Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Take the top ten (or eight, or six, or sixteen)

Now re-arrange them according to point building skill. You can't hold good serves against players, but it aces aren't 'built' points. Ties go to the higher ranked player, so if you aren't sure, assume the rankings have SOME validity. Don't go crazy. ALL top ten player build points better than ALL player ranked outside the top hundred.

Understand, this isn't a list of 'who's the best'. If you don't understand yourself how points are built, you're going to have a little trouble.

I'm not planning on heavy defense of my choices, this is too subjective, but here's my first take on the list.

00 Hingis - (Cause standards are nice)

01 Henin-Hardenne
02 Rubin
03 Maursemo
04 V Williams
05 Davenport

** I would have had Venus and Lindsay reverse on this list in past years. But Venus is constructing points better since its become obvious she can't beat Serena any other way. (Actually, that way hasn't worked either, but things are closer.) And Lindsay is not constructing points as well as she was three years ago, or finishing them off as well.

06 S Williams

** This might be kinda low for Serena, but her idea of 'opening up the court' is getting a six inch wide lane she can get the ball through. She does try to construct points, in the late round, vs her sister or Capriati or the Belgians. But against most players, it never becomes necessary to do more than move them back and forth along the baseline.

07 Myskina
08 Sugiyama
09 Capriati
10 Clijsters

Note that Sugiyama and Myskina are ahead of Kim. 'How can that be?' You ask. Easy. Myskina, for example, knows what she's doing out there. She'll ATTEMPT to construct points, but it's virtually impossible for her to get a ball outside Kim's range. Kim can keep returning til she gets a ball she can put away.

Constructing points is just a skill. It's like having a good forehand. It won't win the tournament for you, but its nice to have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Volcana said:
Take the top ten (or eight, or six, or sixteen)

Now re-arrange them according to point building skill. You can't hold good serves against players, but it aces aren't 'built' points. Ties go to the higher ranked player, so if you aren't sure, assume the rankings have SOME validity. Don't go crazy. ALL top ten player build points better than ALL player ranked outside the top hundred.

Understand, this isn't a list of 'who's the best'. If you don't understand yourself how points are built, you're going to have a little trouble.

I'm not planning on heavy defense of my choices, this is too subjective, but here's my first take on the list.

00 Hingis - (Cause standards are nice)

01 Henin-Hardenne
02 Rubin
03 Maursemo
04 V Williams
05 Davenport

** I would have had Venus and Lindsay reverse on this list in past years. But Venus is constructing points better since its become obvious she can't beat Serena any other way. (Actually, that way hasn't worked either, but things are closer.) And Lindsay is not constructing points as well as she was three years ago, or finishing them off as well.

06 S Williams

** This might be kinda low for Serena, but her idea of 'opening up the court' is getting a six inch wide lane she can get the ball through. She does try to construct points, in the late round, vs her sister or Capriati or the Belgians. But against most players, it never becomes necessary to do more than move them back and forth along the baseline.

07 Myskina
08 Sugiyama
09 Capriati
10 Clijsters

Note that Sugiyama and Myskina are ahead of Kim. 'How can that be?' You ask. Easy. Myskina, for example, knows what she's doing out there. She'll ATTEMPT to construct points, but it's virtually impossible for her to get a ball outside Kim's range. Kim can keep returning til she gets a ball she can put away.

Constructing points is just a skill. It's like having a good forehand. It won't win the tournament for you, but its nice to have.
im not a big fan of kim but behind sugiyama? come on be realistic. she should be 4th imo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
kim can´t be fourth because she doesn´t construct any points herself...just keeps running down balls till her opponent makes an error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
The better power players don't need to rally 10-15 strokes before they have a shot at ending the point, they require less room to work with. Venus can hit an inside out backhand winner on you when both players are positioned in the middle of the court.

Hingis(she had to no other choice)
Venus
justine
Lindsay
Serena
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
bandabou said:
kim can´t be fourth because she doesn´t construct any points herself...just keeps running down balls till her opponent makes an error.

it must be really hard for you living with the fact that Kim is the actual #1... I keep on wondering where you keep on getting those loads of horse sh*t... :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,094 Posts
A player who can't construct points is the #1 in the world?
Sure...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
petroniao said:
it must be really hard for you living with the fact that Kim is the actual #1... I keep on wondering where you keep on getting those loads of horse sh*t... :eek:
It isn´t hard for me at all. I only have this to say:

Number One the Hard Way
Kim Clijsters has a great record this year -- except when it's really big. Think the Australian Open against Serena Williams. Think Roland Garros against Justine Henin-Hardenne.

My Way....
Since we're talking about the #1 ranking (and people are screaming about it all over the place), we thought we'd help the debate along. Just where do Serena and Clijsters stand under alternate rankings?

Here are some partial answers. If we still used the old WTA divisor rankings, Serena remains an overwhelming #1:

Rank..Player......Score
1..SWilliams.......428
2..Clijsters.......299
3..Henin-Hardenne..255
4..VWilliams.......253
5..Mauresmo........209
6..Davenport.......189
7..Capriati........136
8..Rubin...........109
9..Hantuchova.......94
10..Seles............82
11..Myskina..........80
12..Maleeva..........75
13..Martinez.........73
14..Kuznetsova.......72
15..Coetzer..........72
16..Petrova..........70
17..Zvonareva........70
18..Sugiyama.........66
19..Bovina...........61
20..Schnyder.........60

If we just calculate raw points per tournament, Serena's lead actually increases, and Venus Williams moves back to a surprising #2:

Rank..Player......Score
1..SWilliams.......545
2..VWilliams.......354
3..Clijsters.......299
4..Henin-Hardenne..255
5..Mauresmo........209
6..Davenport.......189
7..Capriati........136
8..Rubin...........109
9..Hantuchova.......94
10..Seles............82

If we count quality points per tournament, it's much the same story: Serena #1, Venus #2, Clijsters #3, Henin-Hardenne #4, Mauresmo #5, Davenport #6. If we shift to a system which doubles quality points (a good idea in the author's book), we get that very same list: #1 Serena, #2 Venus, #3 Clijsters, #4 Henin-Hardenne, #5 Mauresmo, #6 Davenport.

At least one commentator is calling for the women to shift to slotted rankings, i.e. required and optional. (This is known as, "Very dumb monkey see, very dumb monkey do.") It's worth remembering that the women do have slots: The Gold Exempt rules. The only difference is, they have a rational tier system, with More Required and Less Required events. The WTA rules state as follows:

Gold Exempt Players must commit to 13 specific Tour Tournaments, exclusive of the Grand Slams and the Tour Championships, in order to fulfill Minimum Commitment requirement rules as outlined below....

GE Standing...Commitment
1-6...........13 Tier I or II Tournaments
..............(5 of which must be Tier I)

It happens that Serena has never in her career met those requirements, even though she's Gold Exempt #1 this year. If she had met them, she would almost certainly still be #1. But if we accept that sort of slotting -- well, Clijsters remains #1. If you did literal ATP slotting (Slams, Tier I, and Masters are required events, five optional), then Serena takes the #1 spot. But the WTA is going to have ten Tier I events next year, when San Diego goes on. Are you then going to require all ten Tier I events and have only four optional events? Under that scenario, Clijsters would become #1 again; she played San Diego this year and Serena didn't.

Finally, let's crank what the author considers the best simple ranking system (i.e. one which can be calculated on any pocket calculator, but which takes into account players' current schedules and counts losses). This is the modified divisor: Slam points are reduced by one-fourth (to bring us back to their approximate original weight before the WTA went to additive rankings), but the divisor denominator is not the number of events you've played; rather, it's a minimum of 17, with each event over 16 counted as 2/3 of an event. That gives us this:

Rank..Player........Score
1....SWilliams.......317
2....Clijsters.......308
3....Henin-Hardenne..245
4....Davenport.......186
5....VWilliams.......184
6....Mauresmo........171
7....Capriati........135
8....Rubin...........107
9....Hantuchova.......98
10....Myskina..........84
11....Maleeva..........80
12....Martinez.........75
13....Coetzer..........75
14....Sugiyama.........70
15....Zvonareva........69
16....Seles............67
17....Kuznetsova.......66
18....Petrova..........65
19....Schnyder.........63
20....Dementieva.......62

This in fact bears a fairly close similarity to the WTA rankings (rather to the author's surprise), except for the key fact: Serena is still #1. Other than that, the top seven are unchanged, and we have the same ten players in the Top Ten.

The number of people who think Clijsters should be #1 is seemingly vanishingly small. The good news is, we could easily make Serena #1 without making the ranking system even worse for the lower-ranked players. By using, for example, the modified divisor shown above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
bandabou said:
It isn´t hard for me at all. I only have this to say:

Number One the Hard Way
Kim Clijsters has a great record this year -- except when it's really big. Think the Australian Open against Serena Williams. Think Roland Garros against Justine Henin-Hardenne.

My Way....
Since we're talking about the #1 ranking (and people are screaming about it all over the place), we thought we'd help the debate along. Just where do Serena and Clijsters stand under alternate rankings?

Here are some partial answers. If we still used the old WTA divisor rankings, Serena remains an overwhelming #1:

Rank..Player......Score
1..SWilliams.......428
2..Clijsters.......299
3..Henin-Hardenne..255
4..VWilliams.......253
5..Mauresmo........209
6..Davenport.......189
7..Capriati........136
8..Rubin...........109
9..Hantuchova.......94
10..Seles............82
11..Myskina..........80
12..Maleeva..........75
13..Martinez.........73
14..Kuznetsova.......72
15..Coetzer..........72
16..Petrova..........70
17..Zvonareva........70
18..Sugiyama.........66
19..Bovina...........61
20..Schnyder.........60

If we just calculate raw points per tournament, Serena's lead actually increases, and Venus Williams moves back to a surprising #2:

Rank..Player......Score
1..SWilliams.......545
2..VWilliams.......354
3..Clijsters.......299
4..Henin-Hardenne..255
5..Mauresmo........209
6..Davenport.......189
7..Capriati........136
8..Rubin...........109
9..Hantuchova.......94
10..Seles............82

If we count quality points per tournament, it's much the same story: Serena #1, Venus #2, Clijsters #3, Henin-Hardenne #4, Mauresmo #5, Davenport #6. If we shift to a system which doubles quality points (a good idea in the author's book), we get that very same list: #1 Serena, #2 Venus, #3 Clijsters, #4 Henin-Hardenne, #5 Mauresmo, #6 Davenport.

At least one commentator is calling for the women to shift to slotted rankings, i.e. required and optional. (This is known as, "Very dumb monkey see, very dumb monkey do.") It's worth remembering that the women do have slots: The Gold Exempt rules. The only difference is, they have a rational tier system, with More Required and Less Required events. The WTA rules state as follows:

Gold Exempt Players must commit to 13 specific Tour Tournaments, exclusive of the Grand Slams and the Tour Championships, in order to fulfill Minimum Commitment requirement rules as outlined below....

GE Standing...Commitment
1-6...........13 Tier I or II Tournaments
..............(5 of which must be Tier I)

It happens that Serena has never in her career met those requirements, even though she's Gold Exempt #1 this year. If she had met them, she would almost certainly still be #1. But if we accept that sort of slotting -- well, Clijsters remains #1. If you did literal ATP slotting (Slams, Tier I, and Masters are required events, five optional), then Serena takes the #1 spot. But the WTA is going to have ten Tier I events next year, when San Diego goes on. Are you then going to require all ten Tier I events and have only four optional events? Under that scenario, Clijsters would become #1 again; she played San Diego this year and Serena didn't.

Finally, let's crank what the author considers the best simple ranking system (i.e. one which can be calculated on any pocket calculator, but which takes into account players' current schedules and counts losses). This is the modified divisor: Slam points are reduced by one-fourth (to bring us back to their approximate original weight before the WTA went to additive rankings), but the divisor denominator is not the number of events you've played; rather, it's a minimum of 17, with each event over 16 counted as 2/3 of an event. That gives us this:

Rank..Player........Score
1....SWilliams.......317
2....Clijsters.......308
3....Henin-Hardenne..245
4....Davenport.......186
5....VWilliams.......184
6....Mauresmo........171
7....Capriati........135
8....Rubin...........107
9....Hantuchova.......98
10....Myskina..........84
11....Maleeva..........80
12....Martinez.........75
13....Coetzer..........75
14....Sugiyama.........70
15....Zvonareva........69
16....Seles............67
17....Kuznetsova.......66
18....Petrova..........65
19....Schnyder.........63
20....Dementieva.......62

This in fact bears a fairly close similarity to the WTA rankings (rather to the author's surprise), except for the key fact: Serena is still #1. Other than that, the top seven are unchanged, and we have the same ten players in the Top Ten.

The number of people who think Clijsters should be #1 is seemingly vanishingly small. The good news is, we could easily make Serena #1 without making the ranking system even worse for the lower-ranked players. By using, for example, the modified divisor shown above.
If we'd use the reverse alphabetical order of WTA-players Zvonareva would be #1 :rolleyes:

you can come up with so many systems and rankings you want, it seems to be a pity for you the one used by WTA designs Kim Clijsters as #1... :p
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
27,238 Posts
Glenn said:
A player who can't construct points is the #1 in the world?
Sure...
im sure u werent saying the same when Serena was #1 ;)

i kinda understand what he means.....Serena isnt the best point constructor....she goes for everything unless shes badly missing :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
petroniao said:
If we'd use the reverse alphabetical order of WTA-players Zvonareva would be #1 :rolleyes:

you can come up with so many systems and rankings you want, it seems to be a pity for you the one used by WTA designs Kim Clijsters as #1... :p
You know what REALLY is a pity?! Being no.1 when no one thinks you´re the best player and that they would prefer playing you rather than at least two( maybe even three!) other players in the later stages of GS´s !! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
Josh Salah al-Din said:
I think both Serena and Kim construct their points better than Venus.


There you go working with no tools again! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,065 Posts
myskina should not be no.7. she may try to construct points, but it only ever works against lower quality players. i was at her match against chanda at this year's aus open. for a set and half myskina was trying to place the ball then come to net, the only problem was that she never made the volley, or just hit it into the net. basically chanda dominated for a set and three quarters then really fell off her game, while myskina stop trying to construct points and just belted winner after winner, and was far more effective and eventually won.

IMO myskina is much better when she just goes for it, rather than trying to put points together with parts of her game that are not very strong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
Hazy said:
What a poor excuse for another Kim-bashing thread...
Hazy, be serious. Suppose I wrote a thread comparing players foot speed. Is that a Lindsay and Monica bashing thread?

Suppose you tell me HOW kim constructs points.

I will give you a couple of examples of point 'construction'.

Venus vs Serena - One of Venus' favorites goes like this.

1 Serving in the ad court

2 swing the serve out wide. Don't let Serena end the point right.

3a If Sererna returns crosscourt, return down the middle

3b If Serena returns DTL or center of the court, attack her backhand side. DON'T give a an easy winner here, or the points over. Serena usually returns this crosscourt if she's NOT going for a winner

4 Venus returns crosscourt, with a slower shot that stays low

5 This happens to be ashot serena makes a lot of werrors on if she goes for it, and if she doesn't, her next shot tends to sit up, giving Venus a good chance at a DTL winner to Serena's forehand.

Venus tries that half-a-dozen times every match with Serena and it usually works.

Example #2

Justine vs Kim - Justine attacks Kim's backhand deep with pace. Kim can and will rally back there all day. But once she's got Kim in the doubles alley and five feet behind the line, Justine uses the dropshot to Kim's forehand side.

Those are points that are 'constructed'. The server knows going in what shots to use in the rally to get what result.

It's not rallying waiting for an opportunity.
It's not trying to overpower the opponent with relentless heavy pace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
switz said:
myskina should not be no.7. she may try to construct points, but it only ever works against lower quality players.
Actually, you're right. You'll notice I limited myself to the top 10 or 12 players, and I specifically mentioned it wasn't about who's better, just who constructed points better. You could make me the genius of point construction and Jelena Dokic would still beat me 6-0 6-0.

In a lot of ways, the best way to figure this out is to look at how these players play against inferior opposition. It's hard to look like you're constructing a point vs Kim, because SHE usually wins the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Josh Salah al-Din said:
I think both Serena and Kim construct their points better than Venus.
Give me an example
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top