tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Ultimately it is the results that matter as the rest are perceptions.
Even discounting Olympics, 2 majors and a final is an all time great performance and this is a really bad thread.
Kerber: the worst year-end No.1 ever?
- Thread starter donquijote
- Start date
Ultimately it is the results that matter as the rest are perceptions.
Even discounting Olympics, 2 majors and a final is an all time great performance and this is a really bad thread.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
By one metric.
By the other metric it is indeed the worst YE#1 year ever. But let's just ignore truths we don't like by ridiculing the rest. Cause that leads to solid discussion, amiright?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
By what metric is Kerber the worst NO 1 ever ? What is the truth we are missing ?
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Winning percentage. It's in the OP
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Again, mickie mouse tournaments don't matter.
She won AO, USO and Stuttgart.
She made finals of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Olympics. She made SF of Miami, Charleston, Montreal.
She was extremely good where it mattered. Winning 250's / internationals are what Wozniacki and Safina do.
Jankovic was way worse and I'm serbian
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Cause it didn't matter and was a mickey mouse tournament.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Kerber has indeed had a better year than Sharapova, Azarenka, Li Na or Kvitova have ever had.
And yes, this is an extremely dumb thread.
And yes, this is an extremely dumb thread.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Extremely dumb comment.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Please inform me which year of the above-mentioned players outshines Kerber's 2016.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Bukmeikara
Legend
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
First, he was bagelled by the GOAT, not by Ferrer or Berdych. Second, it wasn't his No.1 year.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
angelique screwing daniela
SQA333
Hall of Fame
SQA333
Hall of Fame
He finished #1 in 2012.......
Devilito
Legend
one of my favorite things about tennis is that it is one of the most purely un-discriminatory sports out there. No judges, no interpretation, not referees, etc. Especially now with Hawkeye. Any person on planet earth can become the #1 tennis player in the world just by simply being better than anybody else. Other sports like Boxing, MMA, or even most team sports with salaries have so much politics involved that they are plain ridiculous to even be considered sports. More like WWE. Tennis is one of the only pure sports left where any person of any culture of any race of any religion and of any economic standing can be the best just by simply being the best. Kerber is #1 based on her results which mathematically add up to her being number 1. Next year, if you are a female, you can rack up more points than her, than YOU.... yes YOU can be number #1 as well. Tennis is just so beautiful that way.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Right, I thought it was 2010. Thanks for the correction.
Man of steel
Hall of Fame
Cause tennis is an individual sport. Its the same with golf.
Its harder to rank team sports than individual ones. Especially since there's no ranking for the most popular team sport in the world like football. Tennis also has a lot of politics behind it. Every sport does.
mightyrick
Legend
Thread. Is. Stupid.
Not even a good troll thread.
Not even a good troll thread.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I don't think anyone is gonna top Wozniacki for a long looong time. Only Jankovic comes close.
Soul_Evisceration
Hall of Fame
Safina was the worst #1 WTA player of all time along Jankovic being second and Wozniacki third IMO.
But Kerber being worst #1 ranked player of all time while winning 2 Majors and beating Serena Williams at her favorite surface according to the OP is laughable.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Safina was the only one of them to make a Slam final ('09 RG) while she was ranked #1!
Indeed it is.
Not really intent on participating in threads in the GP forum - too much nonsense written here. But feel the need to point out calling Kerber the worst year-end No.1 ever is - to me, at least - nothing short of utterly ridiculous and disrespectful of a player who has won 2 grand slam tournaments in one year. I've briefly read some of the OP's post arguing she had weak draws etc. Can only shake my head at all of this.
My two cents only, and please don't expect me to respond to any replies to my post here. Just felt the need to write this in this space.
My two cents only, and please don't expect me to respond to any replies to my post here. Just felt the need to write this in this space.
Soul_Evisceration
Hall of Fame
She did well to get to the Final. However her level of playing in the Final was absolutely atrocious vs Kuznetsova.
Jankovic and Wozniacki at least put up a better fight and they won more tournaments than Safina hence why I declare her the worst WTA #1 player of all time.
Fedole
Semi-Pro
This thread isn't worth a response but I'm giving it one anyway... if you have an issue with her style, that's cool and completely understandable. But on her actual results? Tbh, who *really* cares about IW, Miami etc? She turned up for 3 slams big time. She won 2 of them. And it looks like she's cementing her #1 ranking now as well. To me that's a very solid year for a #1 player. And for her it is unbelievable considering her previous years.
Beowulf
Rookie
Women's slams are overrated. Other than the fact that they play one or two more rounds (against low-rated opponents who usually don't provide much of a challenge to top players), there is nothing unique or special about the slams for women. Overall winning percentage for the year (as provided in the OP) is a valid factor for comparison between year-end #1s. I would also give weight to winning percentage against top-10 players during the year. I don't know how Kerber compares in that category to Wozniacki and Jankovic.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Couldn't agree more about women's slams but they still have a better value compared to other tournaments as everyone puts their max effort to win a slam. Not as valuable as men's category though, where you have to steal 3 sets from Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer or Wawrinka to beat them.
Top 10 wins are as follows
Kerber (2016) : 10
Jankovic (2008) : 12
Wozniacki (2011) : 8
Wozniacki (2010) : 8
Not sure if Kerber's number includes the latest two wins at theWTA Finals (probably not). On top of 2 GS, with her strong finish I think Kerber just proved to be a better No1 than Jankovic and Wozniacki.
To show the bleeding in WTA since 2014, here is a comparison of WTA finals between 2013 and 2016 (though we don't know yet how exactly Pliskova, Keys and Muguruza will turn out). I gave a ranking to each player, more or less it doesn't change the outcome much.
2016 (S.Williams not participating)
Kerber 5
Radwanska 8
Halep 10
Pliskova 11
Muguruza 9
Keys 14
Cibulkova 13
Kuznetsova 6
Total: 76
If we add S. Williams (1) to 2016 and subtract Kuznetsova (6), then the total becomes 71.
2013
S.Williams 1
Azarenka 2
Radwanska 8
Li Na 4
Kvitova 3
Errani 12
Jankovic 7
Kerber 5
Total: 42
To emphasize the value of totals:
100/42=2.38 (2013)
100/71=1.41 (2016)
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. She soared to the top of the WTA by doing her job--winning majors. One has to be reaching with the usual, anti-WTA agenda to suggest the formidable Kerber is a "worst" anything in 2016.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Thread could not have come at a more bad time with Kerber winning all 3 of her round robin matches at YEC
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
This can be true, but the question that follows from the thread title is quite frankly a crock of s.hit because not all wins are created equal. Overrated or not they are still the most prestigious titles in tennis and when you win 2 of them in one year you are automatically exempt from this discussion when there are other YE#1's that didn't win one.
As such, you are also exempt when you win one. You don't need to win 2 or more. Don't overcomplicate this. It's really not that hard.
Let's ask Wozniacki, Jankovic, or Safina if they think women's slams are overrated.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Actually, I recall Safina once saying in an interview that she thought being number #1 was a more impressive achievement than winning a Slam. But then, I guess she would say that, wouldn't she? Serena's hilarious presser on the relative virtues of being a multiple Slam winner vs just being ranked number #1 given while Safina still held the ranking while Serena was busy winning the Slams remains the all-time classic and funniest response!
Beowulf
Rookie
Yes, the slams are the most prestigious of the tournaments, but you shouldn't get a pass from the question at hand simply by winning one or two of them. The question asks who is the worst of the year-end #1 players, not who is the worst of the scrubs. Thus, every player we're talking about is a great player who has accomplished the very difficult and laudable feat of finishing the year ranked #1 in the world. Even the players in this discussion who didn't win any slams, such as Wozniacki and Jankovic, are amazing athletes who did what few others have done - finish a year at #1 in the world. Indeed, it can be argued that it's even more impressive to do that without winning a slam because they didn't get the 2000 ranking points that come with a slam victory (as opposed to, for example, the mere 1000 ranking points that come with winning Indian Wells despite the fact that there is only one less round at Indian Wells compared to the slams and it is a mandatory event so all the top players are there just like the slams). Obviously, the term "worst" is a subjective one, but, again, just winning a slam doesn't give an exemption from that consideration. Valid comparison factors would include overall winning percentage for the year, number of wins and winning percentage against other top 10 players during the year, weeks at #1 during the year, and size of the point gap between #1 and #2 (and maybe the gap between #1 and the other top 5 players as well) which would show the level of dominance for that year. And, sure, some tournament wins are more prestigious than others, so that's a valid factor also, but it's not determinative. (Of course, there's no definitive answer to the question, but it's an interesting one anyway.)
Slice'n'dice
Hall of Fame
She's won two slams so obviously not. This thread should not have got to two pages, even two posts for that matter.
It's bollocks.
It's bollocks.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes you should. That's the whole point of winning slams. Again, this is not hard.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Um no, actually they are not. This is one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen with some of the silliest posts. Kerber is out of this discussion. She won two slams in one year. There is absolutely NO way she can be a worse #1 than Jankovic or Woznicaki who have ZERO slams. The mere suggestion is laughable.
If Kerber wins the WTA Finals this year in addition to winning two slams, this thread will be even more comical.
Man of steel
Hall of Fame
The only somewhat valid argument you have is comparing angie's year to players who ended the year as number 1 and also won slams in that year. Otherwise its frankly stupid to compare angie to players who ended the year at number 1 but didn't win a major that year.
Man of steel
Hall of Fame
Angie 2016
<serena 2015
>serena 2014
<serena 2013
= or > than vika 2012. Don't feel like vika should have ended 2012 as number 1 anyway
>woz2011
>woz2010
All this in just the last 6 years
<serena 2015
>serena 2014
<serena 2013
= or > than vika 2012. Don't feel like vika should have ended 2012 as number 1 anyway
>woz2011
>woz2010
All this in just the last 6 years
At least when Jankovic finished at the year end no. 1 in 2008, she had reached the US Open final (losing in a very entertaining match against Serena) and had gone on a tear racking up title wins during the European indoor season (which sadly since then has been cut all too short).
But when she first became the world no. 1 in August 2008, she had never reached a grand slam final in her career up to that point, had only won 1 title in the previous 52 weeks, and had only reached a total of 3 tournament finals in that period. That was crazy.
I think that Safina was an overachiever. To be honest I never expected her to become world no. 1 and reach 3 grand slam finals. Back in 2005-2006 I would have been very surprised had I known that she would put together a more successful career than her compatriot Petrova for instance, who I considered to be a more talented player.
But when she first became the world no. 1 in August 2008, she had never reached a grand slam final in her career up to that point, had only won 1 title in the previous 52 weeks, and had only reached a total of 3 tournament finals in that period. That was crazy.
I think that Safina was an overachiever. To be honest I never expected her to become world no. 1 and reach 3 grand slam finals. Back in 2005-2006 I would have been very surprised had I known that she would put together a more successful career than her compatriot Petrova for instance, who I considered to be a more talented player.
Beowulf
Rookie
Kerber has had a great year and, yeah, because she won 2 of the most prestigious tournaments, it probably is a better year than Jankovic's in 2008 and Wozniacki's in 2010, but my point is that we shouldn't overemphasize the winning of majors to the point of ignoring everything else because, unlike men's majors, the women's major tournaments aren't all that much different from the tournaments that are the next level down, which are the premier-level tournaments for the women. Some people seem to equate a woman winning a major with a man winning a major, but they're not equivalent. In the majors, men play best-of-5-sets, while women play the same best-of-3-sets that they play everywhere else. That's a huge difference. I'm not advocating that women go to best-of-5 for their majors; I'm just suggesting that, because of the best-of-3 format, women's majors shouldn't be given the same weight that men's majors are given when comparing the relative successes of players' years or careers.
Last edited:
Fiero425
Legend
Probably?
- I do understand where you're coming from, but this is how historians will rate players for the most part; MAJORS, regardless if male or female and how they won them! 
Beowulf
Rookie
That may be true, at least for casual historians, but serious tennis fanatics will dig down into the details. That's probably why most non-serious tennis fans think Margaret Court is the GOAT since she won the most slams.Probably?
(Note: I had a typo in the prior message about Jankovic's year-end #1 year. I corrected that from 2007 to 2008.)
Fiero425
Legend
Well I'm not a "fanatic," but I do know tennis history very well; watching, playing, or teaching since '71! I've seen them all "come and go," and I very well give Court all due credit for her accomplishments, but I set her aside for the same reason Nadal's not exactly in the top 5 "all time;" too many wins at one tourney! Most pros didn't want to invest time, $$, & energy to go "down under" so her 11 AO, amateur and pro level just don't carry the same weight as the other majors!; esp. back in the 60's & 70's!
Mr.Lob
G.O.A.T.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Its kind of like what Patrick Mouratoglou (serena's coach) said when he rejoined his wife and family, its nice to have a woman on top again 
Similar threads
