[justenis]

Davenport who owns 8 this year agrees with me that 2 slams is in fact superior <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> Q. Have you any further observations about being No. 1?

LINDSAY DAVENPORT: You know, I can't control what happens with the rankings. I've never been a huge proponent of what I'm ranked, what the other person's ranked. It's just not that important to me. I'm sure there's going to be so many articles, "What's wrong? Who is No. 1?" I mean, I can't help it that I'm 1. I'm certainly not going to go out there and lose so it makes it look better that someone else is 1. At the same time, I've had a pretty consistent year. I'm going for I think my eighth title tomorrow. That's a lot of titles. I would rather be sitting up here with two Grand Slams. That's the bottom line.

 

[Shane54]

What a class act Lindsay is!! Yes, I would rather 2 GS titles also, but Lindsay has had a more consistent year. She played brilliantly the last few weeks and that is how the ranking system goes. Congrats Lindsay! And good luck to both Serena and Lindsay tomorrow! USA USA!! <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" />

 

[Tony]

Shane:

I agree with everything you said. But the problem a lot of people see with the ranking system is that Lindsay can win 20+ matches in a row , in a span of a few weeks, and ascend to the number 1 position. Venus, last year, won 30+ matches, in the same span of time (maybe longer), from the same ranking position (No. 4) as Lindsay was this year, and did not attain the number 1 ranking. This year, (talking about consistency), she defended 2 Gram slam titles and DROPPED in ranking!

Now, I understand the complexity of this, IMO, ridiculous ranking system, but to many people (myself included), being ranked # 1 is equated to being the best player (team) at that moment. Reasonable people will never understand (but will accept) any system that rewards QUANTITY over QUALITY.

Anyway, congratulations to Lindsay, who attained her status by the rules set forth. Maybe next year Venus will do the same, but it's apparent that she can't do it by defending and winning titles, having a 90+ winning percentage over the Top 10 players, or by being the tour's winning money leader, etc...

She'll have to do it the old fashioned way. Play 20+ tournaments with mostly subpar performances.

 

[Shane54]

Hey Tony:

I agree with everything you said too. Trust me I think that something is wrong with the ranking system. I was just trying to stay positive in my posts and be congratulatory to all. I think there is something wrong if Lindsay can win 3 or more tournies in a short span and gain #1. Why not Venus? But I think that Lindsay will really be questioned as a number 1 if she loses to Serena AGAIN(very good possibility) tomorrow...which i believe the match IS IN Serena's hands

 

[TSequoia01]

Shane54 I agree with you. Winning a bunch of matches over Dokic does not make you the best. Lindsay's ascension may be more tasteful if she defeats Serena tomorrow. But nothing can replace her performance in the slams this year. All of this is not Lindsay's fault, it is the WTA's. If she loses to Serena it will just refocus everyone again to this lunacy.

 

[QUEENLINDSAY]

Lindsay won 15 matches already without any week break. You only need to take 7 matches in two weeks to win a grandslam. Lindsay already does 15 and for me that is something greater than one Slam. Besides this last tournament involves all top players.

Its just that there is no grandslam event at this point in time, that Lindsay shoul'nt be rewarded.

 

[Tony]

QuuenLindsay:

We're talking apples and oranges here.

Sure, Lindsay won 15 matches in a row, and she should be commended for that. However, last year, Venus won over 30 matches in a row, which included winning 2 Gram slam titles, and a Gold Medal in the Olympics in both singles and in doubles. And, in addition, Venus won those 2 Grand slam titles with no GS championship points to defend - just like Jennifer!

Now, with all due respect to Lindsay, the quality of opponents that Venus had during her winning streak were much more difficult than those who Lindsay had in winning those Tier II tournaments!<br />And how can you, or anyone else, justify ANY player LOSING points and ranking by DEFENDING Grand slam titles?

One cannot overlook the fact that Venus did not ascend from her no. 4 ranking to numero uno like Lindsay just did, even though both had remarkable winning streaks. Anyway you cut it, that is a CLEAR example of what's wrong with this ranking system.

Like I said before, it seems that all Venus has to do to gain the number 1 spot is to play 20+ tournaments, mostly Tier II events, and have subpar results.

All this says to me is that the WTA is content to reward quantity over quality! <img src="graemlins/firey.gif" border="0" alt="[Fiery]" />

 

[sartrista7]

Tony, the key to Venus dropping in the rankings wasn't the fact that she defended all her titles. There was one title she failed to defend, Stanford, where she lost to Shaughnessy in the QFs, which is where she dropped points; add that to her failure to defend her Linz finalist points in the autumn, and there you have the deficit.<br />I wouldn't call Lindsay's results 'subpar' at all. And you forget that every top player has had 'subpar' results this year: Venus' clay court season, Capriati's post-Wimbledon season, Serena's Australian results, most of Hingis' year. The closest Davenport has come to 'subpar' was the spring in America, losing to Serena and Elena D. Even then, she took revenge on Capriati and won Scottsdale. The only real blip is her lack of a GS title compared with Jennifer and Venus, but you can't over-emphasise them with extra points too much, otherwise the smaller tournaments lose virtually all meaning.<br />The flipside of the argument: if Capriati and Venus can win not just one but TWO Grand Slams in a year, what does it tell you about their other results that they STILL can't end up #1? Capriati's got to all 4 GS semis, for Christ's sake. Lindsay missed an entire GS. (With Venus, it may just be bad luck - drawing Henin and Schett in early rounds during the clay-court season was nasty - if she'd done even slightly better at Berlin and RG, she'd probably be #1 now.)

 

[TSequoia01]

Lindsay stated herself that she would give up all her victories for two grand slams. I would like to know how many of Lindsay's victories came with no Williams in the field. Not Lindsay's fault by any means, but just curious. The point being, winning tier II's is just not the same as a slam where everyone is present. Winning tournies without all the top players present is just not the same test.