PDA

View Full Version : I can't beleive it. After winning Wimbly, Olympics and US Serena is still world no.4?


Paullaconte1
09-10-2012, 08:13 AM
I understand that the ranking is a 1 year system, but seeing Serena being ranked world no.4 when she is clearly the best of the best of the best of WTA makes me wonder if there is a problem with the ranking system.

http://newyork.tennistonic.com/pg/tennis/view_tennisnews?nid=1237&/WTA-rankings---Serena-still-world-no.4

Do think that is fair?

Mainad
09-10-2012, 08:18 AM
I understand that the ranking is a 1 year system, but seeing Serena being ranked world no.4 when she is clearly the best of the best of the best of WTA makes me wonder if there is a problem with the ranking system.

http://newyork.tennistonic.com/pg/tennis/view_tennisnews?nid=1237&/WTA-rankings---Serena-still-world-no.4

Do think that is fair?

In one sense, obviously not as Serena is clearly head and shoulders above the vast majority of the WTA and probably ahead of the current #1. But she doesn't play enough tournaments to boost her to her rightful place in the rankings. That's been the problem for her.

Maybe the rankings should be weighted differently but, then again, maybe the WTA is saying that if Serena wants her rightful place at the top of the tree, she should play more of their tournaments and not just show up at the Slams and one or two premier events.

mellowyellow
09-10-2012, 08:25 AM
See RG results.

フェデラー
09-10-2012, 08:31 AM
See RG results.

Yeah if she had gone further in RG and AO she would have done a lot better. So we can always look to next year. What is more surprising to me is that she is only 3rd in the WTA race for the year. Honestly it doesn't matter that much. I'm sure she'll get it eventually, she just has to perform well, or at least attend, minor tournaments.

BigServer1
09-10-2012, 08:33 AM
Yeah if she had gone further in RG and AO she would have done a lot better. So we can always look to next year. What is more surprising to me is that she is only 3rd in the WTA race for the year. Honestly it doesn't matter that much. I'm sure she'll get it eventually, she just has to perform well, or at least attend, minor tournaments.

This is such a joke. You win two Majors in a year and you're #3 in the race?

If we replicated this on the men's tour this year, with her exact results, do we have any idea where that man would be in the ATP race?

SystemicAnomaly
09-10-2012, 08:33 AM
The tortoise and the hare.

If Serena wants the #1 ranking she's got to put in the time. She's only played 15 tournaments in the past year. Lost in the 4r at the AO and the 1r at the FO. She has done very well otherwise but we can hardly say that she has been dominant enough thoughout the past year to earn the #1 slot.

TMF
09-10-2012, 08:34 AM
Do the math. The ranking is base on 12-month period. Serena lost 1st round at RG, boycotted IW are just few things that put her in #4.

NadalAgassi
09-10-2012, 08:48 AM
Rankings dont matter in the WTA. They are merely a sideshow. Wozniacki was #1 for a long time and everyone thought she was a joke, and nobody considered her the best. Everyone knows who the real #1 is.

fuzzyball
09-10-2012, 08:51 AM
Serena is only the best player of the last 2 monthes and a half, thats why she isn't ranked higher than 4 on a ranking system based on the last 12 monthes.

Evan77
09-10-2012, 09:04 AM
Serena only cares about slams and she plays when she feels playing which is not very often.

She simply doesn't play enough. The WTA rankings are hilarious. Woz was ranked #1 for 2 years by just being consistent and playing many tournaments. JJ did the same thing few years ago. Safina too.

I don't think Serena cares if she is ranked #500 or #1.

We all know that she is a true #1. All players know it too.

tennisMVP
09-10-2012, 09:32 AM
I understand that the ranking is a 1 year system, but seeing Serena being ranked world no.4 when she is clearly the best of the best of the best of WTA makes me wonder if there is a problem with the ranking system.

http://newyork.tennistonic.com/pg/tennis/view_tennisnews?nid=1237&/WTA-rankings---Serena-still-world-no.4

Do think that is fair?

Rankings don't matter.

tacou
09-10-2012, 09:49 AM
The issue has been addressed a million times. What interests me more is, can't the tournaments--at least the slams--seed Serena wherever they want?

I don't think point distribution needs to be completely reconstructed, but maybe Wimbledon or USO needs to man up and say "Hey, she's obviously the best, so she gets the #1 seed." I can't imagine any valid complaints from other players.

zam88
09-10-2012, 09:58 AM
i don't think serena gives a crap about her ranking and we shouldn't either.

The system isn't designed to reward the best player, just the best accumulator.

If Serena had it her way she'd probably play 8 tournaments a year... 1 warmup before each of the 4 slams.


Rafa would probably love to play about 12 tournaments a year too.. 4 slams, 3 other clay tournaments, and a tune up before each major... and call it a year.

pmerk34
09-10-2012, 10:10 AM
i don't think serena gives a crap about her ranking and we shouldn't either.

The system isn't designed to reward the best player, just the best accumulator.

If Serena had it her way she'd probably play 8 tournaments a year... 1 warmup before each of the 4 slams.


Rafa would probably love to play about 12 tournaments a year too.. 4 slams, 3 other clay tournaments, and a tune up before each major... and call it a year.

She had a dominant summer that's for sure. She's 31 years old and built like a brick house. She could never withstand a full schedule at this rate. The landscape has shifted to the point where the players and fans seem to now hold the slams as the highest goals to acheive.

AnotherTennisProdigy
09-10-2012, 10:20 AM
The system rewards whoever gains the most points throughout the year, which requires playing alot. Just look at Wozniaki. She's the complete opposite, she was able to get a lot of points in other tournaments which allowed her to get to #1 without being of any relevence at the slams.

Down_the_line
09-10-2012, 11:05 AM
At the end of the day, the way the ranking system is structured isn't perfect but it's the best way possible. There are always different ways of doing things, just like simply playing in a ton of tournaments and getting pretty decent results at all of them is a different way of getting to the top.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-10-2012, 11:11 AM
i don't think serena gives a crap about her ranking and we shouldn't either.

She has her view on that, but everyone knows the majors are her focus--as it should be. No one gives two craps about ultimately worthless tournaments like IW, or the other minor events which are not the markers of a history making career.


Rafa would probably love to play about 12 tournaments a year too.. 4 slams, 3 other clay tournaments, and a tune up before each major... and call it a year.

That would make it so much more forgiving on the bodies of every player--which should be (but is not) the primary concern of the tennis PTB.

krz
09-10-2012, 11:41 AM
You can think of like that or the other side of the coin is what if she did play a full schedule like the rest of the players?

Would she be able to dominate the way she has after the grind of a full schedule?

Maybe... maybe not. Probably still would given how weak this generation of players is but, just saying not playing a full schedule has its advantages.

bluetrain4
09-10-2012, 11:48 AM
Why is it suprising? It's not an opinion poll, a subjective assessement of who is the best player.

Sure, I, and many others, think Serena is the best player, but the rankings are simply an objective formula of awarding points, plugging in the numbers, and obtaining the results. We know Serena doesn't play that often. We know she lost first round at the French. So, it's not that surprising.

OrangePower
09-10-2012, 11:55 AM
This is such a joke. You win two Majors in a year and you're #3 in the race?

If we replicated this on the men's tour this year, with her exact results, do we have any idea where that man would be in the ATP race?

One difference in the WTA ranking system vs the ATP system is in the point spread between winning a tournament vs losing in middle rounds. In the WTA, middle-round losers get relatively speaking more points than ATP middle round losers. This in essence rewards consistency of getting into middle rounds of tournaments over ability to win the whole tournament (relative to ATP).

I can't be bothered to do the math of how Serena's results vs the field would have resulted in the ATP, but I would not be surprised if her results would have been good enough to put her at #1 in the race.

フェデラー
09-10-2012, 12:02 PM
The issue has been addressed a million times. What interests me more is, can't the tournaments--at least the slams--seed Serena wherever they want?

I don't think point distribution needs to be completely reconstructed, but maybe Wimbledon or USO needs to man up and say "Hey, she's obviously the best, so she gets the #1 seed." I can't imagine any valid complaints from other players.

I may be wrong, but I think Wimby is the only slam that will seed according to how they see fit, based on past performances etc etc. I mean I doubt they would seed her 1 if she is 4, since as I said before when it comes to the draw there is not much difference between 1 and 4.

OrangePower
09-10-2012, 12:07 PM
I may be wrong, but I think Wimby is the only slam that will seed according to how they see fit, based on past performances etc etc. I mean I doubt they would seed her 1 if she is 4, since as I said before when it comes to the draw there is not much difference between 1 and 4.

Wimby seeds using their own system, which takes into account ranking, grass court tournament results, and past Wimby results. But even then there is a system behind it - I don't think they subjectively just decide how to assign the seeds.

redpurusha
09-10-2012, 12:25 PM
I much rather would just play and win the slams than be ranked #1. Make more money too. I would do exactly that the Williams sisters are doing in their prodigy environment they were brought up in.

mellowyellow
09-10-2012, 01:32 PM
The tortoise and the hare.

If Serena wants the #1 ranking she's got to put in the time. She's only played 15 tournaments in the past year. Lost in the 4r at the AO and the 1r at the FO. She has done very well otherwise but we can hardly say that she has been dominant enough thoughout the past year to earn the #1 slot.

Somehow the "maths" escapes everyone on here. No one seems to realize the results of the others are not just somethign you push off to the side because they didn't win a slam or only 1 of them. Djoko could hold 2 slams after today, and final/semifinal in the other 2 and he still will not be the No.1

jones101
09-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Its quite simple why she is not number one really.

280 out of 2000 in AO (One of her strongest events)
250 out of 1000 in Miami (As above)
5 out of 2000 points in Roland Garros (Quarterna usually shows up)

So, out of 5000 points she only gained 535, which is just over 10% of available points.

The rankings are not wrong, Serena just underperformed to begin.

With Vika/Maria/Aga's strong pre-clay results, I can see Serena being number one by AO time (definitely Miami), providing she keeps 'Serving these b1tches up' (no subpoena:) )

tennisMVP
09-10-2012, 03:30 PM
Because of the invention of the internet, fans take rankings seriously. Before the internet, nobody cared much about the rankings. I doubt the players care much about the rankings these days either, but the fans are obsessed because of the internet. In reality though, the only thing that matters is who wins each slam. And that's mostly Nadal and Djokovic. Murray won't prove anything until he wins a slam. Going to number 3 in the rankings means nothing. In fact he did it in early 2010.

NLBwell
09-10-2012, 04:03 PM
Yeah if she had gone further in RG and AO she would have done a lot better.

Points systems rewards consistency. If you go out in the first round, you fall way behind the other players.

NLBwell
09-10-2012, 04:07 PM
Because of the invention of the internet, fans take rankings seriously. Before the internet, nobody cared much about the rankings. I doubt the players care much about the rankings these days either,

The players care tremendously about the rankings (except historically the Williams). Do you not know that the seeding depends on the rankings? Though there is some leveling, #'s 1 and 2 are in better position than #'s 3 and 4 and being ranked #4 gives you a lot better chance of winning a tournament than #5.

tennisMVP
09-10-2012, 04:07 PM
The number one ranking has been devalued a lot because over the last 3 decades there have been legends who rarely had the number one ranking. It means nothing.

tennisMVP
09-10-2012, 04:09 PM
The players care tremendously about the rankings (except historically the Williams). Do you not know that the seeding depends on the rankings? Though there is some leveling, #'s 1 and 2 are in better position than #'s 3 and 4 and being ranked #4 gives you a lot better chance of winning a tournament than #5.

I agree players care about the rankings for the reason of avoiding others in the draw, but the number one ranking as an achievement is not a big deal compared to the achievement of winning slams. Top 2, sure that helps you in the draw. But the top ranking, trivial (when compared to winning slams).

NLBwell
09-10-2012, 04:26 PM
I guarantee you that being #1 means/meant a lot to Federer and Sampras. Sampras almost drained himself completely going for his 6th year end #1 ranking.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-10-2012, 06:34 PM
I agree players care about the rankings for the reason of avoiding others in the draw, but the number one ranking as an achievement is not a big deal compared to the achievement of winning slams. Top 2, sure that helps you in the draw. But the top ranking, trivial (when compared to winning slams).

That is the point of entering pro tennis--the majors, which is why fake #1 players such as Wozniacki, Safina and jankovic were heavily criticized (deservedly so) for trumpeting a ranking, which meant nothing without the majors. It is no coincidence the aforementioned trio all tried to defend their hollow position: they realized none had the talent to win majors, so clawing on to the ranking was all they had.

NadalAgassi
09-10-2012, 06:44 PM
Its quite simple why she is not number one really.

280 out of 2000 in AO (One of her strongest events)
250 out of 1000 in Miami (As above)
5 out of 2000 points in Roland Garros (Quarterna usually shows up)

So, out of 5000 points she only gained 535, which is just over 10% of available points.

The rankings are not wrong, Serena just underperformed to begin.

With Vika/Maria/Aga's strong pre-clay results, I can see Serena being number one by AO time (definitely Miami), providing she keeps 'Serving these b1tches up' (no subpoena:) )

She is now a lock to sweep all the Player of the Year awards, which is of more value than the computer #1 ranking anyway.

NLBwell
09-11-2012, 10:04 AM
I didn't even know they had a Player of the Year. Didn't know that it was the reason pros played tennis.
I think there is too much emphasis on winning a major and not enough on being number 1. Consistency and supporting the tour through the year - which makes it financially viable - are important. If the big names just cherry-pick the slam tournaments, it doesn't support the tour and it all falls apart.

Loose Cannon
09-11-2012, 10:08 AM
Agree with OP 100%......

Anyone that acknowledges a ranking......other than #1.....for Serena..........is clueless. Its a joke. Im sure the players #1-3 HAVE to feel embarrassed over this. Serena i s #1 and its not even close. I dont care what mid tier events she isnt winning. When the chips are down, Serena >>>> WTA many times over

Loose Cannon
09-11-2012, 10:14 AM
I didn't even know they had a Player of the Year. Didn't know that it was the reason pros played tennis.
I think there is too much emphasis on winning a major and not enough on being number 1. Consistency and supporting the tour through the year - which makes it financially viable - are important. If the big names just cherry-pick the slam tournaments, it doesn't support the tour and it all falls apart.

Geeezz.....I wonder why?????:confused:

Maybe because......the WTA rankings are hilariously faulty.........this example being the greatest claim.

Who cares about a ranking......when its obviously wrong and meaningless. Serena wins and beats your favorite installment of 'Who's #1 this week'. Winning the ones that counts.......is..........what matters

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-11-2012, 10:26 AM
I didn't even know they had a Player of the Year. Didn't know that it was the reason pros played tennis.
I think there is too much emphasis on winning a major and not enough on being number 1.

What?? The majors is the central goal --not being #1. This is not the iTunes music charts.

Consistency and supporting the tour through the year - which makes it financially viable - are important. If the big names just cherry-pick the slam tournaments, it doesn't support the tour and it all falls apart.

Wozniacki, Safina and Jankovic were "consistent" enough to be #1 players, running across the world like chickens with their heads cut off, but they did more to hurt the WTA than anything else. The sport loves true champions, and nothing gets more audience support than strong champions at the biggest events.

What do you think the audience cares more about? Empty #1 players going to nearly every event and crash & burning at the majors, or serious players--coming through when it counts most--like Serena at this year's Wimbledon, Olympics and U.S. Open?

tudwell
09-11-2012, 10:26 AM
Serena should get into shape and play a full season if she wants to be the best player in the world.

TMF
09-11-2012, 10:42 AM
I didn't even know they had a Player of the Year. Didn't know that it was the reason pros played tennis.
I think there is too much emphasis on winning a major and not enough on being number 1. Consistency and supporting the tour through the year - which makes it financially viable - are important. If the big names just cherry-pick the slam tournaments, it doesn't support the tour and it all falls apart.

Only Serena lovers at TTW ignore the important of ranking because it's Serena big hole. Graf/Martina's ranking stats is one of their major accomplishment that makes them the top two goat. Sampras is regarded as one of all time great because of his 6 years at #1 and 286 weeks at #1. Federer add more to his legacy as he just broke Sampras most weeks at #1

Seany
09-11-2012, 10:42 AM
Wow, you guys are being incredibly harsh on Azarenka, she had a great year, despite the fact she has so few fans and is very annoying, she played well.

Sharapova also had a great year results wise.

Radwanska...well she wont be there for long, her ranking is a result of the generally atrocious standard on the WTA.

Serena should be ranked 3 IMO, but everybody knows she's the best, she'll be number 1 after she wins the AO probably.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-11-2012, 10:43 AM
Serena should get into shape and play a full season if she wants to be the best player in the world.

Serena is in shape and kicked the *** of players younger and theoretically in their primes.

By the way, Serena won Wimbledon, Olympics gold, and the US Open. She's already the best player in the world by light years.

Any challengers to this title?

Kvitova?

Azarenka?

Sharapova?

Woznia--okay. Just kidding about the last one.

NadalAgassi
09-11-2012, 10:45 AM
Serena should get into shape and play a full season if she wants to be the best player in the world.

The #1 ranking is not a reflection on who is the best player in the World in the WTA and hasnt been for many years now. Serena is clearly the best player in the World. Your statement would be fine if you replaced best player in the World with the #1 ranking which are two totally different things in the planet of the WTA.

NikeWilson
09-11-2012, 10:48 AM
It's a flawed points system. They need to change it.
Even the men's side is a flawed system too.
The whole "defending points from last year" thing is ********. The only reason they use that method is to enforce a "you better play, or you'll pay the consequences" mentality to the players.
It's so dumb.

LuckyR
09-11-2012, 10:58 AM
If any player wants to increase their ranking (and personally I think posters on the thread are much more upset about Serena's ranking than she is), it is pretty simple to show up for tourneys and win matches.

Saying: "I woulda won that" or "she woulda won that" is idle internet chit chat not a system for ranking tennis players.

NadalAgassi
09-11-2012, 11:07 AM
Regardless of whether the ranking is merited or not the main point is the #1 ranking in no way reflects who is really the best in the WTA. For the record I do think Azarenka deserves her #1 ranking unlike Wozniacki's farce #1 ranking of last year. However Serena is hands down the best player by a wide margin.

Loose Cannon
09-11-2012, 11:41 AM
Only Serena lovers at TTW ignore the important of ranking because it's Serena big hole. Graf/Martina's ranking stats is one of their major accomplishment that makes them the top two goat. Sampras is regarded as one of all time great because of his 6 years at #1 and 286 weeks at #1. Federer add more to his legacy as he just broke Sampras most weeks at #1

Nobody cares about rankings. Really. How cant we grasp this?

What Serena did this Summer, will, in all likely hood......be greater than what ANY other female is able to muster up over the course of the next THREE YEARS combined......easily. You are registering this, right?

Emet74
09-11-2012, 11:46 AM
It's a flawed points system. They need to change it.
Even the men's side is a flawed system too.
The whole "defending points from last year" thing is ********. The only reason they use that method is to enforce a "you better play, or you'll pay the consequences" mentality to the players.
It's so dumb.

There's no such thing as "defending points." It's just that your points drop off one year after you earned them.

Obviously if players don't play they can't earn new points.

You have to have a drop off date for points or maybe Pete Sampras would still be top 10.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-11-2012, 12:33 PM
Nobody cares about rankings. Really. How cant we grasp this?

What Serena did this Summer, will, in all likely hood......be greater than what ANY other female is able to muster up over the course of the next THREE YEARS combined......easily. You are registering this, right?

No, because like kids arguing over video game rankings, he--like a lot of very young "fans" on this board--place all value on rankings, when it is no way a measure of success on tour at the most important events. Check this forum--there's several threads about ATP and WTA rankings instead of the central goal of any player: winning majors.

Only someone obsessed with hating Serena would even think that there's some negative issue with recongizing her as the far and away best player of the year (rankings be damned), as she won two majors and Olympic gold--something no one else could come close to matching, and likely never will.

TMF
09-11-2012, 12:40 PM
Nobody cares about rankings. Really. How cant we grasp this?

What Serena did this Summer, will, in all likely hood......be greater than what ANY other female is able to muster up over the course of the next THREE YEARS combined......easily. You are registering this, right?

Winning slams is the MOST important and I've always stressed this before. But ranking IS part of tennis achievement and part of player's legacy. To say "nobody care" is ignorant and/or a Serena lover.

NadalAgassi
09-11-2012, 12:43 PM
The WTA rankings have been so controversial since 2000 (and I am not just talking about whether Serena is #1 or not, for the record the only year she didnt end #1 in points I thought she should have was 2008, there are many ranking controversies over the years not involving her) that the value of rankings in womens tennis history has dropped to close to zero. Sorry but that is reality. A mug like Wozniacki ending year end #1 twice, once with a crummy year like 2011 which clearly wasnt even the best of that poor WTA year (Kvitova was by a long ways, with Sharapova and Azarenka also better than Woz) was pretty much the nail in the coffin for the WTA #1 ranking legacy.

As for Navratilova and Graf's legacies being based predominantly in their time at #1, dont make me laugh. Only the most diehard tennis fans would even have any idea whether Graf has more weeks at #1, or whether Martina does. All people know is Martina won a record 18 Wimbledons and mauled the rest of the womens game for about 5 years straight in the mid 80s, while Graf is the most versatile slam winner ever who won a Golden Slam and was the best player in the World for the most part of 10 years. As for being #1 people only think in terms of who they remember being the best around a certain time, and people will remember Serena being the best player in the World for atleast half of the last 10 years, with still likely more to come, not which random nobody (sorry to most people Azarenka and Wozniacki and Jankovic and Safina are all nobodies, with Azarenka maybe claiming out of that a bit with her U.S Open match with Serena) the computer had at #1.

NLBwell
09-11-2012, 01:36 PM
So if Azarenka had won a couple more points and the match, would all of you saying Serena should be #1 be saying that Azarenka should be #1? Should Makarova or Razzano be #1 the week after they beat Serena? It is about winning consitently over a long period of time. Serena did nothing spectacular the first half of the year (won Madrid and Charleston, but flamed out in Australia and France). Just be patient. If Serena continues playing at this high level the rest of the year she will be #1 by a mile. She shouldn't automatically be #1 because she looked really good for 3 months.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-11-2012, 04:29 PM
So if Azarenka had won a couple more points and the match, would all of you saying Serena should be #1 be saying that Azarenka should be #1?

I cannot speak for the others, but the ranking means nothing when one player won as many top events (3) as Serena, who proved this perception through a certain set of accomplishments.

If Azarenka won the USO, I am guessing the debate would fall along the lines of what is worth more: the Wimbledon/Olympics gold of Serena, or the AO/USO of Azarenka? But we're not having that conversation due to Azarenka failing to dominate the field at three of the sport's biggest events, all taking us back to facts as they stand: the far and away best player of 2012 is not the one with the #1 ranking.

The value of the events (and the history Serena made at the Olympics) sway the argument beyond any middle ground which would support Azarenka, Sharapova or anyone else.

There's no getting around that.

SystemicAnomaly
09-11-2012, 04:33 PM
^^ Excellent points, NLBwell. It was a very close match -- Serena was not dominant in this final as posters here are seeming to overlook. That match could have easily gone the other way. Each dominated a set and the 3rd set, but for just a few key points, could have gone either way. Serena won only 44 or the 84 points total in the deciding set. She had more winner that Vika but also a lot more UEs.

OrangePower
09-11-2012, 04:43 PM
^^ Excellent points, NLBwell. It was a very close match -- Serena was not dominant in this final as posters here are seeming to overlook. That match could have easily gone the other way. Each dominated a set and the 3rd set, but for just a few key points, could have gone either way. Serena won only 44 or the 84 points total in the deciding set. She had more winner that Vika but also a lot more UEs.

Actually the way Serena won the match lends to her aura, IMO.

Even though it was close score-wise, as I was watching it I felt throughout that the match was on Serena's racquet. In the first set she was focused and dominant. In the second and most of the third she lost focus, her footwork got lazy, and she was making many UE's. She finally woke up when she was down 5-3, and played better to close out the match (and Vika choked just a little bit, but not much).

So despite the match being close, I still felt Serena dominated when she wanted to / had to. Credit Vika for taking advantage of Serena's lapses, but it was always Serena that was going to determine the outcome of the match.

Just my opinion.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-11-2012, 04:49 PM
Actually the way Serena won the match lends to her aura, IMO.



So despite the match being close, I still felt Serena dominated when she wanted to / had to. Credit Vika for taking advantage of Serena's lapses, but it was always Serena that was going to determine the outcome of the match.

Just my opinion.

Strong points, OrangePower.

SystemicAnomaly
09-11-2012, 04:52 PM
^^ I actually had the opposite feeling for much/most of the 3rd set, OPower. As you said, Serena was down 3-5 in the 3rd. At that point it felt like the match was on Vika's racquet. It was only a few loose points on her part and (some good points on Serena's part) that resulted in her letting the match slip way.

NadalAgassi
09-11-2012, 04:54 PM
So if Azarenka had won a couple more points and the match, would all of you saying Serena should be #1 be saying that Azarenka should be #1?

Not everyone in the thread is saying Serena should be ranked #1. We are saying she should be ranked higher than #4 (for sure atleast above Radwanska) and that she is clearly the best player even if she quite possibly doesnt deserve the #1 ranking. There is a difference. Serena's blind haters in this thread are implying she isnt even the games best player since she isnt ranked #1 which is beyond a joke. Even Azarenka herself wouldnt dare say she is a better tennis player than Serena at this point.

Now had Azarenka won the U.S Open final she would have a stronger case for not only deserving her #1 ranking (which by the way I think she does, unlike Wozniacki's farcial #1 ranking last year) but also for being the best player in the World. Still wouldnt be a slam dunk given all the brutal beatdowns Serena has given her this year, but atleast with 2 slams and her overall performance this year she would have a case. IMO Azarenka deserves to be ranked #1 and is the 2nd best (albeit distant 2nd) player in the World right now. That is more than enough credit for her to be given.

krz
09-11-2012, 05:14 PM
For the record Serena is far and away the best player right now.

But, it's also easier to win majors when you don't have the grind of a full schedule wearing on body and mind. E.g. Nadal and his notorious year end flame outs.

mellowyellow
09-11-2012, 05:33 PM
Actually the way Serena won the match lends to her aura, IMO.



Really, this seems par for the course in womens tennis, not being able to hold serve for a set or match and losing it all. Maybe I am spoiled from the Samp/Edberg/Becker/Ivanisavic not to mention the other servers that did not win majors.

pirateofthecarribean
09-11-2012, 08:10 PM
IMO a slam should be worth 10 times the points as a premier. The ranking system is not without flaws.

TheFifthSet
09-11-2012, 08:24 PM
IMO a slam should be worth 10 times the points as a premier. The ranking system is not without flaws.

The crucial error in that, though, is that if you made majors worth 10 times more than permier events/masters series (I'm assuming you're talking about both the mens and womens game), you'd only have 4 events a year in which the top players give a damn. So only 4 times a year you'd see the top guys playing serious tennis, guys battling, giving it their all. For all you guys proposing they make majors worth MUCH more than they are, don't you get how bad for the game that would be? The top players SHOULD have to work to get the number 1. They can't just be on cruise control 90% of the year and then 3-4 events a year give it their best. Arguably, that would make it easier for them to win majors because they have absolutely NO wear and tear. The masters events would be poorly attended by fans, because the top players would play like it's an exhibition. There'd be no interest in the game other than in the majors. That would SUCK, to put it bluntly.

The rankings are fine. There are SOME intrinsic flaws, but it's about as good as it can get.

NLBwell
09-14-2012, 10:44 PM
Yes to the above post.

NLBwell
09-14-2012, 10:49 PM
I cannot speak for the others, but the ranking means nothing when one player won as many top events (3) as Serena, who proved this perception through a certain set of accomplishments.

If Azarenka won the USO, I am guessing the debate would fall along the lines of what is worth more: the Wimbledon/Olympics gold of Serena, or the AO/USO of Azarenka? But we're not having that conversation due to Azarenka failing to dominate the field at three of the sport's biggest events, all taking us back to facts as they stand: the far and away best player of 2012 is not the one with the #1 ranking.

The value of the events (and the history Serena made at the Olympics) sway the argument beyond any middle ground which would support Azarenka, Sharapova or anyone else.

There's no getting around that.

1) The Olympics is not a major tennis event. Never has been. (Maybe in the future?)
2) Serena did far worse in the other two slams than the other top players.
3) As I said before, just be patient. If Serena keeps playing and winning the rest of this year she will be number one. I believe she will be #1 because it appears she is pretty much over her physical problems.
If not, however, should she be ranked number 1 when her results for 9 months of the year were significantly worse than the other top players?

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-15-2012, 01:32 AM
1) The Olympics is not a major tennis event. Never has been. (Maybe in the future?)
2) Serena did far worse in the other two slams than the other top players.
3) As I said before, just be patient. If Serena keeps playing and winning the rest of this year she will be number one. I believe she will be #1 because it appears she is pretty much over her physical problems.
If not, however, should she be ranked number 1 when her results for 9 months of the year were significantly worse than the other top players?

As others have noted, its not about a number ranking as much as it is about who is the actual best player of 2012. You can argue about the value of the Olympics, but Serena's so-named "Golden Slam" is recognized as historic, since she's one of only two players (the other being Graf) to achieve this. Meanwhile, she won two majors. No one else with their lone majors titles (i.e. Azarenka and Sharapova) has a 2012 record to match when it counted most.

NLBwell
09-16-2012, 07:46 AM
I'll agree with you here. There is certainly a case to be made that Serena is the BEST player of the year.
I just get irritated when people want to change the ranking system to give whatever outcome they want or denigrate the other players who have been number one. Being the best and being number one are two different things.

You can make a case that McEnroe was the best player of all time. That doesn't mean you should change the way the rankings were done to make sure he had more weeks at number one than Connors or Lendl. He didn't earn that.

TMF
09-16-2012, 11:07 AM
Being the best player(personal opinion) doesn't necessary means you always have the last laugh in the end. Take the NFL for example, in 2007 the New England Patriots was clearly the best team in the NFL who had a perfect season(16-0). Yet, they did not win the Super Bowl, while the Giants did who are not even the 2nd best team in the NFL.

For Serena, she can be the best player, but doesn't have a superior year(at least for now). Serena is likely to be the player of the year, but may not be year end #1. Just like the Patriots who was undisputedly the best team in the regular season, but not the best at the end of the year.

egn
09-16-2012, 11:05 PM
Ivan Lendl finished number 1 ahead of Boris Becker when Becker won both wimbledon and US and Ivan only won australian and along the way to both of his major wins Becker did beat Lendl. Sometimes math happens. Nobody better be comapring Azarenka at all to Wozniacki. She in this season has accomplished more than Woz ever did. Serena had a very subpar start to this year. She is behind two major winners who had strong years as well, both Azarenka and Sharapova have won a major been in the final of another a semi in a third have master series titles and been consistent all year. Serena has played fantastic since April, but her HUGE UPSET in france is costing her. Had that been a semi she'd be looking much better going into the end of the season. Two early exist and two wins will hurt you every time. Especially considering how little Serena plays outside of majors.

Sabratha
09-17-2012, 07:27 AM
She needs to play in and win more tournaments to take back the #1 ranking.

The-Champ
09-17-2012, 09:17 AM
Queen Serena didn't do well in the first half of the season, while players rank ahead of her have been very consistent.

If i have to choose though, I'd take Queen Serena's two majors and olympic gold over the no.1 ranking :D

Tony48
09-17-2012, 10:35 AM
Slams > rank

sunof tennis
09-17-2012, 10:50 AM
Yes to the above post.

I agree as well. Tennis is a business as well as a sport. The business would not survive if there were just 4 tournaments. Of course the ranking are desinged to encourage the players to play in more tournaments. This is good for the sport and the only people who think otherwise are just upset because their favorite player isn't number one or upset because they don't think the current number one is worthy.
Separate point is if number one is so important, why is the system desgined so that the number one seed have the easiest path, at least on paper?

iri10
09-17-2012, 02:37 PM
The amusing thing is that not only does Serena have the most Slam wins this year, she also has the most WTA singles wins overall. Six good wins - two Slams, one P.Mand. (1000pts), the Olympics, and two Premiers (470pts).

The underperformance at AO/RG really killed her; if she had managed a quarterfinal in each she'd be 2 instead of 4 right now. And she'd actually be 1 in the race for the YE #1.

As it is, she still has a small chance at finishing the year at #1. She'd need an amazing October, and Azarenka would have to have a mediocre one. But then, she can rarely be bothered to rouse herself for dinky fall tournaments like the WTA championships. :)

Ico
09-17-2012, 02:55 PM
Serena is scheduled to play Beijing and the YEC. Unless she cancels or completely loses form, I think she can take back the YE#1 spot. Azarenka is only ahead by 780 points.

Paullaconte1
09-19-2012, 04:46 AM
Serena is scheduled to play Beijing and the YEC. Unless she cancels or completely loses form, I think she can take back the YE#1 spot. Azarenka is only ahead by 780 points.

That sounds fair... to be honest...

merwy
09-19-2012, 04:54 AM
She had an amazing last couple of months. She sucked at the FO and I forgot how she did at the AO. Anyway, if she does well at the start of next year she will get her #1 spot. It's a 12-month based ranking. You don't get to be #1 automatically just because you can play the best tennis at the moment.

JayChu
09-19-2012, 06:55 AM
Azarenka is scheduled to defend 1,705 points from 2011 (Tokyo semis, Beijing 3rd round, Luxembourg Champion and YEC finals). So Serena is not too far behind Vika and can get the #1 ranking back since Serena did not play after the US Open last year.