Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If Lindsay finishes the year as #1? I think she has a losing record against both Williams...2-1 over Capriati but a loss at Major...added to that no GS titles in almost 2 years...Will there be controversy?....Will she REALLY be a worthy #1?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I would be more comfortable with Lindsay as the number 1, as opposed to Jen. I think Lindsay is the better player.

We all understand why Venus and Serena aren't ranked as high as they should be and the stupid terrorists have f**ked everything else up, so why not the wta rankings?

Lindsay should be number 1 until Venus can get back on schedule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
The truth is, we have been spoiled by our great past champions. When Graf, Seles, Navratilova and Evert were ranked #1, they won slams and several other tournaments during the year, and held a winning head to head record over trhe majority of the top 10.

Today, the way they do the points system, the #1 ranking only indicates who is the best over all performer, not the best player. In my opinion Venus is the true #1 player, I don't care how many tournaments she did not play.

Venus won 2 slams, 6 events overall, and holds a winning head to head record over all the other top players ... nobody else does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Originally posted by Blessings And Aloha:<br /><strong>isnt Venus 1-1 this year agianst Martina. For some reason MArtina plays better when she goes up against Venus.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, Venus is 1 and 1 with Martina this year, but Venus has a winning record against Davenport, Capriati and Seles ... while Hingis does not. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
Lindsay has proven her worth as a No.1 before, thus there will be no controversy if she finishes as No.1 this year. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> It's not something like new to her. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: jomar ]</p>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
53 Posts
Lindsay may get there after Chase Champs but come a week later or so she will lose it again when her points for Philly from last year (400 odd) drop off.

Lindsay hasn't won a Slam this year but she has had a very consistent year achieving highly in nearly every event she played - 6 titles, 2 semis in Slams and finals in other events. Perhaps not the best year but not a shabby year!!!

I just wish Venus would play more - win more - get to #1 so everyone would stop whining about the rankings system! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" />
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,582 Posts
If Lindsay finishes the year number one, she will have accumulated the most points over a 52 week period. In which case, of course she would deserve it.<br />The rankings are set up the same way for every single player, and each and every player who gets to number 1 deserves that ranking.

The only confusion that exists, is when people propose the rankings should be based on ability, not just results. I would be thrilled to see someone formulate a mathematical model of such a ranking system, that is not subjective in anyway whatsoever. I don't think it can be done, but woudl be thrilled to be proved wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
As long as Venus isn't #1, any #1 will be controversial in many people's mind.

This will be the case until WTA changes the rankings system to suit the huge majority of people who can't remember more than a couple of months back, or until Venus actually cares enough to play 17 tournaments and prove the thesis of her supremacy right or wrong.

The rankings reflect the best player over the last year. If I go to an arbitrary tournament during a year, who will I be most likely to see in the semis and finals? The #1! Not the 'best' player who decided to stay home that week.

If I want to know who is best at the moment, I just check the final in the last tournament(s).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,664 Posts
The person who ends the year at number 1, is the number 1.<br />No controversy, No bleating from slighted fans....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
181,845 Posts
The thing before was only 1 woman dominated for long periods

Evert .... then Martina N , then along came Steffi who did brill until being upstaged by Monica who was totally dominant until "that incident" , when Steffi resumed until injury ....... which gave Hingis the limelight.

Now its anyone's guess to who is the best , in a couple of years or so it will be more like the ATP where anyone can beat anyone .

Still in the majors the cream will rise to the top just like it happens on the mens side.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
41,227 Posts
I can only agree with TBE...

The fact is that all the women who ruled their decade played lots of matches, while these days the topplayers seem to play less tournements.<br />Or at least they seem to be concentrating on the Grand Slams only. That's why the top is getting bigger and bigger. <br />It's clear that Hingis isn't the best player of the world at the moment. But still she was on the first place for so long, just because she played lots of tournements and gathered points everywhere.

So we'll have to wait for a very good player who plays a lot, and then we'll have again a player who can rule her decade...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
i think lindsay would totally deserve it, its not ALL about winning slams, it about doing well at them, consistancy against other top players, and lindsay has been consistant - apart from the french where she could attend, but I reckon if she gets it she deserves it,
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,381 Posts
Sorry Per4ever, but the AVERAGE number of events Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Seles played was about 14. If you don't believe me go the International Tennis Federation website. All of this craziness with the computer started with the quantity over quality rankings system introduced in 1997.

Davenport as computer #1 would just make the computer more irrelevant. Hats off to Lindsay for joking about it with the press the other day. If it happens, at least she won't be caught up in the mess like Hingis was.

To most people #1 equals the BEST. <br />Venus was the best player of 2001. Not by a wide margin, since Capriati had 2 slams too-but since Venus won all 3 meetings, she ranks ahead.

Having a slamless #1 is a joke. Period. If only Venus fans thought so, then others such as myself, Big Lindsay, or most of the world's tennis press wouldn't be speaking up. I'll be the first in line to say I think Venus should play more, but that doesn't change the fact that 2001 she proved she was the best player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
There wouldn't be so much "craziness" over the ranking system if they rewarded EVERYONE for a job well done. For 2 years straight, Venus has been the best player on the tour. There was no competion in 2000, but Jen gave a good go in 2001. Someone said that Jen started the year at #14. She won 2 GS and had wonderful showings the rest of the year. Venus was seeded #5 at Wimbledon 2000. She moved up to #3 after winning Wimbledon. After the 35 match win streak and a Semifinal loss at Aus 2001, she only moved up to #2 briefly. She repeated Wimbledon and US Open, as well as 4 other tournament titles. Only to move backwards in the rankings, #4. Jen's performance in 2001 alone moved her up 13 spots. How the hell is this? Forget that excused of not playing. You don't win 35 straight matching by not playing. She's played 12 tourneys this year, winning 6 of them. The whole system seems shady to me. If Venus had gotten her usual results (before winning Wimbledon 2000), then there wouldn't be a case against the system. I just don't see how you can win as much as Venus does, and not be rewarded for it in the rankings.
 

·
Veelieve!!!
Joined
·
32,570 Posts
If Lindsay finishes the year as #1? I think she has a losing record against both Williams...2-1 over Capriati but a loss at Major...added to that no GS titles in almost 2 years...Will there be controversy?....Will she REALLY be a worthy #1? <hr></blockquote>

I don't think so ... If she goes on to win both Linz and Chase (especially if she beats #1 along the way), then she would be deserving of the ranking... Hingisova ended last year ranked #1 without a grandslam although with the most titles, so Lindsay ending 2001 at #1 should not be deemed contoversial IMHO...

After all, this is the way the system is set up, so Lindsay should not be faulted... Knowing the person she is, we all know that she will not be comfortable in that spot having not won any slams this year anyway...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,878 Posts
There are a few glitches in the system and it could use a tweak here or there, but broadly speaking the rankings are fair and whoever is at the top deserves it.

Right now, that is Jennifer. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,381 Posts
Capriati deserved her #1-but it reflects the reality of a few months ago, not now. And while I would argue Venus is the best player now, she hasn't totally dominated either year. Other than Wimbledon,she hasn't done much outside of the United States or off hard courts. No French Open(not even a semifinal yet), no Aussie, no WTA final. She has yet to prove she can win the majors on all surfaces. Until we get another "dominator" there will be some question mark over any #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
NEITHER JENN.SHE WON ONLY TWO SLAM,KIM AND HINGIS OOOOOO PLEASE ,GIVE ME A BREAK.THE OTHER GIRLS LIVE A NICE FREE DRUG FREE LIFE,AND EVERYONE ALWAYS ON THEY'RE BACK.BUT LET A JUNKIE COME BACK ,AND SHE THE BEST THING CENT WHITE BREAD.PLEASE GIVE ME A F****NG BREAK.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top