Is it important for the no.1 player to have won a slam in the last year?

[Petit Nicolas]

Dinara Safina (and Jelena Jankovic before here) was heavily criticised for being no.1 without having won a grand slam title. My question to you is - is it important in your opinion for a no.1 player in the worls (male or female) to have won a slam in the last year? What I meen is - should the no.1 player have a slam in his point count at all times? For example, if Kuznetsova becomes world no.1 after RG2010 without winning another slam. Will she be criticised or not, and why?

 

[NamRanger]

Yes, because winning a slam signifies that you were able to beat the best of the best in one of the world's most prestigious tournaments. Being world #1 without winning a slam shows two things :


1. The system is flawed in some way that it's actually possible to achieve such goal

2. The era is so weak that a world #1 is a guy who can't win slams, and the slam winners of said era are unable to consistently perform throughout the year.

 

[stapler]

I could potentially see it fine in the case of a really strong era where no person wins more than one slam, the world #1 goes pretty far in all of them, and he does extremely well in the MS events + whatever other tourneys he plays.

 

[flying24]

It doesnt matter, Serena has gauranteed ending the year #1 now anyway. I was actually sort of fine with Jankovic ending the year #1 last year too since Serena won only 1 slam anyway, not 2 like this year, and Jankovic actually performed decently in her one slam final, came very close to winning the French, and held her own and even beat both Williams sisters. Safina ending the year #1 this year would be a disgrace, but it isnt happening anymore so that is good. I am now completely convinced Safina will go down as the Worst #1 in history, clearly worse than Ivanovic or even Jankovic, who some suggested was the worst previously.

 

[cknobman]

Yes, because winning a slam signifies that you were able to beat the best of the best in one of the world's most prestigious tournaments. Being world #1 without winning a slam shows two things :


1. The system is flawed in some way that it's actually possible to achieve such goal

2. The era is so weak that a world #1 is a guy who can't win slams, and the slam winners of said era are unable to consistently perform throughout the year.

I agree with your assessment of the situation and the perfect example of how its correct is the WTA last year and this year.

 

[HellBunni]

Yes, because winning a slam signifies that you were able to beat the best of the best in one of the world's most prestigious tournaments. Being world #1 without winning a slam shows two things :


1. The system is flawed in some way that it's actually possible to achieve such goal

2. The era is so weak that a world #1 is a guy who can't win slams, and the slam winners of said era are unable to consistently perform throughout the year.

I would have to disagree with you on the first point.
The system isn't flawed, it's a ranking on how a player has performed that year at all the tournaments combined. Being #1 means the player is consistent enough in making later rounds enough to amass enough points.

Winning a masters can mean, that you can beat all of the best players. Tournaments are single elimination, everyone can have a bad day or 2. There are only 4 slams a year, so all it takes is 4 semi bad days (or a day where your opponent catches on fire), and you are out.

Even if you look at the ATP, if a player only played and won the 4 slams, he would still be behind in points vs Murray at #3.