... at least for this week.
In any professional game, rules are set; they may be changed but are set at any given time. There are rules to play by during a match, rules to determine the winner of a match, and ranking rules for the players (or teams). All this is well known. Now, if you enter a game, it's a contract to play by all rules, including ranking rules.
To me, in tennis, if a player reaches the #1 position, there is no question as to whether or not he/she deserves it. All matches are played in the open for all to see, and the #1 doesn't come suddenly. The #1 could be questioned only if cheating was involved. Here again, most of the times, if a player cheats we can all see it as well as the umpire, and there are rules to deal with that. At times, there are controversial calls, this is why we have several points, several games, and several sets to mitigate those calls and determine a winner. When all points are tallied over 52 weeks, a #1 emerges. That's it.
We, the viewing public, may or may not like the emerged #1. However, the players themselves know to accept it. The rules were laid out and the players agreed to play by them. Some players decided to play more, some less, which was their choice; they were all operating under the same rules.
The rankings are used for seeding (more often than not), but, whether we like it or not, they also tell the general public who the best player is. A special kind of controversy develops when the emerged #1 doesn't match the perceived best player. That controversy becomes greater when the emerged #1 herself (in this case, Davenport in 2001) affirms she's not deserving of the #1. What are the tour officials to do? What are we to do or think? The clamor may be: "change the rules!". Well, the WTA officials have done just that over the years. We all agree that such actions should be tempered, weighted with the input of all stakeholders taken into consideration.
Who are the stakeholders here? Certainly the players, the tourney organizers, the WTA officials, but also the paying spectators, the fans, the media owners, the advertisers, even the doctors treating these players. Such a diverse group can definitely have conflicting agendas, which explains how treacherous a change can be.
As in all organizations, change will come as warranted and in due course after all views are pondered and all interests, addressed. But until that change comes, let's go by the current rules.
We have a weekly determined #1 (based on 52-week performance) and at the end of the year, a yearend #1. Let's hold on to that and cheer on these all deserving women.
Your take.
TP
In any professional game, rules are set; they may be changed but are set at any given time. There are rules to play by during a match, rules to determine the winner of a match, and ranking rules for the players (or teams). All this is well known. Now, if you enter a game, it's a contract to play by all rules, including ranking rules.
To me, in tennis, if a player reaches the #1 position, there is no question as to whether or not he/she deserves it. All matches are played in the open for all to see, and the #1 doesn't come suddenly. The #1 could be questioned only if cheating was involved. Here again, most of the times, if a player cheats we can all see it as well as the umpire, and there are rules to deal with that. At times, there are controversial calls, this is why we have several points, several games, and several sets to mitigate those calls and determine a winner. When all points are tallied over 52 weeks, a #1 emerges. That's it.
We, the viewing public, may or may not like the emerged #1. However, the players themselves know to accept it. The rules were laid out and the players agreed to play by them. Some players decided to play more, some less, which was their choice; they were all operating under the same rules.
The rankings are used for seeding (more often than not), but, whether we like it or not, they also tell the general public who the best player is. A special kind of controversy develops when the emerged #1 doesn't match the perceived best player. That controversy becomes greater when the emerged #1 herself (in this case, Davenport in 2001) affirms she's not deserving of the #1. What are the tour officials to do? What are we to do or think? The clamor may be: "change the rules!". Well, the WTA officials have done just that over the years. We all agree that such actions should be tempered, weighted with the input of all stakeholders taken into consideration.
Who are the stakeholders here? Certainly the players, the tourney organizers, the WTA officials, but also the paying spectators, the fans, the media owners, the advertisers, even the doctors treating these players. Such a diverse group can definitely have conflicting agendas, which explains how treacherous a change can be.
As in all organizations, change will come as warranted and in due course after all views are pondered and all interests, addressed. But until that change comes, let's go by the current rules.
We have a weekly determined #1 (based on 52-week performance) and at the end of the year, a yearend #1. Let's hold on to that and cheer on these all deserving women.
Your take.
TP