 PM
I think bandabou has a point here. It "felt" wrong for Kim to be # 1 ahead of Justine until yesterday. I haven't checked how many quality points they both had say two or three weeks ago but I'd guess that Justine had more.

Whether or not I'm right on that particular point, as I've said on other threads, I'm a great believer in the quality points component of the rankings. It usually helps make the overall ranking points more, rather than less, intuitively "right".

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:23 PM
I think bandabou has a point here. It "felt" wrong for Kim to be # 1 ahead of Justine until yesterday. I haven't checked how many quality points they both had say two or three weeks ago but I'd guess that Justine had more.

Whether or not I'm right on that particular point, as I've said on other threads, I'm a great believer in the quality points component of the rankings. It usually helps make the overall ranking points more, rather than less, intuitively "right".

Exactly....Justine has waaayyy more quality points than Kim. She has beaten both the players who have been no.1 this year prior to her at the slams: Serena once and Kim twice in finals who werenīt even close. So she has been beating the cream of the crop.

Shouldnīt even be having this discussion. Justine IS no.1 and there should be NO way that she will only hold it for ONE week......despite having a TENNIS high 8 titles( two GSīs and four tier Iīs!!!!!) and to lose it to a player whom she has OWNED on the big stages.....doesnīt really make sense.

alexusjonesfan
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:29 PM
blah blah blah...doesn't seem like the wta is listening ;)

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 01:44 PM
blah blah blah...doesn't seem like the wta is listening ;)

Too bad....it only cofuses the public....the two slam winners were both ranked behind a player who hasnīt even sniffed a slam.

GoDominique
Oct 20th, 2003, 02:07 PM
This is from last week's ranking, when Kim was still no. 1: Kim's and Justinr's best 17 results that add up to their ranking points total.

CLIJSTERS, KIM

US OPEN GS 07.09.03 F 750.00
Los Angeles CH 10.11.02 W 750.00
Franch Open GS 08.06.03 F 646.00
Indian Wells I 16.03.03 W 459.00
Wimbledon GS 06.07.03 SF 440.00
Australian Open GS 26.01.03 SF 432.00
Rome I 18.05.03 W 402.00
Filderstadt II 12.10.03 W 383.00
Sydney II 12.01.03 W 350.00
Los Angeles II 10.08.03 W 298.00
Berlin I 11.05.03 F 295.00
Stanford II 27.07.03 W 264.00
San Diego II 03.08.03 F 237.00
Antwerp II 16.02.03 F 235.00
Miami I 30.03.03 SF 235.00
Hertogenbosch III 22.06.03 W 208.00
Luxembourg III 27.10.02 W 200.00

Total : 6584.00

HENIN-HARDENNE, JUSTINE

Franch Open GS 08.06.03 W 1156.00
US OPEN GS 07.09.03 W 1074.00
Australian Open GS 26.01.03 SF 460.00
Berlin I 11.05.03 W 440.00
Charleston I 13.04.03 W 420.00
Toronto I 17.08.03 W 401.00
San Diego II 03.08.03 W 391.00
Wimbledon GS 06.07.03 SF 370.00
Dubai II 23.02.03 W 324.00
Linz II 27.10.02 W 311.00
Filderstadt II 12.10.03 F 247.00
Zurich I 20.10.02 SF 169.00
Leipzig II 28.09.03 F 159.00
Los Angeles CH 10.11.02 QF 144.00
Amelia Island II 20.04.03 SF 127.00
Sydney II 12.01.03 SF 126.00
Hertogenbosch III 22.06.03 F 114.00

Total : 6433.00

Obviously the main problem for most people is that while Justine has a GS record of W/W/SF/SF and Kim only F/F/SF/SF, Kim is (was/will be) still no. 1.

So at FO, Justine got 510 points more than Kim.
At USO, Justine got 324 points more than Kim.
= 834 points advantage for Justine.

But most people forget there is another huge tournament that is worth 3/4 of a GS: the year-end Championships.

Kim won it, Justine lost early = 606 (!) points advantage for Kim.

So if you think Kim being no. 1 is wrong but basically agree with a 52-week system, then your criticism of the ranking system must begin with Los Angeles because obviously you think it should be worth less.

Apart from that, Kim has 8 tournament wins on her list: 2 tier I, 4 tier II and 2 tier III events.
Justine has 6 other wins: 3 tier I and 3 tier II.

So Justine has won on more tier I. No big deal - points difference between tier I and II is about 50-100, and if the tier II has a strong field there difference is down to zero.

And please note that Kim has only ONE semifinal on her best 17 (tour events), and even that is from the biggest event.
Justine has 3 semifinals and a tier III final which is a bit less.

IMO this makes perfect sense. At this point (last week), Kim deserved to be no. 1.
Of course you can say Justine has had the better season with her 2 GS, and Kim would probably agree even if she wins LA again and ends the year as no. 1. But that doesn't change the fact that the results give a reasonable explanation for Kim being no. 1.

Rollo
Oct 20th, 2003, 02:15 PM
Volcana wrote:#1 doesn't MEAN less. It just never meant much.

That wasn't always true. In 1981 it was important enough for Tracy Austin, Chris Evert, and Martina Navratilova to have cat fights in the press over it.

And endorsement contracts used to be [still are?-I don't know] written so the year end #1 sometimes got big bonuses.

SerenaSlam
Oct 20th, 2003, 02:26 PM
in my opinion it has become less meaning ful

when hingis venus jennifer serena and lindsay were number 1, they did it the right way: as in

Won a Slam
Beat number 1 and 2 (except for jennifer at the time only number 1)
all important things

now with kim (not justine she is doing it the right way), we had/have her at number 1

not winning a slam
not beating number 1 or 2 etc

that is what i call making it less meaning ful. there is a reason why people are number 1, when you get rid of those reason, and throw bogus ones in there, to me that is making the number 1 ranking less and less meaning ful. and that is the case with kim clijsters, she may be number 1, but it doesn't mean much to the general public and to the players on the tour. cuz they don't approact her like when they ask questions, they don't say like they did with venus, serena, linday, jennifer or martina, well they are number 1 and its gonna be tough, they just say, oh im gonna have to try my best, b/c she gets a lot of balls back. that doesn't sound too "number 1 with a bullet" at all to me, as in number 1, with a lil fear in the other players mind.

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 02:45 PM
in my opinion it has become less meaning ful

when hingis venus jennifer serena and lindsay were number 1, they did it the right way: as in

Won a Slam
Beat number 1 and 2 (except for jennifer at the time only number 1)
all important things

now with kim (not justine she is doing it the right way), we had/have her at number 1

not winning a slam
not beating number 1 or 2 etc

that is what i call making it less meaning ful. there is a reason why people are number 1, when you get rid of those reason, and throw bogus ones in there, to me that is making the number 1 ranking less and less meaning ful. and that is the case with kim clijsters, she may be number 1, but it doesn't mean much to the general public and to the players on the tour. cuz they don't approact her like when they ask questions, they don't say like they did with venus, serena, linday, jennifer or martina, well they are number 1 and its gonna be tough, they just say, oh im gonna have to try my best, b/c she gets a lot of balls back. that doesn't sound too "number 1 with a bullet" at all to me, as in number 1, with a lil fear in the other players mind.

Well said.....Kim is just milking the system. She hasnīt won a slam, she hasnīt beaten the former no.1 to become no.1.....she hasnīt done a thing worthy of no.1.

CapFan#1
Oct 20th, 2003, 03:16 PM
in my opinion it has become less meaning ful

when hingis venus jennifer serena and lindsay were number 1, they did it the right way: as in

Won a Slam
Beat number 1 and 2 (except for jennifer at the time only number 1)
all important things



Wrong again SS (you just cant help yourself in slamming Cappy can you????)

Jen beat the #1(Hingis) and #2(Davenport) when she won the 2001 AO!


Anyways, this topic of the ranking system is so OLD.... get over it people. #1 is #1 and it aint changing.....

nash
Oct 20th, 2003, 03:44 PM
I think it is definitely less meaningful today than in the 70's, 80s' and early 90's. When they changed the ranking system to move away from averages, that's where the trouble began...

Mercury Rising
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:11 PM
not winning a slam
not beating number 1 or 2 etc


Kim beat nr 1 serena and nr 2 Venus at the Championships.

persond
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:27 PM
Number one only seems to be meaningless when a Williams sister doesn't hold the spot.

This whole debate is some of the worst sour grapes I have ever heard.

Justine won two slams this year and other titles as well. How she does not deserve to be number one is baffling to me.

In the end, the ranking system represents the achievements of players over the course of the entire season.


Where in hell have you seen either on this board or in print that Justine is not a "worthy" No.1...??? Just because you don't like the Williamses, is it right to continually "blame them" for all the shite that's wrong in tennis...??? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the rankings are what they are, but, does it in fact determines whose the "best", that my friend is the real question...!!!

tennisIlove09
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:28 PM
Number one only seems to be meaningless when a Williams sister doesn't hold the spot.

This whole debate is some of the worst sour grapes I have ever heard.

Justine won two slams this year and other titles as well. How she does not deserve to be number one is baffling to me.

In the end, the ranking system represents the achievements of players over the course of the entire season.

No, Kim should have never been #1. Justine should have. Justine IS #1 right now. Why? Unlike Kim, Justine's won a slam...forget that, she's won TWO! And unlike Serena, Justine's played the full season.

Ballbuster
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:28 PM
I think Venus and Serena has made a MOCKERY of the Ranking System.

Everybody knows they are the best players in Tennis. All the commentating goes toward what the sisters are doing and how they are doing it.

Therefore, Yes! The ranking system is without merit, whenever a Sistah isn't sitting in that spot its meaningless.

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:31 PM
Kim beat nr 1 serena and nr 2 Venus at the Championships.

Beating them once in like two/ three years ago, makes you number 1?!

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:51 PM
Well, actually that was 11 months ago, so that result would count toward current rankings. So, if that does make her #1...yes.

TonyP
Oct 20th, 2003, 08:44 PM
Let me try to express my opinion again. And its been my opinion since long before the current controversy.

As Thomas Muster once said, he didn't buy his points in the drug store.

Anybody who gets to number one, deserves to be number one. You have to play well in quite a few tournaments to get there.

If you do so, then you are there, I don't give a damn what the Williams sisters do.

My point about them is that it is only fans of the Williams sisters who make a big deal about this.

Everyone else pretty much accepts the situation.

Justine won two slams this year and other tournaments as well, like Zurich.

She is number one and she deserves it.

Kim won a lot of tournaments, but no slams. But she piled up enough points. She got to number one and she deserved it.

Serena's now number three, Venus, who has not won a slam in two years and not that many tournaments this year, is number six.

All the rest is just sour grapes.

Ballbuster
Oct 20th, 2003, 08:51 PM
^^^

I don't think the tour gives a damn about whose number 1. They are only concerned where Venus and Serena will be at in their draw.

Now go ask Justine and Kim.

Rollo
Oct 20th, 2003, 08:54 PM
I respect your opinion as an informed person (I enjoy a lot of your posts) Tony, but I can't ever recall being mistaken for a Williams fan ;)

And I really don't like the rankings system. Yes, Justine deserves to be #1. Until Clijsters wins a slam though she's a joke as #1-just my opinion. Ditto for Marcelo Rios a few years back on the men's side.

mexicotrip
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:01 PM
I think Venus and Serena has made a MOCKERY of the Ranking System.

Everybody knows they are the best players in Tennis. All the commentating goes toward what the sisters are doing and how they are doing it.

Therefore, Yes! The ranking system is without merit, whenever a Sistah isn't sitting in that spot its meaningless.


Serena and Venus are GREAT for TENNIS!

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:02 PM
For Tony everything is sour grapes. It ainīt sour grapes. Kim being no.1 without a slam over Justine with two slams and other titles while playing the same schedule doesnīt make any sense!

DEETHELICK
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:05 PM
No. 1 in the world means u have a lot of points.

And those points are gained from how well u play at tournaments regardless of who you do or dont beat.

So whilst Number 1 doesn't mean that you beat everyone and have a great H2H against everyone, etc. it does reflect that you play to a high level the majority of the time you do play tennis.

Which is why Kim became No. 1 :)

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:07 PM
No. 1 in the world means u have a lot of points.

And those points are gained from how well u play at tournaments regardless of who you do or dont beat.

So whilst Number 1 doesn't mean that you beat everyone and have a great H2H against everyone, etc. it does reflect that you play to a high level the majority of the time you do play tennis.

Which is why Kim became No. 1 :)

Higher than Justine?! Whom has been beating her almost at will?!

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:10 PM
You guys are totally choosing to forget January-April, when Kim played much better than Justine.

irma
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:13 PM
Kim leads Justine 5:4 over the last 12 months so head to head says nothing what says something though are the two slam finals and Justine won them so deserves to be number 1 at least that's my opinion.

American Me
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:16 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah...

Everyone just shut up.

Serena and Venus are still the two best players rankings be damned.

Henin deserves the ranking, Kim didn't.

Why?

Its simple...

...Grand Slams are the only results that really matter the rest is just ATP/WTA money grubbing silliness (tier 1, tier 2, all bullshit).

The ATP/WTA are like those fish that follow the sharks and eat their left overs.

The Slams are the Steak, the rankings and the other "warm up" tournies are the Sizzle.

End of story.

Ballbuster
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:19 PM
You guys are totally choosing to forget January-April, when Kim played much better than Justine.

Who Cares!!

That was then and this is now. Kim is a fluke.

tennischick
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:21 PM
Number one only seems to be meaningless when a Williams sister doesn't hold the spot.

This whole debate is some of the worst sour grapes I have ever heard.

Justine won two slams this year and other titles as well. How she does not deserve to be number one is baffling to me.

In the end, the ranking system represents the achievements of players over the course of the entire season.
:worship: :worship: :worship:

alexusjonesfan
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:22 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah...

Everyone just shut up.

Serena and Venus are still the two best players rankings be damned.

Henin deserves the ranking, Kim didn't.

Why?

Its simple...

...Grand Slams are the only results that really matter the rest is just ATP/WTA money grubbing silliness (tier 1, tier 2, all bullshit).

The ATP/WTA are like those fish that follow the sharks and eat their left overs.

The Slams are the Steak, the rankings and the other "warm up" tournies are the Sizzle.

End of story.

Geez, you seem to have the whole world figured out..why are you here then? :eek:

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:22 PM
And yet, January, Februrary, and March were not cancelled during the year 2003, and thus count towards the 2003 rankings.

DEETHELICK
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:24 PM
I'm only saying that when Kim became No. 1 she played the matches and won them to get the required points to make it there.

Of course I know that Justine has played amazing tennis this year and I believe the No. 1 rank is where it should be AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Also remember that Kim had a rough season last year with quite a few early losses in the early part of the year whereas in terms of points etc, Justine had more to defend this year. With Kim's strong showings this year, she just zoomed up the scale in terms of points earned and played very consistently.

Next year will show us who is the real No. 1 as the Belgians and Williams all have pretty big results to defend.

Whatever is gona happen is gona happen....

And if Kim is a fluke, then she'd better not win a Slam eh? ;)

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:24 PM
You guys are totally choosing to forget January-April, when Kim played much better than Justine.

slams, slams, slams!! Kim was lights out indeed during that period, but she didnīt win a slam! In fact she didnīt even win a tournament with a Williams in the draw. Serena beat her at the Oz, Venus beat her at Antwerp, Serena sent her to vacation at Nasdaq.

Justine beat the no.1 player this year twice, and at a slam.....imo for a person to become no.1 you have to beat the former no.1. Justine has done this, Kim hasnīt.....Justine is no.1 and not Kim.

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:26 PM
Yes, but we've already established that Slams aren't everything.

The point was made that Justine has played much better than Kim and owns her. Untrue if you look at the whole year, which some of you aren't doing.

Ballbuster
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:30 PM
Geez, you seem to have the whole world figured out..why are you here then? :eek:


To keep you informed. I thought you knew :wavey:

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:32 PM
Yes, but we've already established that Slams aren't everything.

The point was made that Justine has played much better than Kim and owns her. Untrue if you look at the whole year, which some of you aren't doing.

But there is NO way to justify Kim being no.1 over Justine. Justine hasnīt lost before the qrtrs at any event this year, Kim has....

Justine has played nearly as many events as Kim, has won more and bigger, has beaten no.1īs at slams,........Thereīs NOTHING Kim has done, that Justine hasnīt done better.

starr
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:33 PM
I guess that it's too bad that no one figured out that the ranking system was never meant to decide with absolute certainty who the best player was. If the best player chooses not to play, that player can't be number one. If a better player than the number one ranked player comes along, that player will become number one but not right away. There will be some lag time. Both of those things have happened right now.

Those people who want the slams to count for every thing are short sighted and can't see what is needed to have a healthy tennis tour. The same goes for those people who want only an average of the tournaments played to count.

Just now, the Europeans are very lucky to have two champions who play tournaments and don't skip tournaments just because the other one happens to play. That's what makes for a great rivalry.

Ballbuster
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:33 PM
Yes, but we've already established that Slams aren't everything.

The point was made that Justine has played much better than Kim and owns her. Untrue if you look at the whole year, which some of you aren't doing.


Damn why can't the truth get GRAFTED in your head. Kim has Faded!

Say what you want, but Justine has the Juice.

Slams ARE THE ONLY THING!

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:34 PM
Except, bandabou, you tried to justify it by this:

Higher than Justine?! Whom has been beating her almost at will?!

And if you look at the whole year instead of just selected months, you cannot.

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 09:36 PM
Damn why can't the truth get GRAFTED in your head. Kim has Faded!

Say what you want, but Justine has the Juice.

Slams ARE THE ONLY THING!

No, I won't hear of this. Boo Justine. God, I hate her. *kick*

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:04 PM
Except, bandabou, you tried to justify it by this:



And if you look at the whole year instead of just selected months, you cannot.

Hmm....o.k...so the wins at Sidney,Antwerp, Den Bosch( retirement), Filderstadt count more than the winst at Berlin, RG, San Diego, U.S. open?! In fact since February as you say....Kim has only ONE real victory against Juju and all the losses came on BIG stages!

Hurley
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:09 PM
Right, and if she can't defend those points, she won't be #1. It doesn't mean they can't be counted.

Right now, they're pretty equal, and the rankings reflect it. But if Kim and Justine keep up their standards of play through those months next year -- meaning Justine doing slightly but appreciably better than Kim -- then Justine will move up to a solid #1 instead of roughly equal.

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:21 PM
Right, and if she can't defend those points, she won't be #1. It doesn't mean they can't be counted.

Right now, they're pretty equal, and the rankings reflect it. But if Kim and Justine keep up their standards of play through those months next year -- meaning Justine doing slightly but appreciably better than Kim -- then Justine will move up to a solid #1 instead of roughly equal.

That wonīt be a real problem...as historically Justine has done better earlier in the season and Kim better at the end..

tennisIlove09
Oct 20th, 2003, 10:37 PM
Let's look at H2H:

Kim vs. Justine
Sydney--Kim
Antewerp--Kim
Berlin--Justine
Paris--Justine
Default Final--Kim (shouldn't count, but it does)
San Diego--Justine
New York--Justine
Filderstadt--Kim

did I Miss one? otherwise it's 4-4. Add in Kim's victory at last year's LA, and it's 5-4 Kim. But again, a year ago doesn't really count IMO. Both are different players.

Let's look at titles.

Kim has 7; Justine has 8
Kim-Sydney (T2)
Indian Wells (T1)
Rome (T1)
Ordina Open (default; T3)
Stanford (T2)
LA (summer) (T2)
Filderstadt (T2)

Justine-Dubai (T2)
Family Circle (T1)
Berlin (T1)
Paris (Slam)
San Diego (T2)
Canada (T1)
New York (Slam)
Swisscom (T1)

H2H is even this year; 4-4. Titles are edge to Justine 8-7, and LEVEL of titles is HUGE edge to Justine, with 2 Slams and more tier ones, and NO tier threes. Kim will likely tie Justine this week with 8 titles, winning her second tier three of the year.

fammmmedspin
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:21 PM
I think Venus and Serena has made a MOCKERY of the Ranking System.

Everybody knows they are the best players in Tennis. All the commentating goes toward what the sisters are doing and how they are doing it.

Therefore, Yes! The ranking system is without merit, whenever a Sistah isn't sitting in that spot its meaningless.

Of course other people might argue the opposite - that we now have two people at number one and two who always play a full schedule and would be numbers one and two even if the points awarded for GS were not so inflated. Is a number one who plays half a schedule or one who can only win GS better than a number 1 who wins 8-10 titles and wins twice as many matches in a year and has more top 10-wins ?

Some people might also ask if having a dominant number one is a good thing or not - Serena (or Steffii) winning every GS was hardly popular at the time - although Steffi's popularity grew as her GS total rose. Changing number ones could be a sign of more top players? Or it could be a sign that the physical effort deployed by some players to win GS and the number one spot is self-limiting - you damage yourself so much winning that your ability to sustain the effort declines?

Logically a number one and two who produce competitive matches and swap the number one spot should be ideal. There will be a problem for US TV if they are not American but frankly that is a bigger problem as there could be no american top players in the relatively near future if Serena's TV career takes off.

bandabou
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:35 PM
There will be a problem for US TV if they are not American but frankly that is a bigger problem as there could be no american top players in the relatively near future if Serena's TV career takes off.

You sure got that one right...

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 20th, 2003, 11:51 PM
Still at it, guys? :)

Oh, I don't know. I don't think the current system is so bad. It does produce lags, as someone said. The person who is hot now may not benefit from it in the rankings for months if she has some bad results a year ago that need to be cancelled out. Theoretically the number 1 might be someone who was very hot six months ago and has played well since...but someone else is currently hotter. Hmmm, that has actually happened, yes?

But I still think that it is good basing rankings over a year. It evens out situations where someone is not playing for a few months, or someone has a flukey period of being very hot...then can't sustain it.

As the analysis shows, Kim's record of tournament wins, finals, and getting deep into tournaments was extraordinary, so I don't begrudge her getting to number 1. I do maintain my position that you get a more intuitive result if you rely on QPs or if you count less than 17 tournaments, which does more justice to the sisters and Momo who always seem to be injured and never seem to play 17 tournaments. But this is quibbling round the edges.

Sure, bandabou has a point. By a few weeks ago, a lot of us thought intuitively that Justine "deserved" the number 1 ranking, based on her recent head to head against Serena and Kim and her recent slams. The lag was a bit frustrating. We could see the tendency for her to get to number 1 soon, but it seemed to be taking too long. But I don't think that makes the number 1 position less meaningful. It is just that no system is perfect. Any change you make to it will have some disadvantage.

Sam L
Oct 21st, 2003, 12:07 AM
Well I think the best player in the world is NOW #1. She has the most tournaments this year and the best GS results this year. So can we stop this argument now? :confused:

GoDominique
Oct 21st, 2003, 12:15 AM
Well I think the best player in the world is NOW #1. She has the most tournaments this year and the best GS results this year. So can we stop this argument now? :confused:
Of course, but only until next Monday. :tape:

bandabou
Oct 21st, 2003, 12:26 AM
Well I think the best player in the world is NOW #1. She has the most tournaments this year and the best GS results this year. So can we stop this argument now? :confused:

The thingīs that it is only for ONE!! week!

A4
Oct 21st, 2003, 03:06 AM
Steffi will definitely not have been number 1 for so long under the current ranking system. If my memory serves me right, she played less than 17 tournaments a year.

Ppl seem to be missing the point. Its not so much about Kim or Justine, as it is, the ranking system itself. Bob Larsen (a Hingisite, IMO) wrote a piece about the flaws of the current system, a while back. If you have 7 number ones in 4 years, as opposed to 6 in the 20 or so years immediately before, of course it becomes very relevant to question the meaning of being number 1.

Is it meaningless? No. It just doesn't tell the same thing anymore.......

Sam L
Oct 21st, 2003, 03:10 AM
Nope. Steffi used to play around 14-15 tournaments. If Serena had played 14-15 she easily would've been #1 up until the end of US Open. I think. Someone with stats?

Sam L
Oct 21st, 2003, 03:12 AM
Put it this way, I don't think Steffi ever went a 52 weeks period with only 7-8 tournaments. Steffi fans? Unless she was injured and out of the game for awhile like in 97.

persond.
Oct 21st, 2003, 03:18 AM
Say what you want, but Justine has the Juice.

Slams ARE THE ONLY THING!

Ballbuster is right on!!! Right now Justine has the juice...but not as much juice as Venus and Serena!!!

SerenaSlam
Oct 21st, 2003, 03:24 AM
I think Venus and Serena has made a MOCKERY of the Ranking System.

Everybody knows they are the best players in Tennis. All the commentating goes toward what the sisters are doing and how they are doing it.

Therefore, Yes! The ranking system is without merit, whenever a Sistah isn't sitting in that spot its meaningless.
oh i never knew that jennife was a williams, or hingi was a williams, or even davenport. for they have all 3 done what williams did, williams just did it more times than them. that is beating number 1 and 2's and 3's and 4's consistently.

i forgot that kim beat 1 and 2 serena and venus at the championships, but to me it seemed this was the year kim "actually tried" for the number 1 ranking. and on her way "becoming" number 1 she (to me) didn't beat 1 2.

tennnisfannn
Oct 21st, 2003, 07:39 AM
The point of the thread was, has the no.1 become meaningless? Ihe answer is no. There are more people aspiring for the top spot and getting it. Is shows that since Hingis, Serena, Kim and Justine have stepped it up. I haven't included Venus, jen and Lindsay coz they were already up there. Serena was going thru a spell, the belgians weren't even on the slam radar screen.
When Kim took over the ranking from Serena the big debate was Serena just doesn't play enough. I also believed that to be the case. But if ever there was a flaw in the system, Justine brought it to light by fulfilling the requirements both in quality and quantity. I am sure the wta has had to have a good look at the system.
Will there be a system that will work perfectly, I think not coz tennis is played one on one. If for instance in 2004, the belgians and the williams each win a slam and Jen win the YEC, all the titles are disrtibuted almost equally, who will deserve to be no.1? What if they all beat each other at some point, won't we be forced to accept that the no. of points accumalted will simply tell the story, whoever it will be.
Next year, if Kim wins RG beating Venus in the final, she may fall behind her in the rankings coz Venus has more to gain in RG than Kim who was the finalist.(If Venus plays a few more tournys before then) It just seems to be that while the system rewards the player one year, she is punished the very next even if she accomplishes more.

Volcana
Oct 21st, 2003, 11:32 AM
Slams ARE THE ONLY THING!

The entire reason there IS a WTA is that the players decided that there was a lot more to tennis than the Slams, and the players wanted more control of it. If Slams are the 'only thing' then the WTA, and its tournaments, and its rankings, are completely irrelevant.

Volcana
Oct 21st, 2003, 11:34 AM
The women's #1 position has become more like the men's. But maybe a better analogy is auto racing. Whoever's in 1st place at any given time is influenced by a lot of factors, only one of which is 'who's the best?'

Sam L
Oct 21st, 2003, 12:46 PM
The entire reason there IS a WTA is that the players decided that there was a lot more to tennis than the Slams, and the players wanted more control of it. If Slams are the 'only thing' then the WTA, and its tournaments, and its rankings, are completely irrelevant.
You're right. And in fact if "Slams are the only thing", then we'll be going back to the days of amateur competition pretty much when slams were the prestigious tournaments to win.

Martian Willow
Oct 21st, 2003, 12:56 PM
...I don't really see why a player who wins one slam and nothing (or almost nothing) else has a better claim on the #1 than a player who wins 10 WTA titles but no slams... :)

bandabou
Oct 21st, 2003, 01:01 PM
...I don't really see why a player who wins one slam and nothing (or almost nothing) else has a better claim on the #1 than a player who wins 10 WTA titles but no slams... :)

Do I sense some Hingi-mania here?!

This year is different...there is a player who has won two slams, numerous titles and she beat the no.1 player wanna-be in almost all of them!! How can that player be better than one who has beaten her time and again?!

Martian Willow
Oct 21st, 2003, 01:07 PM
Do I sense some Hingi-mania here?!

...you may do...I can't legislate for your paranoia...I was simply offering it as a hypothetical situation...for those who believe any player who wins slams automatically has a right to be #1 over any player who doesn't...and that any ranking system that doesn't ensure that must be flawed...

...Venus won two slams in 2000...(and Hingis 'only' nine WTA titles)...if Venus had ended the year #1 I wouldn't have complained...but Martina had a justifiable claim too, given Venus' absence for the first half of the season... :)

bandabou
Oct 21st, 2003, 01:11 PM
...you may do...I can't legislate for your paranoia...I was simply offering it as a hypothetical situation...for those who believe any player who wins slams automatically has a right to be #1 over any player who doesn't...and that any ranking system that doesn't ensure that must be flawed...

...Venus won two slams in 2000...(and Hingis 'only' nine WTA titles)...if Venus had ended the year #1 I wouldn't have complained...but Martina had a justifiable claim too, given Venus' absence for the first half of the season... :)

hahaha....but this year it ainīt even worth discussing. There is player who has won AND titles AND slams and that by beating the other wanna-be no.1 player for almost all of them...how can that player be ranked ahead of the other player who has beaten her time and again and again and again?!

fammmmedspin
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:09 PM
It still has prestige....but the thing is that the rankings-system rewards quantity over quality and so gives an untrue vision of who is the BEST player. No way should Justine with two GSīs and FOUR tier Iīs!! still being treatened by a Kim with only two tier Iīs and no slams! Thatīs pure non-sense......they have to come up with a rankings-system that makes losses count. Donīt replace them...if you lose it should count.
And all that does is rewards players who dont lose because they don't play. Its like giving medals for cowardice. Do you want a number 1 who spends 43 weeks of the year invisibly training to peak for the GS and the YEC or do you want a global tour? Its hardly too much to expect people to play for half the weeks in a year and in very few cases much over 100 hours a year.

Wigglesworth
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:12 PM
If the non-grand slam winner reaches no1 then its stupid

fammmmedspin
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:15 PM
hahaha....but this year it ainīt even worth discussing. There is player who has won AND titles AND slams and that by beating the other wanna-be no.1 player for almost all of them...how can that player be ranked ahead of the other player who has beaten her time and again and again and again?!
Its simple. Player A can beat player B. But player A loses more to or doesn't even play players C D and E. If Player B is number one its true she can't beat A (she does actually but not in GS) but its true she has a better record over everyone else. Player A as number 1 would be open to the charge that she was really hopeless as she lost all the time to C-E.

Put another way. Jennifer can beat Martina H in GS finals - Jennifers record on the rest of the tour is poor - Hingis's is excellent. Should Jen get it on 1-2 GS victories or should all those defeats count too.

nash
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:18 PM
When the #1 gets blasted in the media for months about not being #1 as Hingis and Clijsters have? When the #1 tosses the honor away by declaring someone else #1 [Davenport]?

Yes. Monica Seles was right in 1997 when she circulated a petition against the WTA's new ranking system. It's no surprise to me that this mess all came after 1997.
I totally agree with this. Since the WTA moved away from the 'average' system to the 'best of' system, #1 has indeed been less meaningful...

TonyP
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:36 PM
The system works just fine. The idea, expressed by some, that Justine became number one because she was "the best of the rest" after the Williams sisters is pure bunk. The fiction that the Williams sisters are the best in tennis has been pretty much exposed for the fraud that was purpetrated by the media, mostly the American media.

They are clearly not the best in tennis right now and both probably dam lucky the two Belgian girls are not currently playing, because they'd lose even more often. Come September, it will be three full years since Venus won a slam singles title and it is already a year since Serena won one. You can blame it on "injuries" all you want, but Serena's "operation" took place about a year ago now and since that time, she has only won one tournament, and there she didn't face anyone of significance except Dementieva, who has not yet reached her stride, if she ever reaches it.

But when facing a really quality player, like Sharapova, Serena went down in flames.

No, no one has held the top slot for any signicant period time since Martina except Justine and she deserved it. Others who got there deserved it, too, but they couldn't hang on to it.

I don't think anyone in the foreseeable future will come close to Martina's 209 weeks. And remember, she went 70 weeks at number one, the very first time she held it beginning in the Spring of '97. That's longer than Venus and Serena have held the post put together. Then there are all the weeks she held the spot in '99, 2000, and

tennisIlove09
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:37 PM
why the fuck are we dragging up OLD threads. This was like a year ago

ans
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:38 PM
*starts reading thread*

*realises it's from almost a year ago*

*goes on with her life*

CJK
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:43 PM
If the non-grand slam winner reaches no1 then its stupid
OMG, another Kim hater....you guys should be banned. :rolleyes:

CJK
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:44 PM
why the fuck are we dragging up OLD threads. This was like a year ago
Easy, because the fights will once again return back to the board as we will be crowning a new #1 sooner or later, and either one will be controversial.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:44 PM
"Then there are all the weeks she held the spot in '99, 2000, and "


Yes those are the years people are speaking of. IT was quite clear that Martina was no longer the best player on tour. Hingis taught Kim how to milk the system, now if she can just show kim how she may be able to sue Fila for faulty wristbands....

CJK
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Not wristbands, it's the shoes, nothing funny about it since it retires Martina:(.
But you are right, the system is just so much fun to exploit with by players like Dokic.
Martina held a substantial lead, not a small one, in 2000 and 1999. But it's Venus fault that she didnt try to beat the system. If she wants to be called the best player in the world, then she has to prove herself by all means. Letting Martina sitting in that chair is partially due to her not trying to overtake her.

Dave B
Jul 28th, 2004, 08:54 PM
"Then there are all the weeks she held the spot in '99, 2000, and "


Yes those are the years people are speaking of. IT was quite clear that Martina was no longer the best player on tour. Hingis taught Kim how to milk the system, now if she can just show kim how she may be able to sue Fila for faulty wristbands....

:spit: Very funny Forehand

Personally, I think that it is easy to find faults with the ranking system at any given time. However, I think the old system was also occasionally faulty, although less so mostly because there was less depth in the system and a lot more between players. I like the current system--its fairly simple and objective. I like it when players play a few more than 17 tournies a year--I like to see the top players all season.
The thing is at any given moment you can say player X should be above player Y and they are not, but you cannot find a system where all the "right" players are at the "right" rankings at any given time (that is unless we ask Pamela Shriver to make the rankings). The current system is clear and objective, and at least awards players for quality wins unlike the ATP's system.

TonyP
Jul 28th, 2004, 10:34 PM
The year 2000 was the last one in which Hingis finished the year as number one. She won 9 tournaments that year, Tokyo, Miami (over Lindsay), Hamburg, Hertogenbosch, The Canadian Open (over Serena) , Filderstadt( over Clijsters), Zurich (over Davenport), Moscow and the year End Championships (over Seles). She was runner up at the AO, Indian Wells, and Philadelphia.

She finished with a singles record of 77-10, 20 more victories than any other player on tour. In 20 tournaments( fewer played than many other players), she made it at least to the semi-finals 18 times. She won five of the last seven tournaments she played that year. No other player won as many tournaments or as many matches that year.

There simply is no question that she deserved the number one ranking.

She piled up a lot of points by the end of 2000, adding to them in early 2001 by winning Sydnay, beating Davenport and Serena along the way, getting to the finals of the AO, again beating Serena and CRUSHING Venus along the way, and won two more tournaments, Dubai and Doha, before losing in the semi-finals at Indian Wells to Kim. Her career began to head down hill after that and she lost the number one ranking after tearing up her ankle at Filderstadt.

She deserved the number one ranking when she held it.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 29th, 2004, 01:13 AM
:spit: Very funny Forehand

Personally, I think that it is easy to find faults with the ranking system at any given time. However, I think the old system was also occasionally faulty, although less so mostly because there was less depth in the system and a lot more between players. I like the current system--its fairly simple and objective. I like it when players play a few more than 17 tournies a year--I like to see the top players all season.
The thing is at any given moment you can say player X should be above player Y and they are not, but you cannot find a system where all the "right" players are at the "right" rankings at any given time (that is unless we ask Pamela Shriver to make the rankings). The current system is clear and objective, and at least awards players for quality wins unlike the ATP's system.


I agree, there's more dispute to the rankings since 97 because there have been more variety of players winning the slams and big tournaments. That said I think the number one ranked player should also reflect who the best player on tour is at the time, or maybe we''ve been spoiled by past number ones.