PDA

View Full Version : What's up with No. 1 ranking for Ivanovic?


TonyB
06-05-2008, 07:00 PM
So tell me how a player with ZERO grand slam final victories and only three slam finals can be ranked number 1 in the world?

Sure, I get it... she has the points, right? But maybe that means that the point system is faulty. There's just no way that a player who hasn't beaten the best of the rest in a slam final should be ranked number 1.

I mean, after all, Sharapova was just ranked number 1 by default after Justine retired. And Sharapova held that ranking for a grand total of maybe two weeks before it was taken away by a player that didn't even really WIN anything yet. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Anyone else feel this way?

SempreSami
06-05-2008, 07:01 PM
Sharapova lost points at RG etc.

CyBorg
06-05-2008, 07:01 PM
So tell me how a player with ZERO grand slam final victories and only three slam finals can be ranked number 1 in the world?

Mathematics.

daddy
06-05-2008, 07:03 PM
Rankings are rankings. I mean, she defended her points, Maria did not do the same and by simple maths we can etermine why is ana nr1 at this moment. I do agree Sharapova is the likely top player and deserves it more, but her injury problems and her missing a lot of tourneys due to shoulder injury led to this. You got to play to be top ranked, she was injured. I expect things to reverse as soon as few more tourneys go on and assuming she'll play ( be injury free ).

Vision84
06-05-2008, 07:07 PM
She is more consistent than Sharapova as proved by the rankings and thus deserves the #1 ranking. Besides she just beat Jelana whom I consider to be up there with the best of the best right now.

RealityPolice
06-05-2008, 07:23 PM
It's happened before, with Clijsters and (IIRC) Mauresmo.

Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

At least the new #1 will have been in the finals of both Slams this year. I suppose that's something.

Tshooter
06-05-2008, 07:33 PM
"maybe that means that the point system is faulty. There's just no way that a player who hasn't beaten the best of the rest in a slam final should be ranked number 1."

I agree. But the current system rewards consistency and encourages a lot of play, which helps the sport and the lessor tournaments survive.

TonyB
06-05-2008, 08:16 PM
Sharapova lost points at RG etc.

Mathematics.


I see you two didn't read my entire post.


Here's what I said:

"Sure, I get it... she has the points, right? But maybe that means that the point system is faulty."

SempreSami
06-05-2008, 08:19 PM
Henin pwning the rest of the field last year meant she had a big chunk of the points and was an age ahead of the others, hence why it opened up a bit recently.

Macdaddy1129
06-05-2008, 08:21 PM
I understand where you are coming from. It would seem that you should have to have already proven yourself worthy of No. 1 spot(i.e. winning a slam) but, as said already, rankings are rankings.

saram
06-05-2008, 08:47 PM
So tell me how a player with ZERO grand slam final victories and only three slam finals can be ranked number 1 in the world?

Sure, I get it... she has the points, right? But maybe that means that the point system is faulty. There's just no way that a player who hasn't beaten the best of the rest in a slam final should be ranked number 1.

I mean, after all, Sharapova was just ranked number 1 by default after Justine retired. And Sharapova held that ranking for a grand total of maybe two weeks before it was taken away by a player that didn't even really WIN anything yet. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Anyone else feel this way?

It is called being consistent. Look at Davydenko and Ferrer.

carlos djackal
06-05-2008, 09:44 PM
It's Consistency, Just Like Mauresimo Before Winning A Grand Slam, She Was Pretty Much Up There In The Rankings........

thetennisbum
06-05-2008, 09:50 PM
Might I point out that she isn't "technically" #1 yet, and by the time she is this Monday, she may well be a very deserving and understandable world #1. Maybe things are just coming together perfectly for her at the same time (ie. the grand slams and the ranking with it). We see plenty of players who put it together and became number 1 long after their first Grand Slam, she has just had a much more consistent rise (and is very deserving for that reason I think).

CyBorg
06-05-2008, 10:15 PM
I see you two didn't read my entire post.


Here's what I said:

"Sure, I get it... she has the points, right? But maybe that means that the point system is faulty."

The point system would be faulty if the only thing that mattered was the majors.

tennis_hand
06-05-2008, 10:25 PM
what's wrong with her being no 1?

Hidious
06-05-2008, 10:33 PM
There's just no way that a player who hasn't beaten the best of the rest in a slam final should be ranked number 1.
Anyone else feel this way?

No. Tell us who should be #1 if not Ivanovic. She could easily be the best female player in the world at this stage of the season. Don't forget that ending a season at #1 spot is what counts.

love means nothing
06-05-2008, 10:34 PM
ez, the player that won 2 of the last 4 slams and yec was removed from the rankings.

acher
06-05-2008, 11:29 PM
i agree that she is totally undeserving. but by the time the rankings come out, she might already be a grand slam winner :)

Fee
06-05-2008, 11:31 PM
So tell me how a player with ZERO grand slam final victories and only three slam finals can be ranked number 1 in the world?

Sure, I get it... she has the points, right? But maybe that means that the point system is faulty. There's just no way that a player who hasn't beaten the best of the rest in a slam final should be ranked number 1.

I mean, after all, Sharapova was just ranked number 1 by default after Justine retired. And Sharapova held that ranking for a grand total of maybe two weeks before it was taken away by a player that didn't even really WIN anything yet. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Anyone else feel this way?

1. Tennis is not just about the slams. If it was, they would only play 8 weeks per year.

2. Which of the last four slam winners would you prefer to be #1 right now instead of Ana?

MasterBruceTennis
06-06-2008, 12:07 AM
I see you two didn't read my entire post.


Here's what I said:

"Sure, I get it... she has the points, right? But maybe that means that the point system is faulty."

The system is not faulty. "If you do not play, you cannot be #1." That is why #1 Justine retired. That goes the same to Williams and all of the men players too.

rk_sports
06-06-2008, 12:32 AM
ya.. on pure merit level.. it can be called a faulty system... but again you cannot blame that for the depth or lack of depth/consistency at the top of womens tennis.. esp after champions like davenport, clisters, henin gone.. and williams not interested in tennis anymore...

rk_sports
06-06-2008, 12:35 AM
...forgot to mention.. wouldnt that look even bad if JJ won today and became #1... at least Ana is twice GS finalist ;)