[GoDominiqu]

<a href="http://www.sanexwta.com/content/newsroom/content.asp?page=releases/11_03_01_munich3%2Ehtm" target="_blank">http://www.sanexwta.com/content/newsroom/content.asp?page=releases/11_03_01_munich3%2Ehtm</a>

The sixth part: 'Despite this, the WTA has plans in the pipeline to modify the system in a way which should weight weight the ranking points more heavily in favour of Grand Slams during 2002.'

??? What will they do ?

 

[jrj]

god forbid the slams get counted for being the elite tournaments that they are! Way to wake up and smell the b.s. WTA 2 straight years of a non slam winner ending the year number 1 when there are players who won 2 of them! The ranking system is as stupid as the BCS in college football.

 

[GoDominiqu]

jrj, you sarcasm is repetitive and boring.

 

[jrj]

sorry but I wasn't being sarcastic.

 

[Volcana]

This is where corporate realities enter the picture. The WTA does not control the Slams. The ITF does. So that any formula that makes the Slams more important, makes the WTA less important. The WTA is considered unimportant by too many people as it is. Encouragement is not needed.

What they may do is increase the point value of the Tier I's AND the Slams. Make the Tier I's the WTA equivalent od the Master's Series. (Everyone could call it the 'Mistresses Series'. Think of the scandal possibilities.) I just can't see them marginalizing themselves to solve a ranking problem. They CAN'T just make each GS four times a Tier I. It's corporate suicide.

 

[GoDominiqu]

I mean, I have realised now that you think it's crazy that there is a non-slam no. 1 and the twice-Grand-Slam-winners are not at the top.<br />But any sensible ranking system (all those that don't give 5000 points for a slam) will include that possibility. I think you have to accept that.

 

[jrj]

I don't have to accept it Jen won 2 slams and made 2 semis while Lindsay got to 2 semis and 1 quarter and did not play the other there is no comparison. If the rankings weighted slams properly this would not happen.

 

[GoDominiqu]

So you don't want that the players play more than 4 tournaments ? Should Lindsay have said after the US Open 'Oh well, the whole season has been pure crap because of the slams, I can stop right now' ?<br />Or Jennifer after Paris: 'I have won 2 slams, it's really unlikely that someone will do better than that, so now I can rest 7 months' ???<br />I mean, it's called WTA Tour (!!!), and 'tour' means 'lots of tournaments' !<br />Lindsay is the best indoor player, but that shouldn't be honoured at all ? Oh please.

 

[jrj]

she couldn't even make it to a slam final! The best player in the world correct? The best player really should be able to win 1 of the 4 biggest slams or at the very least reach the final of one of those. Especially since the slams are now on 4 different surfaces 2 faster surfaces, 1 medium speed and one slow and she couldn't even reach a final?

 

[tenn_ace]

i quite agree with this assessment: SUICIDE!!!

So some of the top players will lose any interest in smaller tournaments, especially those that are being played a week or two before the GS.

One of the ways to counter it is to decrease the prize money AND increase it for smaller tournaments... but it will never happen, because the GS decide the size of the prize money. So back to square one: SUICIDE!

 

[GoDominiqu]

Well, basically you are only saying what Lindsay is always stating as well. She herself has doubts if she deserves the ranking, and she would be the first one to switch some of her titles with a Grand Slam win.<br />My opinion is: Lindsay tried her best at the 3 Grand Slams she played. I also think that each time her performances were better than the result she received. At AO she lost against a Jennifer on fire, at Wimbledon against a Venus on fire, and at Us Open against a Serena on fire. At least there I would say that Lindsay was the 3rd best player of the tournament, not the 5th-8th best. So she was a bit unlucky with the draws. Of course that's not an excuse for losing. To win you have to beat everyone. But I think that you should still have a chance in the rankings if you do extremely well in all the other tournaments, and that's what she did.<br />Of course the slams are the biggest events of the year. But a no. 1 should be great more than just 8 weeks of the year, she has to give her best day in, day out. Lindsay didn't have a single early loss, and that should be rewarded too.

 

[joao]

hi there,

what bothers me most with this ranking system is the fact that a player who defends a title is not rewarded for that! Basically, if a player wants to keep her ranking, she has to do as well the next year (or play more tournaments to compensate eventual losses!). And i think that defending a title is more difficult than to win it the first time, because of the pressure of the ranking system!

I really think that the system would be a lot more fair if a player who successfully defends her title, would earn some kind of bonus points (which would not be in jeopardize the next year!)... so the player would progress in the rankings!

I'm a fan of the williams sisters and i think that's a major problem for them not being rewarded for defending their titles. Look at Venus's results this year.... everybody agrees that it was a very good year for her ...she almost defended all of her titles...result? she didn't get any bonus for that but rather went down in the rankings because she didn't get the same amount of bonus points! That's why with the wta ranking, players like the sisters will never reach the top spot (which they really deserve!) because they play a limited schedule!

Anybody with me on that?

 

[jrj]

basically I think that sooner or later it's going to get to the point that players are going to skip slams to gain on the ranking. Just play all the other tournaments where you only win 4 or 5 matches to win titles, hell the slams don't really count for anything to end number 1.<br />The difference between Jen's year and Lindsay's is I'm sure Lindsay tried real hard and fought the good fight at the 3 slams she played as did Jen but Jen ended up taking home 2 titles and making 2 semis.

 

[QUEENLINDSAY]

Its different opinions. Some might agree, some does'nt. But whats most important is the computer system agrees and that sytem was used for the likes of the greatest players, steffi,monica, martina n. etc......

If Lindsay wins tommorrow, for me its more than a 2 GRANDSLAMS because you have to win 16 matches in 4 weeks and this includes the top 16 in the last tournament. Lindsay deserves being number one. Its just 7 matches in two weeks to win one grandslam, but Lindsay does more than that.

GO LINDSAY!!!!!!!Number One Player in the World.

 

[cynicole]

I'm a bit skeptical on this decision...and I've been one of those people saying that they should add more points for reaching the final stage(s) of tournaments.

My concern is the mayhem that may be wreaked in the lower parts of the rankings - Below 20 and much lower than that. Imagine a player who loses first round at smaller tourneys making it to the Round of 16 in a Slam and getting a ranking superior to someone who does consistently well everywhere else (perhaps because they got bad Slam draws?)!?

Damn media! It's all their fault for making such a big deal about this whole "Number 1 Controversy."

Does it look silly that the no.1 hasn't even been to a Slam final this year? Yeah, slightly, if you decide not to look at it closely. It's due to the efforts of Clijsters, Henin, Dokic, Mauresmo and an "underranked/underplaying" (you choose which one you prefer) Serena taking spots in Slam finals and grabbing Tier I events, thus taking the points away from the usual suspects. Oh yes, and injuries played a big part. Imagine if we had Seles, Pierce and Kournikova up to full health!

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

[ptkten]

graf played 10 tournaments some years and she reached no. 1. It can be done, you just have to do good in your other 6 tounaments outside the slams, Capriati did not.

 

[Dawn Marie]

They should sit down and do a complete overhaul of the ranking system imho it is becoming a laughing stock. Hell it is a laughing stock! Ha Ha Ha Ha. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

 

[Viva]

jrj - Do you ever make a post where you don't whinge? Shut up will you, it's getting old and boring to read.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Viva ]</p>

 

[Guest]

Make the Tier I's the WTA equivalent od the Master's Series. (Everyone could call it the 'Mistresses Series'. Think of the scandal possibilities.) <hr></blockquote>

<br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

 

[Rollo]

Any talk of Graf,Seles etc. managing to be #1 with the computer ignores the fact that THAT ranking system(before 1997) was wildly different. It averaged points(an early loss hurt badly) and the minimum was only 14. Under today's system Conchita Martinez would have been #1 in 1995, for example.

Volcana is right though, why should the WTA help make themselves less important? Rather than give the slams more points, why not:

1. Make the ratio between winning , runnerup, semis larger. For example, rather than 100 points to a winner and 70 to a runnerup(the current ratio), why only 50 to runnersup? This puts a premium on winning the whole event.

2. Cut the minimum events to 16(from 17) and make it clear that to get a bonus requires playing 16 and Munich. If a player is injured, they still lose the bonus. After all, it's a bonus.