Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,943 Posts
I thought she was already considered better than justine.


If she reaches number one w/out a slam, she wouldn't be breaking new ground, nor will she stay there very long.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
7,996 Posts
Uhm...yes she would....no one on the women's tour has ever reached #1 before winning a slam...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,943 Posts
I'd say that's something to be proud of.....NOT!
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
7,996 Posts
lol....I didn't say it was a good thing... I think the points for reach slam Finals and points for winning Grand slams should be increased...also points for Winning, Finals of Tier I's increased, but nothing else
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
She might still win a slam later on.

And what's better? She didn't beat Justine in this one match, if she had it would be her holding the Slam.

Winning a Slam is a big achievement, I agree, but it's not because Justine won that one match last Saturday that she's moved from being worse to suddenly being a much better player than Kim.

Furthermore getting to no. 1 and Winning a slam are two things you should not compare.

About the values of Masters in comparison to a GS: Had Kim won that one match against Justine she'd have had a slam, beating one top 10 player in the process.

To win the masters she beat Justine, Venus, Serena and Chanda. That's not bad either is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,064 Posts
It would confirm my doubts about the current ranking system being able to really reflect what is going on in tennis :rolleyes:
I dont think that will happen though
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
just so one knows..........
ranking points is a reflection of what
a player has done in one yr,
and Slam Trophy is a relfection of what
a player has doen in 2 weeks,

so is being the "absolute best" at a time better
than "cumulatively best"?......:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,635 Posts
I hope kim becomes one after winning a slam beating all in between!
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
23,020 Posts
If Serena beats Kim in a W finals, Serena will keep holding her three Slams.. And Kim could be #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
If Kim reaches the top spot then she deserves it. It means that she would be the most dominant player on the tour even if she wouldn't win a GS. In fact, I think that the GS are overrated, you gain more then twice as many point by winning a GS in comparison with a tier 1 but in the end the players and the level of play remains the same. You could argue that a grandslam win needs 7 consecutive wins and a tier 1 normally 5 or 6 (for a topseed) but in fact it is only an addition of a few easier rounds for the topseeds. I also think that players who play less then 17 tournaments have no reason to complain when they lose their top spot to a player who plays more tournaments. If they want to keep their top spot then they will need to play those 17 tournaments, that's the game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
i see why people are frustrated whith the ranking system. it doesn't accurately reflect how well a player does at "big" tourneys. nor does it reflect player head to heads.

but fact is, there are more than just grand slam tournaments out there. yes, a GS title is impressive, but so are 3 smaller tourney wins ( and c'mon, we're REAL tennis fans who look at more than just GS's). and, flawed as it may be, there's got to be a CERTAIN KIND of ranking system out there, and this is what we have. trust me the players are COMPLETELY sure of how the system works. if they wanted to go for ranking points, they would. if they don't, they won't. simple as that. the ranking system is flawed, but it is the only one we have and all the players and fans know that, so arguing over how accurate it is really becomes moot.

that said, i really think capriati should be ranked ahead of rubin. but what do i know? i'm just a fan.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
Well she did win the Championships, I know its not a slam, but its not nothing either!!! You act as if she would be #1 from playing 30 tier 2 and 3 tournys
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,737 Posts
If Clijsters reaches #1 w/o winning a Slam.... She'll be like Martina Hingis when she last held #1. Only getting it on meaningless tournaments. ;)

If Kim gets to #1 without a Slam, and Justine gets there with a Slam, hands down, Justine is greater!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
What's the point? If Kim reaches #1 without winning a slam, she also deserves it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Well Kim is a contender on all surfaces while Justine is not!!!! Juju sucks on hardcourt.

If kim get to number one, that means she earned enough points to get there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,226 Posts
If Kim reaches number 1 without winning a slam, would she be deserving? Definetly but would she be the best player in the world? No but would that player be Justine? Not unless she wins Wimbledon.

The reason I say Kim would be deserving is because the rankings don't lie... People can argue GS titles all they want but those aren't the only tournaments that exist. Sure Tier 1's and 2's don't mean as much but there has to be a way for players to get rewarded for playing and winning those tournaments and I think the system is fair the way it is and if Kim's consistent results mean she's number 1 well then so be it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: nicky

·
Banned
Joined
·
350 Posts
XMan said:
If Kim reaches the top spot then she deserves it. It means that she would be the most dominant player on the tour even if she wouldn't win a GS. In fact, I think that the GS are overrated, you gain more then twice as many point by winning a GS in comparison with a tier 1 but in the end the players and the level of play remains the same. You could argue that a grandslam win needs 7 consecutive wins and a tier 1 normally 5 or 6 (for a topseed) but in fact it is only an addition of a few easier rounds for the topseeds. I also think that players who play less then 17 tournaments have no reason to complain when they lose their top spot to a player who plays more tournaments. If they want to keep their top spot then they will need to play those 17 tournaments, that's the game.
The slams are "overrated"? You make them sound so insignificant as if just ANYBODY can win them.

Kim will be become #1 mathematically but some people won't view her (including myself) as a genuine #1 until she wins a GS singles title.

Angele I'm sure you realise how much Dokic plays. Let's say this year she played her normal 8 consecutive tourneys (no low Tiers at all) and made the semifinals of each and she played the Williams sisters, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati or Seles once during those 8 tourneys and did NOT beat any of them. Mathematically because of her 8 semifinal results she was poised to be #1 by Wimbledon. Would you consider her a valid #1?
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top