Re: How is Donna Vekic NOT in the top 20?
Probably because she hasn't won anything?
Getting deep in tournaments is nice but it can't be stressed enough how important it is to WIN tournaments. In most of them the winner gets twice as many points as the finalist (who gets twice as many points as a SF). So winning just one tournament is the same as getting into the SF of four other equivalent tournaments. More efficient too.
Also: A lot of her deep runs seem to be Ps and ITFs which, if you want to be top 10, are junk points. To be top 10 or top 20 you have to go very deep in Slams or win PMs/P5s. Almost any other tournament is a waste of time pointwise.
Vekic has 0 titles, 1 ITF final and 1 Premier final. Her Slam record is terrible: She reached the QF of the USO which is only slightly worse than winning a Premier tournament. She washed out of the others. That's not good enough.
Here you have her record of 13 tournaments accumulating 2400 points, an average of 184.6 points per tournament, the equivalent of reaching the round of 32 in every Slam (or reaching the finals of every ITF tournament). So she is exactly where she is supposed to be: Top 30.
For contrast: Compare her to Bianca Andreescu, who shot up the rankings like a dart this year despite being injured for four months. Bianca is #5 largely based on winning three tournaments: IW, Rogers, USO. Three tournaments, 3900 points. (she also won an ITF and made it to the final of another before she started her winning streak).
It's about quality, not quantity. Playing well in lots of tournaments is good. But playing fewer tournaments and winning them is better.