I can't believe it, but Maria Sharapova gets to be number 1? What has she done this year? She totally back went in there through the backdoor because Lindsay Davenport, who won the 4 tournaments she played in at this time last year, is out right now. Man, the ranking systems sucks.
And, I also can't believe how Sharapova is carrying on about it...Like she deserved it!

You don't know much about tennis do you? The ranking system is based on points earned within the last 52 weeks. Sharapova did not benefit from Davenport taking this summer off due to injury because she herself did not gain any more points this summer than she did last summer. So therefore, in the other 11 months that both Sharapova and Davenport played in, Sharapova simply earned more points than Davenport. Sharapova has won 6 titles. Among them is the Year End Championships which is the fifth biggest tournament of them all and a tier 1, tokyo. She has also won a tier 2, Dubai. Even if you took out all of Sharapova's tier 3 events, she'd still have those three titles. She also reached the finals of two other tier 1 events, Zurich and Miami. Meanwhile, what has Davenport done? She's reached two slam finals, which is great but meaningless unless you actually win the whole thing. If two slam finals means that you should be number 1, then Elena Dementieva would have been number 1 last year. She's reached the finals of Indian Wells, that's it. Oh, and she's won three tier 2 titles. So Davenport and Sharapova has both won "three" titles in the past year, only Davenport has three tier 2's and Sharapova has YEC, a tier 1, and a tier 2. The numbers don't lie. Davenport beat Sharapova 6-0, 6-0, I'll give you that, but in a match of much less importance than a tier 1 final and a Wimbledon semifinal. In the end, Sharapova has been the better player throughout the last 52 weeks. Davenport has done nothing. The argument that the only reason Sharapova is number 1 is because Davenport did not play this summer is absurd, because Sharapova did not play either. So if they both don't play, one does not benefit. Rather, the 52 weeks period in which those 4 CA tournaments counted was over for Davenport, and her claim to number 1 (7 titles) is reduced to having just 3 titles over the past year. When it comes down to it, Sharapova has performed better. This year wise, as in starting in January, Davenport has performed better. But that's not what the ranking entails. It entails not just this year, but the time from the U.S Open onwards last year as well. If you knew about how the ranking system works, you wouldn't have made your previous post. If Davenport truly continues to do better this year than Sharapova, then there is no doubt that she will regain her number 1 ranking by the end of the year once Sharapova's YEC and other points comes off from last year, the same way that Davenport's CA points came off already. That's how the ranking system works, it has always worked that way. THere is nothing wrong with it and you should not complain unless you know exactly how it works and how both players got the points that they got.

You being incredulous about Sharapova being #1 instead of Davenport is edging toward silly. Especially since this same conversation was taking place back when Davenport first got the top spot. Are you suggesting Davenport deserves it more than Sharapova?

Usually, people are defending Davenport for getting the top spot despite not winning a slam. They say, and I agree, that the system rewards consistent performance on tour. Well, Sharapova has performed pretty consistantly. Part of that is staying healthy. Did Davenport get to #1 while other players weren't healthy? She did indeed. That doesn't take anything away from the achievement, for either player.

I honestly like the rating system. It keeps things interesting for the fans that follow tennis year round, not just at the slams. To improve the situation, though, i could see giving the slams even more points so they weigh more heavily.

Unless a player is playing a good amount and completely dominating (Federer), computer points rarely reflect the BEST player; simply the most consistent. The only players who give it any credence are those at #1. Wouldn't you?!!

I would say that Lindsay definitely deserves it more than Maria.

That said, it's not ridiculous that Maria has it (however briefly she may have it), nor is she the most egregious of #1's by any stretch.

Lack of understanding of the women's ranking system may have started this thread, but I've never liked the way it's rewarded "quantity" either.

one thing SURELY can be agreed upon...she isn't playing like the #1 player.

But who is? Well, maybe Kim right now, but certainly not over the whole year.

Yeah, nobody is really dominating the women's tour these days, so it doesn't bother me that Maria has the #1 ranking. In years past, there was usually a player that would win multiple majors and they would be the clear #1. However, since there seems to be so much depth these days that there isn't a clear best player out there. If you look at the holders of the past 4 majors, I don't think you could reward any of them the #1 ranking. Kuznetsova has struggled all year, Serena and Justine have barely played, and Venus has stuggled for the most part til her win at Wimbledon. Maria has consistently gone deep into all the majors played this year and has won other events. The ranking rewards the most consistent players and I don't really have a problem with it. The tour is made up of more than just the majors, and if you consistently win or go deep in the tournaments you play, you should be ranked high.

I'm not disagreeing with the rankings. Maria has achieved her #1 status based on what is necessary by the system. But I've always felt the ranking often didn't reflect the true nature of who THE BEST player was. Maria has lost to Clijsters, Davenport, Venus, Serena, and Henin this year. She has had much less a stellar year than last year and because of Davenport's injury and inability to defend her points from last summer backed her way into #1 after having multiple chances to win it outright on MORE than one occasion this year. I mean it kind of reminds me of Martina Hingis' late career when she held the #1 ranking but didn't have a slam. She was consistent but not the best player in my opinion. I mean its about priorities. If Maria wants to be a slave to the WTA than fine. One of the things I've always liked about Venus and Serena is that they did it THEIR way and weren't going to be slaves to the "establishment". Slams are whats important to them for thats what they know they will be defined by. I bet Kim would trade in her #1 weeks for a slam. I've never cared about the ranking because it often didn't reflect who the best was, especially nowadays. It rewards quantity far more than quality. But, thats my opinion. I've disagreed with many over this and ya know..whatever..it is what it is.

So what if the current ranking system values quantity over quality? If the ranking system provides some incentives for players to show up for smaller tournaments--not just the slams--that has to be a good thing for the fans.

No one is forcing players to play every week. But given the current state of the WTA tour, I like the idea of rewarding players who take care of their bodies and fulfill appearance obligations.

I agree that Maria is not the best player at the moment, but who is? I have a feeling if we all stated who we thought was the best player that we would not come to a consensus. I agree that the rankings don't really reflect who the best player is based on talent is or even who will end up winning the majors, but it does reflect who is consistently contending and winning majors or other tournaments. I'm not sure what else we could ask of a ranking system.

Absolutely agreed....it does reflect consistency and that is a mark of someone being a good player who may go for a year or two without winning on tennis' grandest stage, but who can enter and do well in enough tournaments to earn enough points. But I said that. For the standards that is necessary to achieve #1 Maria earned and deserves the #1 ranking, no matter if her record against the rest of the top 10 is on the losing end this year. Is it a coincidence that many of the top women have injury problems? No. No matter how well you take care of your body the level of tennis being played today is too hard on the body. They are not robots. This is a trend I see continuing. Injuries like this from the top women didn't happen 10, 20 years ago with that dainty tennis that was played. You didn't see several of the top women sidelined with injury at once. All this hard serving and power groundstrokes will take a further toll and I don't think the women especially will be able to handle it. Its just a tough type of tennis. Maria, at 18 is just beginning the first in what I predict will be some more injuries to come regardless of how much attention to conditioning she does. Her plan A is to hit hard and her plan B is to hit harder. The WTA needs to seriously thinkg about an off season before it gets out of control. You NEVER see any other sport where so many of its TOP stars are injured like this. But you know...its all about $$$$.

Who is the best player? I agree...can't really say. On clay it was Justine, on grass it was Venus, on hardcourts its Kim. Kim has clearly had the best year in my opinion with 6 titles and leaped up in the rankings even though I still don't think she's going to win the US Open no matter how much of a favorite she is. Others might say Venus' Wimbledon title trumps all the tier 1 and 2 titles Kim has gotten this year. Its subjective. The last player who was #1 and won slams was Justine, and before her Serena. So ya know...I don't know. It is a reflection of the depth in the game thats for sure. A few years ago it was Serena and everyone else. Now there are usual suspects who have a chance. On the men its Federer and everyone else. And no...as much as I love Nadal and his phat rump roast he does not deserve to be in the same breath with Roger Federer yet. Its still Federer and everyone else.

[ August 25, 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: ltskinmdterp ]

Neptune has it right. The ranking system may not select the best player for #1, but it doesn't really matter. All the ranking system matters for is seeding. Do people worry in baseball that the batting titlist is often not the best player? While it might be more accurate to design a floating ranking system or one based on winning percentage that didn't reward quantity, there's a reason for the current design. The WTA does not want to use a ranking system where losing a match makes your ranking go down. Such a system would encourage withdrawals. Say you have a big win at the beginning of August that pushes your ranking up. You might decide you want that high ranking for your seed at the US Open and skip the rest of the summer. Or maybe you won Indian Wells and Miami, but clay is not your thing. A ranking system that punishes you for losses would encourage you to skip the clay court season and preserve your #1 seed at Wimbledon.

Weeks at #1:

Steffi Graf 377 weeks
Martina Navratilova 331 weeks
Chris Evert 262 weeks
Martina Hingis 209 weeks
Monica Seles 178 weeks
Lindsay Davenport 82 weeks
Serena Williams 57 weeks
Justine Henin-Hardenne 45 weeks
Tracy Austin 22 weeks
Jennifer Capriati 17 weeks
Kim Clijsters 12 weeks
Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario 12 weeks
Venus Williams 11 weeks
Amélie Mauresmo 5 weeks
MARIA SHARAPOVA 1 WEEK

I understand both sides of the argument, but it seems so strange that someone with only five grand slams (Hingis) could have the top ranking for that long when others who've had more or as many (Seles, Serena, and Venus) haven't spent nearly as much time at the top.

Granted, the Williams sisters admittedly really never kept as full a schedule as other players, so they were actually bucking the system that rewards number of tournaments. But if number of weeks at #1 is something that gets factored into a historical list, like in the other thread, I feel it would be misleading.

Maybe it wouldn't be ridiculously skewed with Seles, since she's won 9 slams and with Serena since she's won 7 slams (to date) IF the number of slams won would carry more weight, which I hope it would. (Not knowing the exact formula for how that list was sorted, I can only guess.)

However to see Venus with only 11 weeks with 5 slams, and Hingis with 209 weeks with 5 slams definitely raises an eyebrow. I'm not going to start a "Slam Snob War" but if someone were to ask me which was more impressive: 3 Wimbledon's + 2 US Opens, OR 3 Australians + 1 Wimbledon + 1 US, I would definitely be more impressed with the former, which is what Venus did.

It's a debate for the ages, but if a list like the other one came out in 10 or 20 years (even if all those current players never won another slam) I wouldn't have Hingis as high on the list as Monica, Serena, or Venus.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

I'm not really sure that most even equate the number of weeks at #1 as an ultimate determination of who is the best of all time. Even the sheer number of slams is not really a determinant. Navratilova has the same # slams than Evert, but most would place Navratilova above her. Margaret Court has the most major at 24, but I never hear her discussed as the best. It is really a combination of factors. As for which slams are most prestigious, different players and different countries place different slams higher than others. Most Spaniards and S. Americans would say the French is most important. Tennisguy, I know you loathe Hingis, but some could also say it is more impressive to win 3 of the 4 majors. It's not really a winnable debate either way. I personally feel Venus was better and will be remembered in higher regard, but I gotta give props to Hingis for her consistency and her very dominant 97' season. Even though she came at a soft part in tennis history, it's still hard to dominate your competitors either way.

I would hope that people wouldn't use either slam wins OR time at number one exclusively. For example, Sabatini was never number one, but would you really choose Amelie Mauresmo over her? And Kim Clijsters has never won a slam, it would be nutty to rate Iva Majoli above her. There's a pretty big gap in my mind between Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capritati despite an equal number of slams.

Personally, I'll pick Hingis over Venus at this stage of their careers but it's very close. Venus, obviously can add to her accomplishments still, and probably will. Hingis appeared in more grand slam finals (by 1), more semifinals, won more titles, had a higher career winning % and a slight edge in their head-to-head. Hingis was also a #1 doubles player. On the other hand, Venus in peak form had the edge, so in some ways it's similar to the Evert-Navratilova comparison, but Venus never truly dominated the tour (or Hingis) like Navratilova did in '83-84. Serena rates a clear edge over either, at this point--not only because of number of slams but because in peak form she was so nearly unstoppable.

In any event, I don't you should criticize the ranking system for not being a great way to discern the greatest of all time. That isn't its function. This is particularly so when the reason the ranking system failed was mostly because a couple players chose to ignore the system.

Further muddying the waters is the # of titles:
(among "active" players)

Monica Seles 53
Lindsay Davenport 47
Conchita Martinez 33
Venus Williams 33
Kim Clijsters 27
Serena Williams 26
Justine Henin-Hardenne 23
Amelie Mauresmo 17
Mary Pierce 17
Jennifer Capriati 14
Anna Smashnova 11
Maria Sharapova 10
Patty Schnyder 10
Magdalena Maleeva 10

Again, Venus Williams proves to be enigmatic. 33 titles, 5 grand slams, but still, only 11 weeks at #1. Hingis had 40 titles with her 5 grand slams, but the 209 weeks at #1. It's eyebrow raising again, to me anyway, that Seles had 53 titles, 9 grand slams, and only 178 weeks at #1, 31 weeks (7+, almost 8 months) less than Hingis. It would have been even less if her ranking wasn't protected as long as it was.

Unfortunately, Seles' reign at #1 was clearly shortened by the stabbing. She would have been #1 for much longer, but she didn't play at all for about one and a half years. She was unable to defend a single point during this time, so that is why her ranking fell shortly after her absence. She also didn't attain the #1 ranking until after her 2nd slam title and most of the her slams were concentrated in the two years before her stabbing. Hingis, on the other hand, attained the #1 ranking shortly after her 1st slam and was the clear #1 until Davenport took over late in the year in 98'. She then held it for the most part from 99 to 2001. She retained the #1 ranking through playing a full schedule and consistently winning or going deep into draws. She rarely had a bad loss during that period and played more than Venus. I bet if you look at Hingis' match wins during those years, she would probably have 20 or more match wins then Venus. The players know what it takes to be #1 and I just don't think that Venus really took that much interest in it. If she did she would've played more. In fact, during this period, I think Venus was actually ranked #3 most of the time. Again, I don't think that the #1 ranking is the most important achievement, but it is quite an accomplishment. It takes a lot of dedication and commitment to get there and stay there.

My problem with Sharapova being number 1 is that she hasn't been any more consistent than anyone else and that the only reason she is is because Lindsay can't defend her points from last year. But if Grand Slam results came into play, Lindsay is STILL having a better year than Maria with 2 finals and a QF at the French. I totally understand what everyone is saying though. But, hey, the WTA wanted depth in the women's game and noe they've got it.....

And the only reason Lindsay ever got to #1 was that Justine Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters were sick/injured last year. And they got to #1 in large part because Serena was injured. Anyway, what sense does it make to call someone the #1 player when they're not able to play?

Edited to add: I don't believe Monica's protected ranking figures into the #1 list.

[ August 25, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: JC ]

Always nice to see those lists. There are so many mitigating factors to this discussion. Many more injuries to the top players as well as some far lighter schedules over the past five years of so...Also, this oddity of a player getting to #1 without a slam during that year was unheard of before? Who was first? Kim? Amelie? Oh, yes, was it JenCap before her slam?
The system's been the same for awhile, and it may not be perfect, but at least its been the same for all.

[ August 26, 2005, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

Somewhat off topic ... Does anyone consider the End of the Year Championships as a "fifth slam"? You ONLY have the top players in the world at that event and both Clijsters and Sharpie were holding that title at the time of their ascension to the #1 spot.
*shrug*

Nick

The year-end championship used to hold much more prestige than it seems to now. When Jana Novotna won, for instance, she said she considered it to be like the fifth Slam. But the tour's decision to suddenly and without warning return it to best-of-three sets and then moving the finale out of Madison Square Garden really took the luster off that title. It went from being a special event to being just like any other stop on the tour. Now they have the round robin format, which is fun, but it seems to me that neither players nor fans view that title with as much regard as in the 80s and early 90s.

BUT it does still carry alot of points, no? Even without the same prestige, that's a great observation in terms of explaining a factor in how Kim and Maria got to be number one in the world. Good call, Nick.

I personally loved it when it was the Virginia Slims. You had the top sixteen players from the entire year ... rarely any dud matches ... and most of the lower-ranked half went out in the first round anyway. ha ha. So you'd end up with the last two women standing for the year playing the only five-set final of the year. I thought it was such an exciting capper to the season.

(It didn't hurt that Gaby played great at the Slims, either. That was always nice. )

[ August 26, 2005, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Gaga4Gaby ]

I think it ought to be considered the fifth slam, but its prestige was hurt in the years when Seles and the Williams sisters didn't play. I think that was a more decisive factor than location or length of match. However, it's arguably tougher to win than a major with the new format, since it requires 5 matches against top 8 players. And yes, the big points from it do partly explain the #1 status of Clijsters, Sharapova, and Hingis lingering on as #1 in 2001.

I gotta say, I like the newer round robin matches at the year-ending championships, but wish they would bring back the best of five set matches. It was always fun to see it and made the event that much more special. It also needs to be moved back to Madison Square Garden. What were the organizers thinking when they moved it. Wasn't the men's year ending championships held in NY too? They shouldn't have moved that either. In fact I think they should combine the events. It would receive more buzz if it were a mixed event.

Well..she's not number one anymore. A whole week, breaking Mauresmo's dismal record of fewest days at #1.

She doesn't have many points to defend at the US Open, though, so she might get it back. I have doubts about Lindsay holding together physically for three consecutive weeks.

She's likely to get it back after the Open. Did she lose to Pierce in the 3rd round last year? She really doesn't have that many points to defend there, and I think she played mostly smaller tournaments for the rest of the year until the year ending championships. The question is will she stay healthy and play enough events the rest of the year?

Absolutely true about the year end championship; it does seem like it used to carry more importance and more prestige. Seles, Graf, all the top women won it during their dominant years, and yes with best of five finals. It does seem like it still matters a great deal to most of the top players, but I agree, moving it out of Madison Square Garden was an awful move. I'm presuming it wasn't raking in the cash?