Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
There have been far more GS winners than #1's. Of course not. For most if the history of tennis, we didn't HAVE rankings. And computerized rankings are relatively new phenomena. (1975)

That said, most players express the desire to win GS titles, not attain the #1 ranking. However, these days, the comparison is easier to make than it would have been in the past. We've had two recent #1's who are quite competent, accomplished players who've never won a GS title.

Who's career would you rather have?

Iva Majoli - 8 career singles, career high #4 ranking. And the 1997 French Open title.

or

Amelie Mauresmo - 15 career singles titles, 5 weeks at #1, but no GS singles title?

How about Kim Clijsters? 12 weeks at #1, 21 career titles, but no GS singles title?

What about Mary Pierce? TWO GS singles titles, but no #1.

Virginia Wade? THREE GS singles titles, but no #1.

What the true measure of greatness?

Chris O'Neil will be on every list of GS winners til the end of time. But Anne Kremer has more career wins. What's the number one ranking worth? And what does history hold it's worth to be?

Put another way, how many players who never won a GS title do we eeven spend time talking about, outside of Anna Kournikova?

The afformentioned Chris O'Neil was the last Australian champ of the Australian Open. And it was her ONLY tournament win. i heard her name mentioned more this year than I had in years, just because the Aussies had a chance to break the drought. So far, history has recalled her, despite a career that never honestly rose TO mediocre. Outside of two glorious weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
Volcana said:
There have been far GS winners than #1's. Of course not. For most if the history of tennis, we didn't HAVE rankings. And computerized rankings are relatively new phenomena.

That said, most players express the desire to win GS titles, not attain the #1 ranking. However, these days, the comparison is easier to make than it would have been in the past. We've had two recent #1's who are quite competent, accomplished players who've never won a GS title.

Who's career would you rather have?

Iva Majoli - 8 career singles, career high #4 ranking. And the 1997 French Open title.

or

Amelie Mauresmo - 15 career singles titles, 5 weeks at #1, but no GS singles title?

How about Kim Clijsters? 12 weeks at #1, 21 career titles, but no GS singles title?

What about Mary Pierce? TWO GS singles titles, but no #1.

Virginia Wade? THREE GS singles titles, but no #1.

What the true measure of greatness?

Chris O'Neil will be on every list of GS winners til the end of time. But Anne Kremer has more career wins. What's the number one ranking worth? And what does history hold it's worth to be?

Put another way, how many players who never won a GS title do we eeven spend time talking about, outside of Anna Kournikova?

The afformentioned Chris O'Neil was the last Australian champ of the Australian Open. And it was her ONLY tournament win. i heard her name mentioned more this year than I had in years, just because the Aussies had a chance to break the drought. So far, history has recalled her, despite a career that never honestly rose TO mediocre. Outside of two glorious weeks.
Excellent point.......the number 1 ranking has been recently of little to no importance.......mauresmo has been number and has it made one bit of difference No! and now everyone is talking about sharapova being number 1 before the french.......well to be perfectly honest she needs to become number 1 by winning freaking grand slam titles (theres a crazy idea)........the number 1 and the rankings in general have been a joke ever since the true number 1 (serena :hearts: :worship: ) went out with a knee injury after wimbledon 03'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Being #1 isn't irrelevant. But to hear most players tell it, they cheerfully trade 100 weeks at #1 for a GS singles title. I suppose once you HAVE a GS singles title, that attitude might change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,551 Posts
I think winning a GS is great but being number one may be sweeter as it prooves at some point you were most consistent: you had the most titles points;) I think for a player it must be nice to see "former number one" but I suppose the same could be said about "former Wimbledon champion".

I think as a player I would want both but if I had to choose one, I would choose the number one ranking. As you have pointed out some players win the GS and yet never reach number 1?

But it is a difficult decision; one I would avoid by choosing both; hehehe; as if a player really can! :lol:

Have fun making sense of my post! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
hablovah19 said:
I think winning a GS is great but being number one may be sweeter as it prooves at some point you were most consistent: you had the most titles points;) I think for a player it must be nice to see "former number one" but I suppose the same could be said about "former Wimbledon champion".

I think as a player I would want both but if I had to choose one, I would choose the number one ranking. As you have pointed out some players win the GS and yet never reach number 1?

But it is a difficult decision; one I would avoid by choosing both; hehehe; as if a player really can! :lol:

Have fun making sense of my post! :p
are you serious..........mauresmo would without a doubt in her mind give up those what 5 weeks at number 1 for a grand slam

when alicia molik isnt playing fed cup because she THINKS SHE CAN BE NUMBER 1 WITH ONLY 1 GRAND SLAM QUATERFINAL TO HER NAME TRUST ME THE RANKS ARE :bs: :tape:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,274 Posts
OMG, this is tennis a fucking sport. All players want a grandslam more then a #1 rank.

I mean what football player would have a 17/0 record over the fucking superbowl trophy?? Any team would rather have a few losses and the RING!!

These girls want to win slams!! Sadly many just are never going to do it.

I think these following players will never win a slam:

Elena D
Momo
Vera Z
Rubin
Blake
Kim C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,551 Posts
VeeReeFan said:
are you serious..........mauresmo would without a doubt in her mind give up those what 5 weeks at number 1 for a grand slam

when alicia molik isnt playing fed cup because she THINKS SHE CAN BE NUMBER 1 WITH ONLY 1 GRAND SLAM QUATERFINAL TO HER NAME TRUST ME THE RANKS ARE :bs: :tape:
I was answering the question in the perspective : if I was a player;)

Momo would love to win RG but if she doesn't; I don't think she will lose sleep cause she can claim she was a former number 1! :p

I don't get what you are trying to say when you talk about Molik. I don't follow that much. . . Explain! :lol:

If you think the rankings are BS, then maybe you should suggest how the WTA should measure who's to be number 1 too. I'm quite intrigued;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,274 Posts
Momo would rather win RG than ever have the #1 ranking.. come on. Amelie wants to win RG Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. She just happens to have had the #1 rank, but she would most surley have a slam under her belt before the top spot.

If a player had to choose they would ALL pick a slam first and if by chance some fool states that they would like the #1 then they are the ones who will never win a slam!! lmao
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,551 Posts
Dawn Marie said:
OMG, this is tennis a fucking sport. All players want a grandslam more then a #1 rank.

I mean what football player would have a 17/0 record over the fucking superbowl trophy?? Any team would rather have a few losses and the RING!!

These girls want to win slams!! Sadly many just are never going to do it.

I think these following players will never win a slam:

Elena D
Momo
Vera Z
Rubin
Blake
Kim C.
I guess when players say they want the number 1 ranking, you don't take them too seriously eh? (serena, ferrero, roddick; just to name a few) :tape: :lol:
hmmmmmmm: I wonder why serena lifts that single finger lately after a victory: being number must really mean nothing!! hahahaha

Nonetheless, all players would love to win grandslams. . .;) I think Kim C. and Momo have the most potential out of that list; Elena D, as well, once she gets that serve going . . . :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
Like Dawn Marie said its about the slams. Obviously anyone who says its the number one ranking isnt a tennis player.

Ask any tennis player and they will tell you they want slams more than number one.

The logic being "if i win slams the number one will come and if it doesnt I still have the slams."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,551 Posts
Sally Struthers said:
winning a grand slam shows who's the best for the 2 weeks during which it happens. Being #1 shows consistency at being the best.
Thank you. :yeah:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
hablovah19 said:
I guess when players say they want the number 1 ranking, you don't take them too seriously eh? (serena, ferrero, roddick; just to name a few) :tape: :lol:
hmmmmmmm: I wonder why serena lifts that single finger lately after a victory: being number must really mean nothing!! hahahaha

Nonetheless, all players would love to win grandslams. . .;) I think Kim C. and Momo have the most potential out of that list; Elena D, as well, once she gets that serve going . . . :(
number 1 only means something when you are the best and you deserve it.....serena knows she is the best and that she deserves it (kim and momo did not deserve to be number 1 and anyone who says otherwise is in some serious denial :tape: )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
Sally Struthers said:
winning a grand slam shows who's the best for the 2 weeks during which it happens. Being #1 shows consistency at being the best.
in the ideal world this is true...........BUT IN REALITY SERENA AND VENUS LEFT THE SPORT FOR 8 MONTHS THEN JUSTINE AND KIM WERE NUMBER 1 AND THEN THEY LEFT AND THEN AND ONLY THEN was mauresmo number so it kinda puts your idealistic theory to rest
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,298 Posts
How about the very best players get to number one AND win slams. I have to agree since Serena the number one ranking has been more about a set of circumstances as opposed to anyone actually earning and deserving it. Henin Hardenne is the only exception. Granted she only become #1 when the Sisters left but she backed it up VERY nicely by winning 2 majors and numerous other tournaments after achieving the ranking. All the other players have gotten it due to a set of circumstances. Before Serena no one would argue that the other players didn't deserve the #1 ranking (though a VERY VERY small case could be made in Capriati's case) since then all you here is uproar over such and such isn't the best they're are just the highest ranked player not injured.


P.S.- The ONLY reason I would say that a small case can be made to say Capriati is a questionable number one is because I think the majority of people would agree she was not the best player when she achieved the ranking. The other "best player" around that time was Venus who had won all of their meetings and won 3 more titles that year than Capriati, but it's no ones fault that Venus did not play enough to get the ranking before Capriati but her own
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
Volcana said:
Being #1 isn't irrelevant. But to hear most players tell it, they heerfully trade 100 weeks at #1 for a GS singles title. I suppose once you HAVE a GS singles title, that attitude might change.
Number 1 is more difficult to have psychologically - doesn't that explain why players talk it down? Getting it is a mathematical process so it puts pressure on you to get the points needed - no one calculates your chances of winning a GS so exactly. You have it - but at some point you will lose it - so its not like a GS which is yours and can't be taken back. You have to worry about keeping the title of number 1 straight away if you get it wheras the GS only comes around next year for its defence. People will question you being number 1 and you have to play like a credible number 1 or people will say so - they can't really say you didn't win your GS as you have the trophy and the cheque. The trophy and the cheque themselves are tangible in a way that being number 1 brings fewer rewards. If you have already been number 1 its less of a goal - you know you will lose it because you have and, because you have had it, getting it back means less. Against that, If you have got a GS being number 1 is the obvious next goal - you are not going to get 22 or 24 Gs titles but you might be able to say you were number 1 - so you might as well go for it.

The player's perspective isn't the only one though. Being number 1 requires by definition doing something the other players couldn't and probably doing well consistently wheras grabbing a GS can only need a lucky draw and playing reasonably well for 7 matches a year. Even the number 1s who didn't win GS usually did pretty well in the GS and they made it to number 1 because they won an awful lot of matches no one else could.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
VeeReeFan said:
number 1 only means something when you are the best and you deserve it.....serena knows she is the best and that she deserves it (kim and momo did not deserve to be number 1 and anyone who says otherwise is in some serious denial :tape: )
As we never saw Serena play Kim in Kim's late 2003 form ( or indeed Justine in 2003-4 form) its pretty impossible to say who would have done better. We don't even know if Serena would have got better or worse without her injury in 2003. Kim and Justine were getting better, Venus was getting worse - who knows what other fates lay in store for Serena? Serena still may think she is the best but you can't assume your 2002/3 level iwould be relevant to your performances in 2004 which you never played - if past performance and self belief was what decided matches Venus, Hingis and Graf would still be claiming to be number 1 too.

Momo might be an accidental number 1 in the sense of everyone else being injured or playing poorly/inconsistently but every number 1 has only faced the opposition out there. How many GS do you think Serena would have if Venus had not deteriorated, Hingis had learnt to serve faster and worn better shoes, Jennifer was more consistent and less injured, Graf had played on and Kim, Lindsay and Maria hadn't folded on a few key points? everyone benefits from their opposition - Momo wasn't the first.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Being #1 in other sports means that you are consistent enough to be the best. Why should women's tennis be any different? You should be good and consistent enough to win at least a major. The rankings should be such that it reflects quality more than quantity. I don't think it is that hard because the ATP seem to be doing it right, therefore why not apply their formula as it seem to more accurately reflects the players rankings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
"My goals for 2005

As you already know I have one major goal for 2005: defend my number one position. I have already planned the coming season together with my management and we have defined the tournaments for the first half: Doha, Australian Open, Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Roland Garros, Halle and Wimbledon. The Grand-Slams obviously have kind of a special status within all of these tournaments. Who would not want to win them? The ‘threepeat’ in Wimbledon would certainly be something extraordinary. But I definitely don’t want to focus uniquely on winning the Grand-Slams, all the other tournaments are important as well. "

here's a tennis player that prefers number one to majors...but what does this "player" know..oh its from ROGER FEDERER's website..i want to see everyone here killing those "players" who prefer number one to majors to take note who prefers number one to majors : the world's best player.. i think his opinion should matter just a little

heres the link
http://www.rogerfederer.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=44

from the official roger federer website november newsletter

and i agree with the world's best player.....i will admit that being number one in the middle of the season means nothing and i WOULD trade that for a GS...but i would rather be YEAR END number one over a grand slam. the true tennis champion able to withstand the long 11 month season over a player that had a hot two weeks..and i don't have all the stats but i would think every year end number has won a grand slam maybe not the year they were number one but sometime in their careers.
 
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top