Charles Bricker recently wrote a piece for Ubi Tennis explaining that Caroline Wozniacki could overtake Serena Williams as the No. 1 female tennis player if she won the US Open. Given that the Dane had never before won a Grand Slam title and had only recently in Montreal won her first ever top-tier event, hardly anyone would have considered her a better player than Williams. After all, Williams owned 13 singles majors, held the Australian Open and Wimbledon crowns and had never before lost to Wozniacki.
Wozniacki ended up falling in the semifinals, thankfully preventing that scenario from eventuating. But the rankings quickly came under fire again at the conclusion of the tournament, when Kim Clijsters fell two places to No. 5 after winning the event. This made way for Venus Williams to ascend to No. 3, and Vera Zvonareva – whom Clijsters had thrashed in the final in less than an hour – to move ahead of the Belgian into the No. 4 spot.
It was not the only time the system had come under fire. The media widely ridiculed the rankings when Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina were able to hold the top spot for extended periods without winning a major title. Earlier in the decade, Clijsters and Amelie Mauresmo were also considered unworthy No. 1’s because they rose to the top spot without a Grand Slam trophy to their names.
THE CURRENT SITUATION
But is it really all about the majors and nothing else? Of course not. Regular tour events form the majority of the tennis calendar, and players need to play these events and perform well to form a well-rounded tennis resume. But they should be attempting to peak at the majors, and the ones who perform best in these crown-jewel events should be recognised with a higher ranking. The trouble is, the women’s rankings don’t reward these players or performances correctly. It’s a system based on quantity over quality, giving props to players who travel the world chasing points and racking up quarterfinal and semifinal appearances, ahead of those who prove they can regularly win the biggest events against the best players.
The credibility of the women’s ranking system began plummeting after 2003 when the tour stopped awarding quality points. This system saw players receive more or less points depending on the ranking of the players they defeated. For example, a player who defeated the World’s No. 1 and 2 players to win a title would get more points than a player who won an equivalent tournament but whose best-ranked opponents were No. 19 and No. 20. Up until 1997, the WTA Tour also used to divide a player’s ranking points total by the number of events she had played, effectively preventing players from accumulating thousands of points simply by playing a lot.
A player like Wozniacki has benefitted enormously from the current system. She has a whopping 24 events currently counting in her ranking, considerably more than most other Top 20 players. She’s also won most of her matches against lowly-ranked opposition. During 2010, she has defeated just two Top 10 players, and astonishingly has not even faced a player ranked in the Top 5. In fact, until her defeat of Maria Sharapova in the fourth round in New York, her collective win-loss record against Sharapova, Clijsters, Serena and Venus Williams and Justine Henin—currently the five most successful active players on tour—was a staggering 0-10.
Not only is the WTA ranking system structured poorly, it’s also extremely confusing. Players must include Grand Slam results, and must also include their results from the four Premier Mandatory events and at least two results from Premier Five events. But that only applies to Top 10 players. Top 10 players and “marquee players”—whoever they are—are also required to include results from Premier $700 Commitment Tournaments that they commit to but then do not play. Top players also have limits on the number of International-level events they can enter and count in the ranking. Confused yet?
FIXING THE SYSTEM
Although we’re probably beyond the point of hoping that quality points and an averaging system will be reintroduced to the rankings, the WTA system could definitely do with a little tweaking and streamlining to better represent player performance and make it easier for fans to follow. A wise step would be to rank the women according to the ATP World Tour system.
Men’s rankings throughout the ages have not always been so well respected. The old “Best 14 system”, which counted the players’ best 14 results from various events in the past 12 months regardless of the level of tournament, allowed Chilean Marcelo Rios to reach No. 1 in March 1998 having never won a major title. In May 1999, Russian Yevgeny Kafelnikov ascended to the top spot after six consecutive first-round losses. But since the ATP Tour debuted its current system in the early 2000s (it has been altered in minor ways since then but remains essentially the same), there have been few arguments. The current Top 4—Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray—are indeed the best four players on the planet in the past year.
Using the ATP system as a guide for ranking female players, two things improve. One is points distribution. Male and female Grand Slam winners each receive 2000 points. But the WTA Tour awards finalists 1400 points, while the ATP Tour gives the equivalent player only 1200. Female semifinalists are awarded 900 points, but male semifinalists receive 720. And down the line it goes. The same applies for Masters events—the points are halved, but the same difference in point ratio and structure exists. Dinara Safina was able to reach No. 1 after reaching two Grand Slam finals in 2009. Under the men’s system she would have had 400 points less in her total, and may not have hit top spot without actually clinching a major title.
The second improvement is the type of tournaments counted in the rankings. To yield a points total under the ATP system, players must include their results from Grand Slams, the year-end Tour Championships, the nine Masters 1000 tournaments (except Monte Carlo) and a small handful of their best results from lesser 500 and 250 events. The significant majority of events being included are majors and Masters—the most prestigious events. Chasing points at smaller events becomes a less effective strategy, and players are rewarded for good performances on the biggest stages.
THE RESULTS
I ranked the Top 16 female players according to this system. Players ranking points were accumulated over the past 12 months through their results at the four Grand Slams, Tour Championships in Doha and the top nine Premier events—a combination of the “Mandatory” and “Five” events—in Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Cincinnati, Canada, Tokyo and Beijing. This equated to the group of nine “Masters” events on the men’s tour. The rankings also included their best five results at other events—the smaller Premier level events were given ATP 500 status, and International events were treated as ATP 250s.
Although there was surprisingly little change to the order of the top 16, there were enough differences to justify railing against the current system:
Serena Williams remained atop the rankings, but increased her lead over Wozniacki to 1500 points (compared with the 1,000 that separates them now). There would be far less chance for Wozniacki to overtake Williams until at least after next year’s Australian Open. And that’s only if Williams doesn’t play. Under the WTA system, the Dane could reach No. 1 by year’s end.
Clijsters moved from No. 5 to No. 3, ahead of both Venus Williams and Zvonareva. She sits just 200 points behind Wozniacki, and unlike the Dane, has no points to defend between now and year’s end. Being ranked No. 2 or 3 paints a more realistic picture of Clijsters’ stellar season.
Francesca Schiavone swapped places with Sam Stosur, ranking No. 7 ahead of the Aussie’s No. 8. Most people would agree that Stosur has had the better year, but this is a great example of how the ATP system rewards winning major titles. And that’s what has separated Schiavone from Stosur in 2010.
Maria Sharapova rose three places to No. 12, her superior performances in several Masters-level events helping her leapfrog several players.
As you said, this article addressed the problem but it should have answered your questions. Where would Woz have been ranked if she were on the ATP computer.