As previously -just going to point out factual errors in your post. No opinions, just facts. Not correct. Tournaments formerly known as Tier 1 are not the same as currently 'Premier Mandatory'. There were about 14 Tier 1 tournaments (depending on exact year you want to talk about). There are only 4 Premier Mandatory tournaments: Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Bejing. Indian Wells and Miami are 128 draw, Madrid and Bejing are 64. Kremlin Cup, when the tour was reorganized, was categorized as a merely Premier tournament, below Premier Mandatory and Premier 5. It was always just 32 draw. To claim that two Kremlin Cup wins (by Myskina) are somehow comparable to two Premier Mandatory wins (by Wozniacki: Indian Wells and Bejing) is simply not correct. How does Nalbandian has a way better career than Wozniacki? Let's see: Grand slam finals: Nalbandian :1 Wozniacki:1 Grand Slam results: Nalbandian :5QF + 4SF + 1F Wozniacki:2QF + 3SF + 1F Next level Titles (ATP 1000+500 vs WTA Mandatory+5): Nalbandian :3 Wozniacki:5 Overall titles: Nalbandian :11 Wozniacki:20 Year End Championship: Nalbandian :1 Wozniacki:0 (with 1 runner-up) Highest year-end ranking: Nalbandian :6 Wozniacki:1 Highest ranking ever: Nalbandian :3 Wozniacki:1 how does it constitute a 'way better' career? Plus Wozniacki is still only 22. Already addressed above. Plus to suggest that a 64 draw tournaments with over 2,000,000 (Tokyo) and almost 5,000,000 (Beijing) prize money are somehow a joke compared to 32 draw Kremlin Cup (1,000,000 prize) and already defunct 32 draw Zurich tournaments is obviously incorrect as well. of course I believe that. It is not a matter of believe. Stats say that. You yourself posted a link to the thread that discusses Wozniacki vs. Kvitova careers, and there were many people in there that said Wozniacki's career is better. Do you want to compare stats of one-time slam winner Schiavone with Wozniacki? Because it is not going to look too good...... Oh, and one one thing. If you are using my quote as your signature it would be better and fair if you did not intentionally misrepresented what I have stated. What I wrote was: 'Wozniacki ended the year #1 two years which makes her the best player for the past 100 weeks or so' This is vastly different than saying: "Wozniacki ended the year #1 two years which makes her the best player'.