Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
By importance of tournament

Code:
Wimbledon            Serena Williams
USOpen               Serena Williams
Roland Garros        Justine Henin-Hardenne
Australian           Serena Williams
Tour championships   Kim Clijsters
Miami                Serena Williams
Indian Wells         Kim Clijsters
Rome                 Kim Clijsters
Berlin               Justine Henin-Hardenne
Toronto              Amelie Mauresmo
Charleston           Justine Henin-Hardenne
Toray Pan Pacific    Lindsay Davenport
Zurich               Patty Schnyder
Moscow               Magdalena Maleeva
So what do we learn? We learn why Kim is #2. She's won 3 of the 8 most prestigious tournaments inthe past 12 months. (Serena won 4, JH2, the other 1.)

By Date, last 12 months

Code:
Wimbledon            Serena Williams
Roland Garros        Justine Henin-Hardenne
Rome                 Kim Clijsters
Berlin               Justine Henin-Hardenne
Charleston           Justine Henin-Hardenne
Miami                Serena Williams
Indian Wells         Kim Clijsters
Toray Pan Pacific    Lindsay Davenport
Australian           Serena Williams
Tour championships   Kim Clijsters
Zurich               Patty Schnyder
Moscow               Magdalena Maleeva
USOpen               Serena Williams
Toronto              Amelie Mauresmo
So what do we learn? Justine's ranking isn't going down any time soon. She's won 3 of the last 5 big tournaments. Those points will be around for a while.

NOTE: Conspicuous by it absence is the name Venus Williams. C'est la vie. Making a GS final may yield the same number of points as a TIer I win, but if winning really matters above and beyond points, then what can you say except she's ranked where she should be, even if she's more likely to beat the players ranked #2 and #3 than not.

NOTE: Amelie defends 1036 points this summer. This gives Hantuchova and Myskina both an outside chance at a #8 seed at the US Open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,289 Posts
Exactly - Justine has 2 Tier 1s and a Slam; Kim has 2 Tier 1s and the Tour Championships. It's not obvious to me why we "learn that Kim is #2 from this".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,114 Posts
Volcana said:
NOTE: Conspicuous by it absence is the name Venus Williams. C'est la vie. Making a GS final may yield the same number of points as a TIer I win, but if winning really matters above and beyond points, then what can you say except she's ranked where she should be, even if she's more likely to beat the players ranked #2 and #3 than not.
How many of those tournaments has Venus actually played ?

Of the top of my head I can only remember her playing six (?) of them.
 

·
Serena's #1 Hater
Joined
·
19,697 Posts
NOTE: Conspicuous by it absence is the name Venus Williams. C'est la vie. Making a GS final may yield the same number of points as a TIer I win, but if winning really matters above and beyond points, then what can you say except she's ranked where she should be, even if she's more likely to beat the players ranked #2 and #3 than not.

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that Venus (or anyone else, for that matter) is ranked where she should be, but Martina Hingis proved that you can be ranked #1 without being the world's best player. Kim Clijsters has earned the #2 ranking fair and square, and if she should overtake Serena and become #1, she will have done that fair and square also, but until she wins a major, I don't see how she could be viewed as the world's best player. By the way, Venus is a she, not an it. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
Volcana: Mauresmo may have 1036 points to defend over the summer, but half of them are from the US Open and won't come off until after the seeds are determined. Only Mauresmo's Canadian Open points from last year come off before the seeds are determined.
 

·
Enemy of Art
Joined
·
14,038 Posts
Ted of Teds Tennis said:
Volcana: Mauresmo may have 1036 points to defend over the summer, but half of them are from the US Open and won't come off until after the seeds are determined. Only Mauresmo's Canadian Open points from last year come off before the seeds are determined.
Words out of mouth.

But they do have a shot at the #8 seed. Rubin defends over 400 points at LA.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
241 Posts
darrinbaker00 said:
NOTE: Conspicuous by it absence is the name Venus Williams. C'est la vie. Making a GS final may yield the same number of points as a TIer I win, but if winning really matters above and beyond points, then what can you say except she's ranked where she should be, even if she's more likely to beat the players ranked #2 and #3 than not.

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that Venus (or anyone else, for that matter) is ranked where she should be, but Martina Hingis proved that you can be ranked #1 without being the world's best player. Kim Clijsters has earned the #2 ranking fair and square, and if she should overtake Serena and become #1, she will have done that fair and square also, but until she wins a major, I don't see how she could be viewed as the world's best player. By the way, Venus is a she, not an it. ;)
try that again?...
#1 player is not one that can only play on grass or American hardcourt,
#1 player is not one that can only play on clay or rebound ace,
#1 player is one that proves she can be effective
on any surface........

Serena is lucky to be #1 with the injury of
Martina H/Lindsay/Venus keeping them out of contention,
Kim is only effective indoors and on hardcourt,
Serena doesnt play indoors, and Kim proves that she
can play with Serena on rebound ace......

last yr is one cool yr with so many different Tier I winners,
that goes to show the depth of 02 fields,
that's right, the yr Serena got her #1 ranking,
so dont go telling everyone Martina is not worthy of the #1 ranking
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,049 Posts
So obvious.

Volcana has lost his previous argument to disminish Justine, he can’t just ignore her since she has won a GS and was the first to beat Serena this year.

He can’t say she is losing to “non-elite players” because she hasn’t this year.

So, hidding behind a frame of “objectivity” he makes his analysis.
Wimbledon Serena Williams
USOpen Serena Williams
Roland Garros Justine Henin-Hardenne
Australian Serena Williams
Tour championships Kim Clijsters
Miami Serena Williams
Indian Wells Kim Clijsters
Rome Kim Clijsters
Berlin Justine Henin-Hardenne
Toronto Amelie Mauresmo
Charleston Justine Henin-Hardenne
Toray Pan Pacific Lindsay Davenport
Zurich Patty Schnyder
Moscow Magdalena Maleeva

So what do we learn? We learn why Kim is #2. She's won 3 of the 8 most prestigious tournaments inthe past 12 months. (Serena won 4, JH2, the other 1.)
let’s see, he orders the tournaments the way he likes, so, Justine won only 1 of the 8 most prestigious tournaments, to Kim’s 3 and Serena’s 4.

Hmmm, why is it more important, performace wise to win Wimbledon than RG?, they are both GS, they both give the same number of points, same field, same number of matches, and in fact, Justine got more points for winning RG than Serena for winning any of the other 3, so why would winning US Open be better than winning FO? Of course, Serena has won 3 GSs but that’s another matter.
Why is Rome more important than Berlin?, why is Tokyo more important than Zurich?, why is Toronto behind Berlin and Rome when in fact it gives more points? (is a tier I in the second category, the only one).

Why 8 tournaments? Why not 5, 3, 15, 100?, is that because it suits what he wants to say?

He probably would have said 2 tournaments, only counting the US Open and Wimby but that would have been too obvious, he just couldn’t ignore RG.

Plus, Kim is not # 2 because she won 3 of the 8 most prestigious tournaments, but also for her other results that, oh joy, are counted.

Interesting that Charleston doesn’t count because isn’t one of the most prestigious 8 event, however, Justine got more points there than in Berlin, or Kim in Rome.
Finally, the Venus comment, an attempt to be “fair”, give me a break.

1) a GS finals is NOT like winning a tier 1, it’s a lot more, normally above 600 points (the normal for a tier 1 is 400-500) and Venus got 800+ points from Wimbledon. It’s winning all that matters? Give me a break, the GS finals ARE counted in the points total and of course winning is better but they obviously have a significant impact, Venus has more than 2000 points from her GS finals, Justine or Kim are way below that if you add all their tier ½ wins, so for ranking purposes, a GS finals is way better than a tier1 win.

What can I say? He couldn’t have been more obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
I agree with you Fingon that Volcana want to diminish Justine. I would have said the same things you said.
+ for me that win of Justine at Charleston is by far a more important result than Kim's win at Indian Wells (where there was no great players) or Rome (idem). Same for Justine's win at Berlin, where she defeated Amelie + Kim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
I don't think #9 seeded is any better than 10, 11 or 12. Its only better if your in the top 8, top 16, 24, 32 etc because of the draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,049 Posts
a fair way to rank the tier I and above in the past 12 months would be to sort them by the number of points the winner got.

Roland Garros - JHH: 1,156
Wimbledon - SW: 1,110
Australian Open - SW: 1,048
US Open - SW: 1,040
WTA Championships - KC: 750
Miami - SW: 493
Moscow - MM: 482
Indian Wells - KC: 459
Berlin - JHH: 440
Charleston - JHH: 420
Rome - KC: 402
Zurich - PS: 394
Montreal - AM: 388
Tokyo - LD: 363
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
182,152 Posts
And Tokyo PPO is the weakest of all Tier I's by along way now
2nd weakest is Charleston.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,315 Posts
saki said:
Exactly - Justine has 2 Tier 1s and a Slam; Kim has 2 Tier 1s and the Tour Championships. It's not obvious to me why we "learn that Kim is #2 from this".
Are we now in a "Best 3" ranking system? I guess Serena's #1 is safe for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,315 Posts
treufreund said:
Rome is supposedly more prestigious that Berlin??? And Canada more than Zuerich??

Whatever. :rolleyes:
Yes and yes. It's not his opinion about Rome, it's universally accepted that it is the most prestigious of all the events that don't have monster purses. Toronto/Montreal is no question ahead of Zurich. My only deviation from his list is that I might consider Toronto ahead of Berlin. It is a very popular tournament and occipies the equivalant spot to Rome in the US Open leadup. But it certainly ranks below Rome.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top