Originally Posted by NLBwell
The #1 ranking shows who was consistently the best throughout the year. We know Serena can reach extremely high peaks of play. To be the best ever, you also have to be consistent. If Wozniaki was over 300 weeks at #1, I would be examining her peak level and how many majors she has won. You have to do both.
People claim Wozniaki worked the schedule to be #1 (which really isn't true - almost everyone played the maximum amount of tournaments that are counted), but Serena worked the schedule to peak for the majors without going through the grind of all the smaller tournaments.
....because the smaller tournaments do not matter in to the grand scheme of a career worth having.
When Wozniaki was #1, who was the best player? Kvitova - only on certain days, Sharapova - not back to her best form, Clijsters - playing a limited schedule, Serena W. - sometimes injured sometimes not motivated, Stosur - not consistent, Azarenka - a head case back then. So why is the WTA ranking system messed up? It is very similar to the men's rankings. It's just that it didn't come out the way you wanted.
It was not Wozniacki--that much was certain. Playing a ton of events to reach #1 is no recognized indicator of being the best. The majors are the sport's reason to be, not playing endless meaningless events, while failing miserably when--for a tennis professional--it counts most: at the majors. Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki were never the best at anything, as they failed when it counted most, which is why the near-universal criticism of the three was and remains 100% justified.
Serena did not need to play endless events in 2012 to be the recognized best. After Wimbledon, (nevermind Olympic gold and the history made there), and US Open, who occupying the #1 spot deserved the "nest" title more than Serena Williams?
No one. She--alone
--dominated every important event of the 2nd half of the year, which means two majors. Ranking is irrelevant.