PDA

View Full Version : Jankovic gets the bad rap did the others?


egn
03-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Everyone harped on Jankovic for being number 1 without winning a slam well both Mauresmo and Clijsters were number 1 before winning a slam and neither won a slam until 2 years after they were ranked number 1 for the first time. Is it cause they were not year end number 1. Well Davenport was year end number 1 4 times and only 1 of those years did she actually win a slam. Though for the other 3 Davenport had allready won her slams but I am wondering I mean it was different as Clijisters had no less than a semi in slam that year and was winning titles left and right but Mauresmo like Jankovic had never been to a final and did not win so many titles. I just never remember either of them getting as bad a rap as Jankovic did. Am I wrong? If they did not why so?

boredone3456
03-04-2009, 05:13 PM
There was a lot of flack thrown at both Mauresmo and Clijsters when they held the top spot without having a major. However I definitely think Jankovic was getting it more because when Mauresmo and Clijsters had the top spot for the first time, they had more perceived competition then Jankovic did and yes part of it is I think that Jankovic was the year end number 1 and is the only one to end the year as number 1 without a major in womens tennis history. Davenport was year end number 1 four times but in one of those years she won a major and in 2005 she made two major finals. Jankovic only made 1 major final and that was it.

There is a conception that only slam winners are worthy of being number 1, but if that were the case then why bother having a bunch of other tournaments throughout the year be worth anything points wise if people don't think winning a bunch of them makes you worthy of being number 1...Jankovic won 3 straight tournaments last fall, which took winning more matches consecutively then it takes to win a major and yet everyone said that wasn't the same and some said Serena deserved it more even though she was flat out awful after her US Open win, going 1-2 since then. Frankly...we have a points system for a reason, 4 different people won majors last year and other tournaments outside them, without points an argument could probably be made to name each of them player of the year and number 1 of the year. The points gave it Jankovic, not her fault she earned the most for consistant strong finishes

thalivest
03-04-2009, 05:17 PM
Well a number of things:

1. Clijsters and Mauresmo did get alot of criticsm when they reached #1 without winning a major. Hingis and Davenport in later years received alot when they held #1 not having won a major in a very long time as well.

2. Clijsters and Mauresmo, as boredone said were perceived to have alot more competition, and putting up consistent results with tier 1 titles and some slam semis and finals is more respected vs the competition they faced than Jankovic only managing that vs the competition she faces.

3. Clijsters and Mauresmo were just flat out better players to the naked eye. They looked like players good enough to threaten Venus, Serena, Henin, and the other top dogs, and who had the weapons to potentialy win big events and threaten the very top people on their own merits on any given day. Jankovic does not.

4. They did still have more overall results in their career and in the last 12 months when they took #1 IIRC also.

slicekick95
03-04-2009, 07:34 PM
Well a number of things:

1. Clijsters and Mauresmo did get alot of criticsm when they reached #1 without winning a major. Hingis and Davenport in later years received alot when they held #1 not having won a major in a very long time as well.

2. Clijsters and Mauresmo, as boredone said were perceived to have alot more competition, and putting up consistent results with tier 1 titles and some slam semis and finals is more respected vs the competition they faced than Jankovic only managing that vs the competition she faces.

3. Clijsters and Mauresmo were just flat out better players to the naked eye. They looked like players good enough to threaten Venus, Serena, Henin, and the other top dogs, and who had the weapons to potentialy win big events and threaten the very top people on their own merits on any given day. Jankovic does not.

4. They did still have more overall results in their career and in the last 12 months when they took #1 IIRC also.

hold on a sec. why in the world would the players get criticised for the flawed system:confused::confused:

tennis_hand
03-04-2009, 08:05 PM
nobody said no 1 has to win a Slam.
if they want it that way, then change the system.

anointedone
03-04-2009, 08:19 PM
hold on a sec. why in the world would the players get criticised for the flawed system:confused::confused:

I agree. It is stupid how players get so much abuse for something they dont control. Instead of people upset with Jankovic people should be upset with Serena for not playing enough tournaments, and not staying consistent and healthy enough to be ranked #1 while she is really the best player. If she cant do that then Jankovic collects the points, she supports the whole tour not just the slams like Serena and Venus, then she gets to be #1. Arguably the system could be tweaked, arguably you blame certain other players for being too sparatic in their appearances and performances, you dont blame the player who simply supported the tour and continued to produce quality results to attain the #1 ranking.

DMan
03-05-2009, 12:09 AM
The system was and still is the problem. Jankovic didn't help her cause by proclaiming herself the "best player in the world" at the start of this year, when she was just the girl who collected the most points. In the old days she would have earned the biggest bonu$.

Mauresmo had not been in a Slam final the previous 12 months when she became no. 1. Clijsters had been in a major final. But both won more than 1 tournament in the previous 12 months, which is what the rankings are based on. Jelena won only 1 tournament, Rome, when she became no. 1 in August 2008. There is something seriously flawed when you can become no. 1 having never ever in a career been to a major final (and there are 4 every year), let alone not having won one.

I think the WTA ranking system has been a farce ever since they did away with the average system in 1997. Since that time the year end rankings have been deeply flawed
1999 Hingis finishes #1, even though she and Davenport each win 1 major (Davenport had bigger win at Wimbledon), Lindsay wins YEC over Hingis, and wins same # of tournaments as Hingis, and beats her H2H 3 times.
2000 Hingis finishes #1 despite not winning a major, reaching only 1 major. Venus wins Wimbledon, US Open and Olympics and finishes #3.
2001 Davenport finishes #1 despite not winning a major or even reaching a major final. She doesn't even win the YEC. Venus wins Wimbledon and the US Open again, and finishes #3. Capriati wins Australian and French and finishes #2.
2003 Henin, by the skin of her teeth, edges out Clijsters for #1. Henin wins French and US Open (both over Clijsters). Serena wins Australian and Wimbledon.
2004 Davenport finishes #1 despite not winning a major or reaching a major final, for the second time! She doesn't win the YEC, IW or Miami either! Mauresmo finishes #2, and didn't appear in a major final - her best result was SF Wimbledon. The major winners finish the year 3 (Myskina), 4 (Sharapova), 5 (Kuznetsova), 8 (Henin).
2005 Davenport finishes #1 despite not winning a major (where have I heard that before?!) AT least she reaches 2 major finals - choking them both to a Williams sisters! She also does not win IW, Miami, or the YEC. Kim Clijsters does win IW and Miami, plus the US Open, and only finishes #2.
2006 Henin finishes #1 as French champion. Mauresmo is Australian and Wimbledon champ (both over Henin).
and last but not least:
2008 Jankovic finishes #1 despite not winning a major.

In 12 seasons since they got rid of the average ranking system, five times a player has finished #1 despite not winning a major. In two other instances another player had legitimate credentials to be considered the best player and was not ranked #1.
FWIW - Only two times in the history of the men's computer rankings that a player finished #1 without winning a major: 1975 when the ATP ranked Connors #1 (most considered Arthur Ashe #1 that year). And 1982 when McEnroe finished #1 over 2-time major winner Connors (poetic justice?)

boredone3456
03-05-2009, 12:31 AM
The system was and still is the problem. Jankovic didn't help her cause by proclaiming herself the "best player in the world" at the start of this year, when she was just the girl who collected the most points. In the old days she would have earned the biggest bonu$.

Mauresmo had not been in a Slam final the previous 12 months when she became no. 1. Clijsters had been in a major final. But both won more than 1 tournament in the previous 12 months, which is what the rankings are based on. Jelena won only 1 tournament, Rome, when she became no. 1 in August 2008. There is something seriously flawed when you can become no. 1 having never ever in a career been to a major final (and there are 4 every year), let alone not having won one.

I think the WTA ranking system has been a farce ever since they did away with the average system in 1997. Since that time the year end rankings have been deeply flawed
1999 Hingis finishes #1, even though she and Davenport each win 1 major (Davenport had bigger win at Wimbledon), Lindsay wins YEC over Hingis, and wins same # of tournaments as Hingis, and beats her H2H 3 times.
2000 Hingis finishes #1 despite not winning a major, reaching only 1 major. Venus wins Wimbledon, US Open and Olympics and finishes #3.
2001 Davenport finishes #1 despite not winning a major or even reaching a major final. She doesn't even win the YEC. Venus wins Wimbledon and the US Open again, and finishes #3. Capriati wins Australian and French and finishes #2.
2003 Henin, by the skin of her teeth, edges out Clijsters for #1. Henin wins French and US Open (both over Clijsters). Serena wins Australian and Wimbledon.
2004 Davenport finishes #1 despite not winning a major or reaching a major final, for the second time! She doesn't win the YEC, IW or Miami either! Mauresmo finishes #2, and didn't appear in a major final - her best result was SF Wimbledon. The major winners finish the year 3 (Myskina), 4 (Sharapova), 5 (Kuznetsova), 8 (Henin).
2005 Davenport finishes #1 despite not winning a major (where have I heard that before?!) AT least she reaches 2 major finals - choking them both to a Williams sisters! She also does not win IW, Miami, or the YEC. Kim Clijsters does win IW and Miami, plus the US Open, and only finishes #2.
2006 Henin finishes #1 as French champion. Mauresmo is Australian and Wimbledon champ (both over Henin).
and last but not least:
2008 Jankovic finishes #1 despite not winning a major.

In 12 seasons since they got rid of the average ranking system, five times a player has finished #1 despite not winning a major. In two other instances another player had legitimate credentials to be considered the best player and was not ranked #1.
FWIW - Only two times in the history of the men's computer rankings that a player finished #1 without winning a major: 1975 when the ATP ranked Connors #1 (most considered Arthur Ashe #1 that year). And 1982 when McEnroe finished #1 over 2-time major winner Connors (poetic justice?)


I agree with most of these..but some I do not. First, your assessment of davenports 2005. She did not choke in either of her major finals. If you watched them you would have noticed at the 2005 australian open that she started out rapid fire and her body got sluggish. She had been through the ringer in both of her previous matches against home town favorite molik who was playing out of her mind in front of her home town crowd and an oddly out of her mind and body dechy, she was in the double final to and the heat and pressure of her matches wore her out. Also, at Wimbledon, she lost 9-7 in the third in what is easily the best slam final of the last 5 years,...how is losing 9-7 in the third choking?? Davenport was the only player besides Pierce to play 2 slam finals in 2005. You mention the other slam winners, not one of them made it to the quarterfinals of any other major besides the one they won apart from Venus at the US Open and Myskina at the Australian....and you wonder why they didn't get number 1? Davenport was the only player to reach at least the quarterfinals of all 4 majors that year....consistancy wins out I'm afraid.

As for Hingis in 2000, she may not have won a major, but she won 9 titles. 5 of them were Tier I titles (including the Kremlin Cup) and she also won the Chase Championships. 9 titles is a pretty impressive feet especially when 2/3 were at top tour events, so its no wonder she got the top spot if you ask me.

As for Hingis ending 1999 as year end number one over Davenport. Davenport won Wimbledon but reached no other slam finals, where as Hingis won The Australian plus made the finals of both the French and Us Opens...3 slams finals is better than 1. She also won 6 other titles 4 of which were Tier I. Davenport won a total of 5 titles that year, including Wimbledon and the year end championships, but no Tier I titles. No surprise Hingis ended as number 1.

Slam wins are not the be all and end all of being number 1.

tahiti
03-05-2009, 12:38 AM
Being no 1 means you have the most points end of story. Where is the age old proverb it doesn't matter if you win or lose but how you play the game? Jankovic did well. Not winning a slam made it shortlived but who cares, she got the points to be there, good for her!

I hope Federer doesn't win any slams this year but wins enough points to take over the no 1 spot again. Maybe then for once he'll eat his words. Doesn't help when players jump on the badwagon too. naughty naughty Federer.

DMan
03-05-2009, 10:51 PM
I agree with most of these..but some I do not. First, your assessment of davenports 2005. She did not choke in either of her major finals. If you watched them you would have noticed at the 2005 australian open that she started out rapid fire and her body got sluggish. She had been through the ringer in both of her previous matches against home town favorite molik who was playing out of her mind in front of her home town crowd and an oddly out of her mind and body dechy, she was in the double final to and the heat and pressure of her matches wore her out. Also, at Wimbledon, she lost 9-7 in the third in what is easily the best slam final of the last 5 years,...how is losing 9-7 in the third choking?? Davenport was the only player besides Pierce to play 2 slam finals in 2005. You mention the other slam winners, not one of them made it to the quarterfinals of any other major besides the one they won apart from Venus at the US Open and Myskina at the Australian....and you wonder why they didn't get number 1? Davenport was the only player to reach at least the quarterfinals of all 4 majors that year....consistancy wins out I'm afraid.

As for Hingis in 2000, she may not have won a major, but she won 9 titles. 5 of them were Tier I titles (including the Kremlin Cup) and she also won the Chase Championships. 9 titles is a pretty impressive feet especially when 2/3 were at top tour events, so its no wonder she got the top spot if you ask me.

As for Hingis ending 1999 as year end number one over Davenport. Davenport won Wimbledon but reached no other slam finals, where as Hingis won The Australian plus made the finals of both the French and Us Opens...3 slams finals is better than 1. She also won 6 other titles 4 of which were Tier I. Davenport won a total of 5 titles that year, including Wimbledon and the year end championships, but no Tier I titles. No surprise Hingis ended as number 1.

Slam wins are not the be all and end all of being number 1.

You seem to go a long way to explain why Davenport didn't choke in the Australian 05 final. Nonsense about her having to play tough matches in the QF and semis. She easily won the opening et against a player clearly struggling. Sh eplayed one bad game, and then mentally packed it in. Choking, tanking, whatever you want to call it, Lindsay did it.

The Wimbledon final was considered the "best" cuz it was the closest...thanks to Lindsay choking a set and 4-2 lead, and up a break again in the 3rd set, having a match point. And then choking.

For my money you have to win a major to be #1. Kim Clijsters deserved that distinction in 2005.

Hingis in 2000 is like Jankovic in 2008. Play the most events, earn the most # of points. Doesn't make you the best (unless your the WTA computer).

In 1999 both Lindsay and Martina won 7 events, 1 major each. While Lindsay only reached one final, she didn't lose in the first round of a major to a player ranked #129. That effectively should have eliminated Hingis' claim to the top spot. Both lost to Graf and Serena at the French and US Open respectively. The draws happened to have Lindsay face those players sooner than Hingis.
Lindsay crushed Martina 64,62 to win the Chase Championships, which is an event that's supposed to stand for something.

thalivest
03-05-2009, 11:06 PM
I agree with boredone especialy on the 2005 Australian Open final. I equate what happened to her in the middle of the 2nd set to a car that runs out of gas. With the Molik quarterfinal complete with crowd and all deep into a 3rd set, the unexpectedly tough Dechy semi (granted she did herself no favors playing so poorly here as unlike the dangerous Molik there was no excuse for her to have to go 3 sets here), the long doubles match, she simply did not have enough gas in the tank to get to the end of the final with Serena without running out. When you run out of gas in a car you can try with all your might to keep driving it, you can get out of try and push it, but ultimately you are going nowhere.

I think in 2004 and 2005 Lindsay simply got really unlucky in the majors:

2004 wimbledon- rain delay changed momentum of her semifinal with Sharapova. That said this is the one she has to take some blame for.

2004 U.S Open- injury flareup after the first set of her semifinal with Kuznetsova almost certainly cost her the U.S Open title

2005 Australian Open- like I said simply too much time on court before the final. A shame when she was playing well enough to win the final it wasnt even physically possible anymore really.

2005 Wimbledon- really close match, could have gone either way. Also injured her back late in the 3rd set, who knows otherwise.

JankovicFan
03-06-2009, 05:08 AM
Perhaps what are flawed are the grand slams and what we attribute to them. You had four different winners in 2008, and where were they at the end when all the points were counted? Why aren't people upset with those players for being two week wonders?

I frankly don't care at this point, because women's tennis has become so disappointing, watching everyone trying to be a power baller and failing, I don't even watch much anymore. As a real fan, I just hope JJ does her best. The high first serve percentage and trying to win points with defense is not working.

pmerk34
03-06-2009, 05:13 AM
I agree with most of these..but some I do not. First, your assessment of davenports 2005. She did not choke in either of her major finals. If you watched them you would have noticed at the 2005 australian open that she started out rapid fire and her body got sluggish. She had been through the ringer in both of her previous matches against home town favorite molik who was playing out of her mind in front of her home town crowd and an oddly out of her mind and body dechy, she was in the double final to and the heat and pressure of her matches wore her out. Also, at Wimbledon, she lost 9-7 in the third in what is easily the best slam final of the last 5 years,...how is losing 9-7 in the third choking?? Davenport was the only player besides Pierce to play 2 slam finals in 2005. You mention the other slam winners, not one of them made it to the quarterfinals of any other major besides the one they won apart from Venus at the US Open and Myskina at the Australian....and you wonder why they didn't get number 1? Davenport was the only player to reach at least the quarterfinals of all 4 majors that year....consistancy wins out I'm afraid.

As for Hingis in 2000, she may not have won a major, but she won 9 titles. 5 of them were Tier I titles (including the Kremlin Cup) and she also won the Chase Championships. 9 titles is a pretty impressive feet especially when 2/3 were at top tour events, so its no wonder she got the top spot if you ask me.

As for Hingis ending 1999 as year end number one over Davenport. Davenport won Wimbledon but reached no other slam finals, where as Hingis won The Australian plus made the finals of both the French and Us Opens...3 slams finals is better than 1. She also won 6 other titles 4 of which were Tier I. Davenport won a total of 5 titles that year, including Wimbledon and the year end championships, but no Tier I titles. No surprise Hingis ended as number 1.

Slam wins are not the be all and end all of being number 1.

You are not cynical and ignorant enough to post here. You make too much sense.

boredone3456
03-06-2009, 12:01 PM
You seem to go a long way to explain why Davenport didn't choke in the Australian 05 final. Nonsense about her having to play tough matches in the QF and semis. She easily won the opening et against a player clearly struggling. Sh eplayed one bad game, and then mentally packed it in. Choking, tanking, whatever you want to call it, Lindsay did it.

The Wimbledon final was considered the "best" cuz it was the closest...thanks to Lindsay choking a set and 4-2 lead, and up a break again in the 3rd set, having a match point. And then choking.

For my money you have to win a major to be #1. Kim Clijsters deserved that distinction in 2005.

Hingis in 2000 is like Jankovic in 2008. Play the most events, earn the most # of points. Doesn't make you the best (unless your the WTA computer).

In 1999 both Lindsay and Martina won 7 events, 1 major each. While Lindsay only reached one final, she didn't lose in the first round of a major to a player ranked #129. That effectively should have eliminated Hingis' claim to the top spot. Both lost to Graf and Serena at the French and US Open respectively. The draws happened to have Lindsay face those players sooner than Hingis.
Lindsay crushed Martina 64,62 to win the Chase Championships, which is an event that's supposed to stand for something.

In 2005 Molik played out of her mind against Lindsay. Lindsay was not only playing Molik, but seemingly all of australia and that match went to 9-7 in the third with both playing well. As for Dechy ok she should not have needed 3 setsbut Dechy was more on then she usually is. Davenport was alive in the doubles also and playing many matches in seceral days time under the heat of the australian sun, so you make your own conclusions.

The Wimbledon final was close the whole way, as thalivest said Lindsay hurt her back up 4-2 in the third and she still managed to play it to 9-7. That to me is not choking, Lindsay held one championship point, not like she blew 4 or 5.

as for Clijsters in 2005, she won the US Open, but lost in the 4th rd of both the French and Wimbledon to Davenport, having led the French open match most of the way and being a much better clay courter than Lindsay, to me that is pretty bad.

Hingis in 2000 won 9 titles including the year end championships and 5 tier I's, thats not just playing a lot of tournaments that is playing and winning alot of tournaments, Jankovic won 4 titles in 2008, much less than 9, that proved Hingis was the real deal. Hingis also made an additional 3 finals (including the Australian Open and Indian Wells)which she lost. so that is 12 tournament finals...pretty impressive if you ask me

And as for 1999, Hingis made 3 slam finals, winning 1. She bombed at Wimbledon yes, but she made 3 slam finals, better than Lindsay just making 1. If Hingis had won all of those 3 Finals and lost in the first round of Wimbledon, would you still say her claim to the spot was effectively eliminated because of that loss to a player ranked #129? She won 3 majors in 1997 as was still heralded as the best even with that bomb of a loss to Majoli at the french.

Granted I was never a fan of Hingis, but I will give her credit where credit is due. Since we so Obviously disagree I will just leave it at this insread of arguing ad infinitum.

Gizo
03-06-2009, 01:50 PM
I agree that the standard of competition and strength in depth in women's tennis was considerably stronger when Clijsters and Mauresmo first became world no. 1, than last year when Jankovic climbed to top spot. It must be pointed out though that Clijsters in 2003 was still a much stronger world no. 1 than Mauresmo in 2004, as at least Kim had a grand slam final, YEC title and 9 WTA titles (5 more than Amelie) in total in her 52 week ranking table. Mauresmo became world no. 1 in 2004 after losing her US Open quarter-final and Lindsay was beaten by Kuznetsova in her semi-final.
Hilariously when Jankovic became world no. 1 for the first time in her career after Montreal last year, she had never reached a grand slam final in her career (of course she put that right few weeks later at Flushing Meadows), and had only won 1 title and reached 2 more finals in the 52 previous weeks.
It's not her fault that Serena didn't play enough, Justine had retired, Sharapova was injured and Ivanovic had a major slump after winning the RG title. The ranking system is what it is and she accumulated her points fairly and squarely. However I don't think it's off base to label her as the weakest world no. 1 ever. It's funny to think that such a talented player like Mandlikova who had such a decorated career never even reached world no. 2 during her career, let alone world no. 1.
I agree with boredone that it is ridiculous to say that Lindsay choked in either of her 2 slam finals in 2005. The Australian Open has already been explained in enough detail. In the Wimbledon final, she served for the match at *6-5 in the 2nd set. She was broken to love, despite putting her first serve in play during all 4 points. Venus won one of those points with a stop volley, and 2 of them with a backhand winner. Lindsay had a championship point on Venus's serve in the final set. Venus saved it with a blistering backhand winner.
She sustained a back injury in the 5th game of the deciding set, and did very well to hang in there despite clearly being in pain. Venus had to play brilliantly to win that Wimbledon title, and Lindsay made her fight tooth and nail for it.

tintin
03-06-2009, 04:26 PM
gosh Clijsters and Mauresmo had more competition
had won tier 1 and 2 titles
had made more slams semis and had won more Masters than the Serb

Clijsters and Mauresmo played in a YEC final and Clijsters won and Mauresmo won an olympic silver medal
how many times have Clijsters and Mauresmo made the final 8 at the end of the season?

gosh come on now;Mauresmo and Clijsters had to deal with Venus;Serena,Henin,Pierce;Capriati;Davenport,Myski na,Kuznetsova,Dementieva

Jankovic?radwanska,cibulkova,pennetta;ivanovic;saf ina;zvonareva and the rest of the junk players


Clijsters/Mauresmo>>>>>Jankovic