Tennis Forum banner

When shall Emma enter the top 10?

141 - 159 of 159 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Ideally, it would be great if Emma could go on a bit of a run at Wimbledon just to rubber-stamp her position in the top 10, and show that even had ranking points been awarded this year, she would have still accumulated enough points to get in.
They could be retroactively awarded, see my post and @cricketbat ’s post before yours (#137 and 138)

Of course it’s unlikely to happen before July 11th so the #10 is probably guaranteed, at least for a week.

Ideally she goes deep, points aren’t awarded immediately, but they are retroactively later in august.

That would guarantee Emma’s spot but also give her the Wimbledon points till July 2023 :)

But after all the bad luck of this year, I will take the #10 even if Emma doesn’t have a deep run (which is unlikely THIS YEAR given her bad preparation…she will have plenty of chances to win Wimbledon in the next 12-13 years ;) )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,568 Posts
I’m not sure a WTA 125 win would be enough? Have you done the maths?
Kasatkina drops 10 points from Wimbledon 2021, because her next best result is a 60-pointer, and so she'd gain 100 (rather than 160) points with a WTA 125 win, which would put her at 2735, just ahead of Raducanu's 2717.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Kasatkina drops 10 points from Wimbledon 2021, because her next best result is a 60-pointer, and so she'd gain 100 (rather than 160) points with a WTA 125 win, which would put her at 2735, just ahead of Raducanu's 2717.
True, but it’s unlikely that she enters a 125 in the first place tbh.
Also even if she enters, she’s not guaranteed to win it, regardless of the weak field.
In addition to this, we’re not sure if WTA will allow a different 16th tournament or just award a zero-pointer to everyone for Wimbledon this year.

All in all it’s not impossible but quite unlikely that Daria passes Emma in rankings by July 11th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
True, but it does mean that Raducanu is not mathematically assured of a top 10 spot.
she’s not assured anyway, because an agreement could be in theory reached on Wimbledon before the 11th. Just as Kasatkina could in theory enter and win a 125.
Both Kasatkina 125 and Wimbledon agreement before the 11th look unlikely though.
an agreement could be reached later if USO decides to count Wimbledon points, but that’s very unlikely to happen before the 11th
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
USO hypothetically counting Wimbledon points for their seeding purposes wouldn't impact the WTA rankings.
If other slams count Wimbledon points, it would create a Slams ranking, making ATP / WTA rankings completely redundant (and probably forcing ATP / WTA to retroactively award points to Wimbledon if they want to stay relevant). 90% of money, media attention, and public interest is on Slams.

but this is not the place to discuss it anyway

this is very unlikely to happen before 11th July, thus unlikely to affect Emma’s ability to reach the top 10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,568 Posts
If other slams count Wimbledon points, it would create a slams ranking, making ATP / WTA rankings completely redundant (and probably forcing ATP / WTA to retroactively award points to Wimbledon if they want to stay relevant).
but this is not the place to discuss it anyway
No, it wouldn't. A slams ranking would be a cute little quirky thing, like the Grand Slam Cup. It would have no true historical bearing, as it would be exclusionary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
No, it wouldn't. A slams ranking would be a cute little quirky thing, like the Grand Slam Cup. It would have no true historical bearing, as it would be exclusionary.
LOL 😂
People care about slams. 90% of money and media attention is on slams

Only a small minority of people, like us little tennis nerds here, care about other tournaments. Ranking in ATP or WTA doesn’t award a trophy, unless you reach #1. Rankings are mainly to be seeded at tournaments and to show you were good in the last 52 weeks.

50 years after you’re retired, the ONLY way you can be remembered is by winning Grand Slams. Plus maybe the Olympics. (Some 1000s but way, way less). By ranking, only if you reach #1.

Pick a player you don’t know from 40-50 years ago. The first and almost only thing you look at is how well they did at slams. Then yes career high ranking, but second.
A Slams ranking will basically force the tours to comply or be irrelevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,568 Posts
LOL 😂
People care about slams. 90% of money and media attention is on slams

Only a small minority of people, like us little tennis nerds care about other tournaments. Ranking in ATP or WTA doesn’t award a trophy, unless you reach #1. Rankings are mainly to be seeded at tournaments and to show you’re good.

50 years after you’re retired, the ONLY things you will remembered for is Grand Slams results and wins. Plus maybe the Olympics. Some 1000s but way way less.
What money and media attention care about does matter not one iota - the WTA rankings are the WTA rankings. That's why players with excellent games but minimal media profiles have been ranked #1. If the slams want to create a separate ranking system, it still won't matter. The WTA is the arbiter of how players are ranked, not four tournaments only afforded special status because those four countries won all the Davis Cups prior to banding together.

It's quite sad to see a fanbase of a young and still rising talent relying on endorsement money and IG likes to determine whether she's great or not. Focus on results, at real Open tournaments that don't duck opponents, and let the rankings speak for themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
What money and media attention care about does matter not one iota - the WTA rankings are the WTA rankings. That's why players with excellent games but minimal media profiles have been ranked #1. If the slams want to create a separate ranking system, it still won't matter. The WTA is the arbiter of how players are ranked, not four tournaments only afforded special status because those four countries won all the Davis Cups prior to banding together.

It's quite sad to see a fanbase of a young still rising relying on endorsement money and IG likes to determine whether she's great or not. Focus on results, at real Open tournaments that don't duck opponents, and let the rankings speak for themselves.
I focus on results.
that’s not about likes or endorsements

I’m saying that GS results >>>>>> anything else. That’s my point.

You said historical relevance.

IN TENNIS, you get historical relevance by winning Grand Slams. Full stop. (and a bit Olympics, and maybe some of the 1000s but much much less)

that’s not decided by me or you.

It’s decided by what people and players themselves care about.
WTA rankings don’t have some inherent sacred quality about themselves.

Everyone wants to win Wimbledon, USO, AO, RG.
Guess why? They are the biggest tournaments in tennis and winning them will give you eternal glory.
(Plus money and endorsements and whatever but that’s not the point)

You can create all the rankings you want, it does not matter. It also doesn’t matter why GS are what they are (although the Davis Cup thing is correct, as an historical anecdote, but doesn’t change anything). As a matter of fact, they ARE what they are. That’s the only thing that matters because that’s what people (and players) care about. They are the biggest and most prestigious tournaments, as a matter of fact!

I or you do not decide what is relevant, history decides (i.e. what people at large consider relevant), and up to now, Grand Slams are the most relevant thing.
It’s very unlikely to change in the future and no amount of computer rankings will change it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,722 Posts
ranking is important in terms of wether you are a seeded or unseeded player in tournaments, and also is important for which half you get drawn in

but i find race standings more important because that is crucial for whoever qualifies to the end of year finals

as for tournaments of course the slams are most important yes, but it's also nice to go for some of the smaller tournaments since if you can win or go deep in those you can gain more experience
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
ranking is important in terms of wether you are a seeded or unseeded player in tournaments, and also is important for which half you get drawn in

but i find race standings more important because that is crucial for whoever qualifies to the end of year finals

as for tournaments of course the slams are most important yes, but it's also nice to go for some of the smaller tournaments since if you can win or go deep in those you can gain more experience
Yes I agree.
Rankings are mostly for seeding.

Other tournaments are nice to have and to go to. And very useful for experience.
I agree with your post.

but that was not the point we were discussing

here we were talking about what will make your legacy immortal as a player, and remembered 50 years from now (“eternal glory” if you will)

And the answer to that is winning Grand Slams (and little else)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,722 Posts
Yes I agree.
Rankings are mostly for seeding.

Other tournaments are nice to have and to go to.
I agree with your post.

but that was not the point.

here we were talking about what is relevant for historic significance, legacy, being remembered as a player, eternal glory etc.

And the answer to that is Grand Slams and little else
Emma will already be remembered for that surprise USO win, but if she wants more and i think she does, she really needs to do everything right, the right coaching team, best of the best physio's and it is a fact that if she can pull off few more slam wins soon, she'll get a lot more endorsement deals than she already is getting now so my advice for her would be now keep a level head, and fully focus on her own gameplay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Emma will already be remembered for that surprise USO win, but if she wants more and i think she does, she really needs to do everything right, the right coaching team, best of the best physio's and it is a fact that if she can pull off few more slam wins soon, she'll get a lot more endorsement deals than she already is getting now so my advice for her would be now keep a level head, and fully focus on her own gameplay
For sure Emma wants to win more Slams and she has the potential to do so, and she will try her best to do it.

Endorsements and money keep being thrown into this conversation but they aren’t really relevant to it. Of course by winning more Slams she will get even more endorsements but that’s not why she wants to win more of them.
There’s no indication her rough patch is due to lack of focus on her game.
It’s mostly due to her need to get physically stronger (she’s new to the tour, competed less than her peers in junior and ITF, has had her conditioning and preseason ruined by covid this year). But she will get stronger with time and shine again :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,397 Posts
What money and media attention care about does matter not one iota - the WTA rankings are the WTA rankings. That's why players with excellent games but minimal media profiles have been ranked #1. If the slams want to create a separate ranking system, it still won't matter. The WTA is the arbiter of how players are ranked, not four tournaments only afforded special status because those four countries won all the Davis Cups prior to banding together.

It's quite sad to see a fanbase of a young and still rising talent relying on endorsement money and IG likes to determine whether she's great or not. Focus on results, at real Open tournaments that don't duck opponents, and let the rankings speak for themselves.

Its only slams bud, get real. Any small event before, players pull out at a sniffle if it affects their slam potential.

small events mean nothing.....to nobody, and players often tank if they are worried about a slam coming up. Its obvious as night and day. They are called warm up events for a reason, thats what they are. Warm ups to the real deal, slams.

A slam champion is always called a champion, even by other players, forever.

A player who does not have a slam is not a champion.

Your going to say WTA finals watched by 2 men and a dog are big lol - hahahaha. Nobody gives a shit.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,397 Posts
So we have

Wimbledon - London - over half a million crowd, massive streaming and coverage

Ney York - USA - 23,000 watch the final in stadium, massive streaming and coverage

WTA finals, up a mountain in Mexico somewhere .......did anyone watch it ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts

Its only slams bud, get real. Any small event before, players pull out at a sniffle if it affects their slam potential.

small events mean nothing.....to nobody, and players often tank if they are worried about a slam coming up. Its obvious as night and day. They are called warm up events for a reason, thats what they are. Warm ups to the real deal, slams.

A slam champion is always called a champion, even by other players, forever.

A player who does not have a slam is not a champion.

Your going to say WTA finals watched by 2 men and a dog are big lol - hahahaha. Nobody gives a shit.
Agreed 100%

GS results >>>>>> anything else.

IN TENNIS, you get historical relevance by winning Grand Slams.

Everyone wants to win Wimbledon, USO, AO, RG.
Why? Because they are the biggest tournaments in tennis and winning them will give you eternal glory.
(Plus money and endorsements and whatever but that’s not the point)

Why are they the biggest tournaments? Because the vast majority of people give them importance, watch them, etc…thus you go down in history by winning them.

What some people imho fail to realise, is that it’s not a decision by any of us here, it doesn’t depend on what a small group of tennis nerds like us think, but literally on what people at large (first of all, players themselves) care about.

And that’s not likely to change.
 
141 - 159 of 159 Posts
Top