Talk About Tennis 2.0

I have the opposite viewpoint. If you can't win the top tournaments in your sport, then you are not the best player. The slamless #1's (Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki the first time) were all rewarded simply because they don't ever take a break like the rest of the top players do.

But you have the other extreme, as well... like Raducanu. Her ranking is significantly higher than her relative ability level as compared to other players - simply because she won the U.S. Open and is riding those points.
Take away her U.S. Open points, and where is she? The only other points of note she has are from last year's Wimbledon. The rest are early round losses.

So I'd say that Badosa, Wozniacki, etc. at #1 is a more accurate representation of their work/results than is Emma's #12 ranking - because when the points are calculated over a greater number of tournaments, it gives a more accurate reflection of reality than when one's points are more concentrated from just one tournament, no matter how big that tournament is.

I'd say the same about Leylah, who is around #20 now... The bulk of her points, of course, come from the U.S. Open Final. But at least she is not always losing early in other tournaments like Emma... she won the Monterrey 250 for the second consecutive year, won a few rounds at Indian Wells...

ponchi101 wrote:Personally, I am getting a bit tired of all the talk about the "unworthy" #1's.
They did not go to the supermarket and bought the points. They play for this. And you can't make the Slams worth 4,000 points more than anything else.

Amen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JTContinental wrote:I have the opposite viewpoint. If you can't win the top tournaments in your sport, then you are not the best player. The slamless #1's (Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki the first time) were all rewarded simply because they don't ever take a break like the rest of the top players do.

were rewarded or earned enough points? They had to do well at Slams to get to #, even if they didn’t win them. They were all Slam finalists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, they earned both those points and the #1 ranking based on how it is calculated. By "rewarded" I'm more meaning that I think the ranking system gives more weight to showing up every week than it does winning the elite tournaments. If Serena, Kim, Justine, Venus, Capriati, Sharapova, Mauresmo, et al were also playing 30 tournaments a year, would Jankovic ever have reached #1?

Nothing stopped them from doing so (playing 30 tournaments)
Sure, it feels wrong at times. I remember how Lendl was much maligned because he reached #1 with no slams. Yet, he had made slam finals and what the ranking really said was that he would become the great player he was.
We had decades of tournament directors deciding who was seeded. The same time for having some ranking at the end of the year, which was totally based on the opinions of experts. Now we have a quantitative system and sometimes it gives odd signals.
Numerically: I checked the rankings. Badosa has indeed played 31 tournaments to Swiatek's 16, almost double. I say: she has worked hard for her points.

And I say take a vacation now and then. How can we miss you if you won’t go away?

I do want specify that this is my opinion only, and I was not consulted when the rankings system was designed.

We'll get Swiatek for a while and I don't think there will be many who finds anyone else more worthy right now.

I am sensitive to this, as many moons ago in my other hobby I had 2 seasons where the "points structure came into play."

One year I participated in one more event than the gentleman who finished 2nd. He absolutely had a better statistical season.

Some even argued that as such he should have gotten the result.

The thing is - the points structure was known before start of season. Nothing changed. I "played the system better." So should it change going forward? Possibly. We can argue that here.

(The older time was one where there was a "one event gets dropped" rule. Mid-way through the season they tried to change it. But I had screen shot of it - and even had a text from the organiser. I threatened holy hell if they changed it during the season. They recanted (thankfully because I like that trophy!))

JTContinental wrote:Sure, they earned both those points and the #1 ranking based on how it is calculated. By "rewarded" I'm more meaning that I think the ranking system gives more weight to showing up every week than it does winning the elite tournaments. If Serena, Kim, Justine, Venus, Capriati, Sharapova, Mauresmo, et al were also playing 30 tournaments a year, would Jankovic ever have reached #1?

It’s true, the ranking system isn’t set up to reward just WINNING a Slam. (But the rest of tennis is… that makes you a star, whatever your ranking is.) it might be because it would devalue the tour, which is their primary product. They have to make the tour events worth playing.

The ranking system does respect doing well in Slams - you can’t get to No. 1 without making a few deep runs.

It reminds me of Keke Rosberg's 1982 F1 championship. He won it after Villeneuve got killed in a crash, and Didier Pironi could not race the final four races due to another crash. Rosberg won 1 race in the entire championship, but came in second in I don't know how many. He won the title by 5 points, an absurd low margin.
And yes, a lot of people, and I do mean a lot, said it was wrong for him to win it that way.

Sometimes a player isn't cut out to win a Slam. I still think Rios was a valid #1. I have been known to criticize WTA players who have played nonstop to get the #1 ranking. Iga has won a Slam. I think that at this point, with the current situation in the WTA she is deserving.

Rios reached #1 in a most legit form. He simply whopped Agassi in that Miami final to get there. It was just a case of the most wasted talent in the history of the sport (looking at his results).

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:19 am Sometimes a player isn't cut out to win a Slam. I still think Rios was a valid #1. I have been known to criticize WTA players who have played nonstop to get the #1 ranking. Iga has won a Slam. I think that at this point, with the current situation in the WTA she is deserving.

Playing "nonstop" won't garner enough points to get the #1 ranking unless the player is going deep in tournaments that are eligible for inclusion in her ranking points. Only 16 tournaments, or 17 if she plays in the WTA finals, can be included in a player's ranking points. Those tournaments must include 4 slams, 4 mandatory WTA1000 tournaments and 2 nonmandatory WTA1000 tournaments, subject to rules allowing other tournaments to substitute for those.

Sviatek never reached #1 while her slam winner points were included in her ranking points. She is currently a #1 who has no slam winner or finalist points in her ranking points and only has played 16 tournaments in the last 52 weeks (per ponchi) so she isn't a player who plays "nonstop", but one who goes deep in most tournaments she plays.

Badosa may have played 31 tournaments to Swiatek's 16, but only 17 are included in her ranking.

All hail our new WTA #1! I think her reign will be long.

Here is top 10 WTA race after Miami

1. Iga Swiatek 3920
2. Maria Sakkari 1610
3. Danielle Collins 1516
4. Paula Badosa 1422
5. Anett Kontaveit 1385
6. Madison Keys 1317
7. Jelena Ostapenko 1156
8. Simona Halep 1096
9. Jessica Pegula 992
10. Veronika Kudermetova 952