Tennis Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It seems that the WTA has bit off more than they can chew! The new rankings system was basically made to put Venus on the top spot, who everyone seems to believe is the world's greatest. In their notorious efforts to make Williams no1, it may just as well backfire. It is certainly no impossibility that Kim Clijsters may be the next no1 in line. What a mishap! But anything for getting rid of Jenn and Davey, right?:confused:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
692 Posts
The rankings are a bit "screwed" It was actually put in to stop underdgogs beating top dogs. And so far its been working, I like the top 10 better.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
41,227 Posts
hey!!!!!! What's wrong with Kim becoming number 1? At least she's a great person, and she's a wonderful player. I hope she wins the AO and becomes the first belgian #1 in history
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,027 Posts
First of all, I don't think that the rankings were changed to get Venus on the top. I think it was changed because the last two end year No. 1s have not won a Grand Slam title in that year!

And what's wrong with Kim? She reached 6 finals last year, has 7 semifinal appearances on top of that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
She did, but didn't win any slams, which was the only reason that Martina shouldn't have it, so it will still be an undeserved position.

However, to get #1 after AO, Kim has to win the slam, so it won't be any controversy.

...or she will get it the week after when Lindsay's points come off... in that case we can continue letting this stupid debate caused by Williams' weaknesses rage on.
 

·
HAND SCRAPED
Joined
·
7,145 Posts
I don't think its a mishap at all.

as smygelfh says, if kim becomes #1 v soon, it would be because she won a slam, got to the final of another slam, had 2 other QF slam appearances, won 2 tier 2 titles, won a tier 3, final of IW, SF of tour champs, and numerous other finals and semis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
I have to admit I was surprised to hear that Kim would be #1 if she wins the Australian open. (I'm NOT bashing Kim here at all, but I don't think that she's the top player in the world -she's close, but not quite.) Its just strange that if Hingis wins, she moves to #2, but if Kim wins, she becomes #1. That just sounds weird to me. (I know its becuz Hingis couldn't defend her Sanex championship.) But again, Kim plays a lot, and has had a lot of very good results, and the ranking system favors that. Its the same with Lindsay, no GS finals in 2001, but good solid results, especially at the end of the year.

Lets face it, recently the rankings have not signified the BEST player in the world at the time. Even Hingis said that last year when Capriati was winning the first two slams that Jen was the best player in the world.

I also don't think that the WTA changed the rankings to help Venus achieve the #1 position. If they wanted to do that, they would have reduced the number of tournaments that factor into the rankings.
Ruth in Philly PA USA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,725 Posts
No offence to Kim and her supporters,

But I think there is something seriously wrong with the ranking system, if Kim can get to #1 just by winning this slam.

And I agree, how weird is it, that Hingis can only get to #2 if she wins?

So if a lower-ranked player happens to beat certain top ranked players, they can get close to #1? Where a higher-ranked player, beating the same players, cannot. You can't get better than the best, if you know what I mean. If you beat them, you can't beat them any more. So why can't Hingis get to #1? Because she gets to the final every year. So shouldn't she be, like, rewarded or something for winning, instead of other reaping the benefits?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
it certainly would be ironic, given all the heat that Hingis has taken for being #1 while not winning a GS since Jan 99 and only making one GS final last year (as if it was her fault that she was #1), that hingis could finally win another slam, and end up at #2.

I'm not a big Hingis fan, but I thought it was totally ridiculous how everyone would dog her about being #1 even though she was recently slamless etc. As if she created the rankings system. People acted like it was her FAULT that she was number 1 and she was forced to defend it all year.

Anyway, i've come to accept the vagaries of the ranking system. It DOES NOT represent the BEST player in the world at the time, it represents the player who, on average, has played the best over the past 12 months, relative to other players playing over those same 12 months. So, if Kim becomes #1 - more power to her. They don't give it to you - you have to earn it.
Ruth in Philly PA USA
 

·
HAND SCRAPED
Joined
·
7,145 Posts
hingis got to the final here last year, and so has to win it to gain any points.

kim got to the 4th round, meaning she has been gaining points for a couple of rounds already.

and she wouldn't be getting the ranking JUST by winning this slam... she would get it cos of the results i mentioned earlier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,742 Posts
Kim played the final at RG, Martina the semis, Kim played the quarters at Wimbledon, Martina was out in the first round...It seems pretty obvious that Kim's had a better year than Martina.
 

·
double-dog daredevil
Joined
·
12,044 Posts
Agrees with The Crow and per4ever...;)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,384 Posts
DELAYED GLORY

That's a perfect description of the computer.
When a president or Prime Minister is "elected", does he or she take office the next day?
No. There is usually a transition.

That's the way the computer works. So as long as we have a new system that awards the #1 to a slam winner, can we really complain? Clijsters would be a deserving temporary #1 if she won Australia, and deserves to keep it if she kept winning. Hingis would be #2 if she won the Aussie only for a short time-within a short time she would take over as #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,027 Posts
I think people are shocked for several reasons:

1) They haven't noticed how good Kim is

2) She did well all year round last year.

Plus her only "bad" patch last year was the beginning of the season. Losing in the second round of Sydeny, fourth round of Australian, second round of Scottsdale, and her beginning clay season.

If you look at this year's results she has improved those showings, reaching semis of Sydney and now at least semis of Australian Open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,198 Posts
Every player who reaches the spot he/she is on, deserves to be on that spot! Everyone knows how the ranking system works, so you can not complain afterwards! Being #1 is not only about grand slams, it's about the whole last year. A player who does well throughout the year, but totally fails at GS's will not become #1 and vice verse, you have to be good and consistent in both.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,114 Posts
I didn't realise that Kim is so close to no.1.

If she gets there then good for her, she'll have the points so she'll have earnt it :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
Has anyone actually asked Kim about this? It seems to be a bit hush-hush!

I've not read all the press from her victory over Justine, but from what I have read it hasn't mentioned this possiblity at all.

I mean it could be somebody wants to keep a "lid" on it, but with all the fuss made in the indoor period last year of Davenport overtaking Cap, I really can't believe this.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top