TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Sep 15th, 2016 09:43 PM
Hugues Daniel
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVilkas View Post
My comment about Flavia and Marion came differently than I intended. I respect their accomplishments and they may well be around the #10 position of the best current tennis players if they continued to be active, although I think they are somewhat lower. I just don't think that they can be rated higher than Radwanska, Halep, or Wozniacki just because of one achievement in their careers. My apologies to their fans if the comment came as harsh or condescending.
Bartoli up there with them as far as my opinion goes, with different criteria. It's consistency vs peak. Both count in my book.

I rate Bartoli's peak very high, even if she didn't manage to be consistent enough as a top player. Same goes for Pennetta and Stosur. And even some finalists who didn't manage to win a slam yet, Safarova among them.

It's not easy to rank them. You have to assess consistency and peak. Results and career. It's a whole thing.

Jankovic and Schiavone are admirable for different reasons. Some for being number one, others for winning a slam.
Sep 15th, 2016 01:46 PM
Tennis Fool
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardiansf View Post
Agree with this...
Although I really enjoy Tennisfool ranking. It's really a great list.
It's the first think that I really need to check after every slam ended....
IMO, Puig also can't describe as "the great" let alone one of the greatest player, well maybe at her countries.
If you write-off Puig from this list, who will be in for #20? Vinci?
Yes, it would be Roberta.
Sep 15th, 2016 10:06 AM
mac47
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Really puts Petra's career in proper perspective. I fully expect her to get back on track after this 2016 disaster (triggered most likely by problems in her personal life) and surpass Vika by the time they're both done.
Sep 15th, 2016 06:31 AM
Hardiansf
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVilkas View Post
Aside from overrating the slams and Olympic gold, the major flaw with your methodology is that you pick one factor to rate the players (whatever that factor is) and then use a second factor only to break ties, then a third factor to break the few remaining ties and so on. This makes your subjective order of criteria paramount, and also allows miniscule differences in the chosen primary criteria to dwarf everything else.

If you want to do a better ranking, you should assign points to every achievement and add (or otherwise combine) the points. For example (taking your slam-centered view), 10 points for winning a slam, 7 for being in the final, 4 for the semifinal; 7 points for Olympic gold, 5 for silver, 3 for being a semifinalist; 5 points for winning a PM/P5, 3 for a final, 1 for a semifinal; 2 points for winning a premier, and so on. If you did this (which is admittedly a lot more work) you wouldn't get conclusions like putting Schiavonne and Muguruza above Radwanska and Halep. [By the way, I didn't see Pennetta and Bartoli in your list; they have one slam apiece, so they should make it near the #10 spot - I realized after posting why they aren't there; still, the fact that they would be near #10 if they were still active should be worrisome.]

Ultimately, we have a better way of making such lists. It's called the official rankings. Just add the points each player collected each year and possibly divide by the number of years they are on tour. The ranking points reflect both the relative importance of the various tournaments (with a heavy emphasis on slams) and also capture differences like losing in the 1st or 4th round.

And all this is still not about who will be remembered, as you put in the OP, but rather about who has achieved the most. If you want to measure the former, you'd need to look at other factors indicating popularity as well, such as number of fans, sponsors, personal appeal, followers on social media, who wins the WTA fan favorite award and so on.
Agree with this...
Although I really enjoy Tennisfool ranking. It's really a great list.
It's the first think that I really need to check after every slam ended....
IMO, Puig also can't describe as "the great" let alone one of the greatest player, well maybe at her countries.
If you write-off Puig from this list, who will be in for #20? Vinci?
Sep 15th, 2016 06:25 AM
RVilkas
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

My comment about Flavia and Marion came differently than I intended. I respect their accomplishments and they may well be around the #10 position of the best current tennis players if they continued to be active, although I think they are somewhat lower. I just don't think that they can be rated higher than Radwanska, Halep, or Wozniacki just because of one achievement in their careers. My apologies to their fans if the comment came as harsh or condescending.
Sep 15th, 2016 05:41 AM
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Elena D has a silver medal also.

Sep 15th, 2016 05:08 AM
TERRASTAR18
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVilkas View Post
I agree with the point you are making, but this particular issue (whom one beats and how) wasn't addressed in the system used by the OP either. And frankly, I think it will be really hard to quantify this in any objective manner. You can expect that if the scoring system takes into account a lot of events, eventually the average will converge to the true "greatness" value we are trying to measure; some titles will be won unfairly easily and some others in a hard and more deserving way. One more reason not to use essentially a single criterion so that one fluke slam trumps everything else.
100 percent this.....
Sep 15th, 2016 04:32 AM
RVilkas
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by TERRASTAR18 View Post
the flaw with yours is you are taking context out the equation....like monica had to beat 2 of the top players to get her gold or nole if he had won the open with all the withdrawals....not to mention serena's 2012 olympics......achievements go beyond the number and type of title........many players like vinci and sloane have built careers off of fluke wins vs queen even more than slam winners like ana i or frankie for example.
I agree with the point you are making, but this particular issue (whom one beats and how) wasn't addressed in the system used by the OP either. And frankly, I think it will be really hard to quantify this in any objective manner. You can expect that if the scoring system takes into account a lot of events, eventually the average will converge to the true "greatness" value we are trying to measure; some titles will be won unfairly easily and some others in a hard and more deserving way. One more reason not to use essentially a single criterion so that one fluke slam trumps everything else.
Sep 15th, 2016 04:11 AM
TERRASTAR18
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVilkas View Post
Aside from overrating the slams and Olympic gold, the major flaw with your methodology is that you pick one factor to rate the players (whatever that factor is) and then use a second factor only to break ties, then a third factor to break the few remaining ties and so on. This makes your subjective order of criteria paramount, and also allows miniscule differences in the chosen primary criteria to dwarf everything else.

If you want to do a better ranking, you should assign points to every achievement and add (or otherwise combine) the points. For example (taking your slam-centered view), 10 points for winning a slam, 7 for being in the final, 4 for the semifinal; 7 points for Olympic gold, 5 for silver, 3 for being a semifinalist; 5 points for winning a PM/P5, 3 for a final, 1 for a semifinal; 2 points for winning a premier, and so on. If you did this (which is admittedly a lot more work) you wouldn't get conclusions like putting Schiavonne and Muguruza above Radwanska and Halep. By the way, I didn't see Pennetta and Bartoli in your list; they have one slam apiece, so they should make it near the #10 spot

Ultimately, we have a better way of making such lists. It's called the official rankings. Just add the points each player collected each year and possibly divide by the number of years they are on tour. The ranking points reflect both the relative importance of the various tournaments (with a heavy emphasis on slams) and also capture differences like losing in the 1st or 4th round.

And all this is still not about who will be remembered, as you put in the OP, but rather about who has achieved the most. If you want to measure the former, you'd need to look at other factors indicating popularity as well, such as number of fans, sponsors, personal appeal, followers on social media and so on.
the flaw with yours is you are taking context out the equation....like monica had to beat 2 of the top players to get her gold or nole if he had won the open with all the withdrawals....not to mention serena's 2012 olympics......achievements go beyond the number and type of title........many players like vinci and sloane have built careers off of fluke wins vs queen even more than slam winners like ana i or frankie for example.
Sep 15th, 2016 03:55 AM
RVilkas
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Aside from overrating the slams and Olympic gold, the major flaw with your methodology is that you pick one factor to rate the players (whatever that factor is) and then use a second factor only to break ties, then a third factor to break the few remaining ties and so on. This makes your subjective order of criteria paramount, and also allows miniscule differences in the chosen primary criteria to dwarf everything else.

If you want to do a better ranking, you should assign points to every achievement and add (or otherwise combine) the points. For example (taking your slam-centered view), 10 points for winning a slam, 7 for being in the final, 4 for the semifinal; 7 points for Olympic gold, 5 for silver, 3 for being a semifinalist; 5 points for winning a PM/P5, 3 for a final, 1 for a semifinal; 2 points for winning a premier, and so on. If you did this (which is admittedly a lot more work) you wouldn't get conclusions like putting Schiavonne and Muguruza above Radwanska and Halep. [By the way, I didn't see Pennetta and Bartoli in your list; they have one slam apiece, so they should make it near the #10 spot - I realized after posting why they aren't there; still, the fact that they would be near #10 if they were still active should be worrisome.]

Ultimately, we have a better way of making such lists. It's called the official rankings. Just add the points each player collected each year and possibly divide by the number of years they are on tour. The ranking points reflect both the relative importance of the various tournaments (with a heavy emphasis on slams) and also capture differences like losing in the 1st or 4th round.

And all this is still not about who will be remembered, as you put in the OP, but rather about who has achieved the most. If you want to measure the former, you'd need to look at other factors indicating popularity as well, such as number of fans, sponsors, personal appeal, followers on social media, who wins the WTA fan favorite award and so on.
Sep 15th, 2016 03:44 AM
TERRASTAR18
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerber Counter View Post
There is no evidence in tennis that shows that random Gold medal winner will be more remembered than an elite top 5/3 player in his prime. Do tennis fans rememeber Nicolás Massú more than David Nalbandian? Absolutely not. There is a huge difference between a slam winner and a gold medal winner imo. Gold medal is a nice achievement but shouldn't be weighted heavily when comparing tennis players imo. What it means to the player that has won it is irrelevant imo. I'm sure Monica wouldn't trade her gold medal for a slam but that doesn't mean gold medal is actually better than a slam title or even close.
because your fave doesn't have one? if gold medals didn't matter then there wouldn't be a thing called a golden slam....
Sep 15th, 2016 03:07 AM
Kerber Counter
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

There is no evidence in tennis that shows that random Gold medal winner will be more remembered than an elite top 5/3 player in his prime. Do tennis fans rememeber Nicolás Massú more than David Nalbandian? Absolutely not. There is a huge difference between a slam winner and a gold medal winner imo. Gold medal is a nice achievement but shouldn't be weighted heavily when comparing tennis players imo. What it means to the player that has won it is irrelevant imo. I'm sure Monica wouldn't trade her gold medal for a slam but that doesn't mean gold medal is actually better than a slam title or even close.
Sep 15th, 2016 02:32 AM
Kzm
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Fool View Post
Corrected.
You forgot to correct Lucie's doubles GS tally, now at 3!

And could you check Serena's GS total? I'm counting 21 instead of 22 (3x4+9).
Sep 15th, 2016 12:29 AM
Mlaga
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennis Fool View Post
Just another title.
Yeah, sure
Sep 15th, 2016 12:12 AM
Tennis Fool
Re: The 20 Greatest *Active Singles* Players on the WTA Tour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mlaga View Post
Aga lower than Puig

Do the WTA Finals count for anything?
Just another title.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome