Under real ranking system Wozniacki would never have been year end #1 either year

[NadalAgassi]

This is from another forum but it is proof that under a somewhat reasonable ranking system (not the current junk system allowing you to play 30 touranaments and drop 13 results if you want, and count as many tier 2 or tier 3 titles as you wish) Wozniacki would not have been year end #1 in either 2010 or 2011.

The WTA is just one big mess right now. Unlike the men's tour, which supported by all the top players, the women really don't give a crap except for slams.

The solution? Here is one idea for the WTA to breathe some life into the sport.

#1:Change the rankings to reflect

(a) winning titles and (b) winning important events.

A sensible ranking would count the best 14 events a player performs in.


Points scales:

Winning an event=100%
Runner up= 50%
Semis=30%
Quarters=15%
R16=half of the QF
and half again for each round
and only 1 point for those who lose their first match.

Points per event

Slams=2000
YEC=1000
Mandatories=600
Premier 5=400
Premier=300 (Bali counts here)
Internationals=180

The beauty of this ranking system is it doesn't punish those who want to play every week (like Wozniacki) but it does make it hard for those who don't perform well in slams to become #1. In all liklihood #1 player would have to win a slam OR at least the YEC to finish.

To current rankings give way too many points to the regular tour events and too many points for losing. The runnerup points scale for the tour is 70%. Mine is 50%, and I'm being generous. Ask yourself, would I rather win 1 event
or lose 2 finals? I know what my answer would be!


Mandatory events:
There are none. The current "mandatory" events are a joke.


Minimum events players must enter to play slams

In Rollo's tour a playing 2 regular tour events earns a player the right to play 1 slam. No exceptions. This 2 to 1 ratio covers the last 12 months.

This way if someone plays all 4 slams they would need to enter 12 overall events per year. Is it too much to ask player's to enter 12 events?

This is the solution to getting the women to take the tour seriously. Too tired or injured to play the tour? Fine baby, take the time off to get back in shape. If you are really that tired or injured take a pass on the slams and get back in shape.

Wouldn't the slams (or the players) sue over the minimum rule?

Perhaps. But I argue that the slams could be won over because of the high point totals that reflect their importance. And if the slams agree its game over.

What would the 2010 rankings have looked like under this system?

01 4695 Kim Clijsters
02 4615 Serena Williams
03 4240 Caroline Wozniacki



Analysis of the rankings:

01 4695 Kim Clijsters
02 4615 Serena Williams
03 4240 Caroline Wozniacki

Lets take Serena first here. Some might argue she should be lower, but Rena won two grand slams. That counts for a lot! She could have finished #1 had she played and won more regular events.

Wozniacki finished at #3 for one simple reason: she couldn't win a big one. Note that she didn't need to win a slam to finsh #1-had she won the YEC final (a dramatic match) the rankings would have been:

01 4740 Caroline Wozniacki
02 4615 Serena Williams
03 4195 Kim Clijsters

 

[NadalAgassi]

Meanwhile under the new ranking system these would be the ranking points after Wozniacki was eliminated by Na from the WTA Championships:

01 Petra Kvitova | 2500 500 280 5 | 1000 395 | 690* 470 320 280 6440
02 Maria Sharapova | 1600 900 280 160 | 900 900 | 700 450 225 140 6255
03 Li Na | 2500 1600 100 5 | 450 395 | 470 370 200 125 6215
04 Caroline Wozniacki | 900 900 280 160 | 1000 900 | 470 470 470 395 5945
05 Victoria Azarenka | 900 500 280 160 | 1000 700 | 690* 395 395 280 5300
06 Samantha Stosur | 2500 160 160 5 | 620 620 | 530* 225 225 200 5245
07 Vera Zvonareva | 900 500 280 160 | 620 450 | 470 395 370* 320 4465
08 Agnieszka Radwanska | 500 280 100 100 | 1000 900 | 470 395 370 250 4365

Kvitova and Azarenka have also added more points since then, and Azarenka would collect enough to bump Wozniacki to #5 if she were to win the final.

 

[marpiw]

I do not know how that fat cheese cover danish girl called Caroline Wozniacky is still the number one if she missed most tournament finals?????

 

[kiki]

Nor would have reached nº 1 toys like Rios , Moya or Philipousis

 

[jmverdugo]

Aren't all the ladies ranked under the same system?

I would think that if the ranking system changes they would work a way to do the same, it is not the system is the players.

You are assuming that CW would play exactly the same if the ranking system changes, since this is all assumption I will say that under this "real" ranking system you propose C.W. would still be number one, she would just schedule her year differently.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Rios deserved it, he was really dominating 1998, he won 7 titles in including 3 masters shields and was in the final of the AO (losing to Korda who tested positive for nandrolone later that year). Rios beat Agassi in the Grand Slam Cup that year. Rios had the number one ranking but Sampras finished ahead of him at end of 1998.

 

[BeHappy]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the ranking system. If you want to be number one you can't just skip/tank every tournament but the slams.

 

[Cup8489]

Rios deserved it, he was really dominating 1998, he won 7 titles in including 3 masters shields and was in the final of the AO (losing to Korda who tested positive for nandrolone later that year). Rios beat Agassi in the Grand Slam Cup that year. Rios had the number one ranking but Sampras finished ahead of him at end of 1998.

NadalAgassi believes no major=no number 1.

I don't know how Sharapova would be ranked above Li Na, based on Li Na winning the FO and making the AO final and Sharapova making what, Wimbledon final? I think?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Aren't all the ladies ranked under the same system?

I would think that if the ranking system changes they would work a way to do the same, it is not the system is the players.

You are assuming that CW would play exactly the same if the ranking system changes, since this is all assumption I will say that under this "real" ranking system you propose C.W. would still be number one, she would just schedule her year differently.

Lol.

This is way too optimistic and ignorant of her obvious failings at the Slams, which she damn well knows are the tournaments that matter the most (by far).

Are you some utterly insane and hardcore Woz fan??

That's a serious question.

 

[NadalAgassi]

NadalAgassi believes no major=no number 1.

Not neccessarily. I believe Davenport deserved the year end #1 in 2004 (and maybe 2005) inspite of not winning a major. I sure as hell dont believe Wozniacki did anything sufficient to overcome a slam winner who won 5 overall touranments including U.S Open + WTA Championships + Miami (Clijsters in 2010); or someone who won 6 overall tournaments (same # as Wozniacki, most of which were joke events) which included Wimbledon + WTA Championships (Kvitova in 2011).

Very few people anywhere seem to think Wozniacki deserves to be year end #1 over Clijsters last year, and even less over Kvitova this year. Which would be resolved by a better ranking system as the posted numbers prove.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Aren't all the ladies ranked under the same system?

I would think that if the ranking system changes they would work a way to do the same, it is not the system is the players.

You are assuming that CW would play exactly the same if the ranking system changes, since this is all assumption I will say that under this "real" ranking system you propose C.W. would still be number one, she would just schedule her year differently.

If the ranking system were different Wozniacki would have to win more tournaments with the best players, or atleast do better at the slams, to be #1. Which she has proven she doesnt have the talent, ability, or game to do, so I doubt very much she could mantain the same ranking in that case. However if she were able to do better at the bigger events with a different schedule (her current Mickey Mouse system abusing schedule is ridiculous), even possibly winning a major, and doing what is needed to be a valid #1, all the more power to her. Even though I dont like her game there wouldnt be nearly as much critiques about her #1 ranking if that were the case.

 

[NadalAgassi]

NadalAgassi believes no major=no number 1.

I don't know how Sharapova would be ranked above Li Na, based on Li Na winning the FO and making the AO final and Sharapova making what, Wimbledon final? I think?

Forgot to mention Li Na has sucked at all except maybe 4 tournaments this year, so it is believable Sharapova or Wozniacki could rank over her even under a better ranking system (the fact Wozniacki doesnt rank even over her under that system is only further proof what a farce her #1 rank is though).

 

[nadalwon2012]

Just after the Australian Open, Li Na lost 5 matches in a row! And since Roland Garros she is 5 wins, 8 losses.

 

[purge]

the others have no one but themselves to blame for it.
how bout not losing 5 first round matches in a row after a GS title.
if the others are this inconsistent then wozniacki is the rightful number one even tho shes not the best player around

 

[jmverdugo]

Lol.

This is way too optimistic and ignorant of her obvious failings at the Slams, which she damn well knows are the tournaments that matter the most (by far).

Are you some utterly insane and hardcore Woz fan??

That's a serious question.

No, I an not a fan of her, I guess I am just ignorant

 

[NadalAgassi]

Wozniacki is NOT consistent. That is one of the biggest existing myths. She has been just as inconsistent as Kvitova, and actually not as consistent as Azarenka or Sharapova. She has lost early rounds in almost every event she played since May, mostly losing to little known journeywomen or much lower ranked opponents. Hingis and Davenport were extremely consistent when they were slamless #1s. Wozniacki is not. She is a #1 who has none of the ability to win big titles, perform well at big events, or perform consistently to any degree. Basically every aspect of her results suck just as much as her mediocre game does. Her only skill is being able to win enter so many tiny events she eventually wins a few, throws a bunch of the bad showings off her counting ranking points, and somehow it spits out the #1 ranking for her.

One thing that is true is the WTA tour right now sucks giant balls so whoever would be #1 would be a horrible pathetic #1 who wouldnt even be ranked top 5 in a good year for the WTA. However the best of the bad lot is clearly Kvitova, and last year it was Clijsters, as a proper ranking system would reflect, with Wozniacki at #3-#5 where she belongs (by results I mean, in terms of game she is more like 30-50th best but that is another topic).

 

[purge]

well apparently she is more consistent than the others since she has not won any of the big tournaments and still has the most points.

even if being consistent actually means being less inconsistent here.
yes shes not amazingly consistent either. shes taken some early round blowups as well. fewer than the others tho it seems

 

[NadalAgassi]

She isnt anywhere near consistent enough to merit ranking #1 over players who have won big titles, especialy Kvitova who also won 6 tournaments, and much better ones than Wozniacki has. Only an idiot would bother defending Wozniacki's position.

 

[purge]

or only an idiot would argue it given the ranking system simply is the way it is

 

[woodrow1029]

Meanwhile under the new ranking system these would be the ranking points after Wozniacki was eliminated by Na from the WTA Championships:

Li, not Na

 

[Mustard]

Wozniacki is NOT consistent. That is one of the biggest existing myths. She has been just as inconsistent as Kvitova, and actually not as consistent as Azarenka or Sharapova. She has lost early rounds in almost every event she played since May, mostly losing to little known journeywomen or much lower ranked opponents. Hingis and Davenport were extremely consistent when they were slamless #1s. Wozniacki is not. She is a #1 who has none of the ability to win big titles, perform well at big events, or perform consistently to any degree. Basically every aspect of her results suck just as much as her mediocre game does. Her only skill is being able to win enter so many tiny events she eventually wins a few, throws a bunch of the bad showings off her counting ranking points, and somehow it spits out the #1 ranking for her.

One thing that is true is the WTA tour right now sucks giant balls so whoever would be #1 would be a horrible pathetic #1 who wouldnt even be ranked top 5 in a good year for the WTA. However the best of the bad lot is clearly Kvitova, and last year it was Clijsters, as a proper ranking system would reflect, with Wozniacki at #3-#5 where she belongs (by results I mean, in terms of game she is more like 30-50th best but that is another topic).

Firstly, you sound bitter. Secondly, how is Wozniacki number 1 if she is "inconsistent"?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Firstly, you sound bitter. Secondly, how is Wozniacki number 1 if she is "inconsistent"?

Clueless post from you as usual.

1. I am not a fan of either Kvitova or Wozniacki so why would I be bitter. If I had my way Serena, Clijsters, or Li Na would be #1 but clearly none of them merit it. I just call things as I see them.

2. As anyone who understands the current WTA ranking system realizes a player like Wozniacki who plays so many tournaments can throw out many of their poor results, as if they dont exist, and if you play 12 puny (lower than tier 1 or some tier 2) events each year you are bound to crack a jackpot at a few unless you really suck and add those to your ranking. Kvitova has a higher winning % than Wozniacki this year, so the consistency arguments already goes down the drain.

 

[mellowyellow]

Your hypothetical rankings system would also mean the players she lost too, may not have been the players she would have drawn. Don't draw conclusions from a hypothetical situation..... it make you look like an a $$ hat

 

[NadalAgassi]

Actually since Wozniacki regularly has some of the easiest draws on the WTA tour your suggestion could only hurt her further.

 

[ollinger]

A ranking system that doesn't overemphasize the slam events is good for the game. The smaller events need some protection, the larger events don't. The current system gives adequate importance to the smaller events that are vital for a healthy tour. One can be sure the system was designed in part for this purpose. And I see nothing unfair about rewarding a player for consistently doing well in those smaller events.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Sharapova's draw at Wimbledon this year is the easiest I've ever seen, and she still lost. She hasn't beaten a top 10 player this year in the slams.

 

[TopFH]

The flaming is reaching its peak...

On a more serious note, Wozniacki has her number 1 because she deserves it. In this ranking system, if you do well at the majority of tournaments, not just 4 of them, you get rewarded. This doesn't mean I like her, but at what is Wozniacki excellent? At the "Mickey Mouse" tournaments.

 

[jokinla]

Aren't all the ladies ranked under the same system?

I would think that if the ranking system changes they would work a way to do the same, it is not the system is the players.

You are assuming that CW would play exactly the same if the ranking system changes, since this is all assumption I will say that under this "real" ranking system you propose C.W. would still be number one, she would just schedule her year differently.

Exactly, all the girls have the same opportunity to work the system, just as CW does, she wins enough to be #1.

 

[nadalwon2012]

If Wozniacki wins a slam or 2 or 3, her legacy is going to look awesome with all the weeks ranked number one.

 

[Caesar]

Here are the mid-September WTA rankings, recalculated using the ATP ranking system (I can't be bothered redoing them for this month). WTA points are in brackets:

1. Caroline Wozniacki: 9130 (9335)
2. Maria Sharapova: 5520 (6226)
3. Li Na: 5270 (5870)
4. Victoria Azarenka: 5260 (6055)
5. Vera Zvonareva: 5175 (5920)
6. Petra Kvitova: 5005 (5530)
7. Sam Stosur: 4900 (5380)
8. Kim Clijsters: 4245 (4501)
9. Fran Schiavone: 3695 (4775)
10. Marion Bartoli: 3540 (4225)

Pretty similar, no? In fact, she has an even bigger lead. So, the problem is not really anything to do with the WTA ranking system (unless you're willing to argue that the ATP system is just as crap).

The reality is that the WTA has a lot of players sharing the honours at major tournaments. I mean, they had 4 different Slam champions this year. Splitting the points evenly amongst a bunch of players means that naturally the player at the top will have a less impressive resume.

Wozniacki may not win majors but she is incredibly consistent at going deep into the tournaments that count. Given the current state of the WTA consistency is an extremely valuable asset.

Naturally the OP can invent a ranking system that doesn't have Wozniacki at #1, but you can do the same for any player.

 

[DMan]

Didn't someone already have a thread about how horrible the current WTA ranking system was?

Oh yeah, that was me : - )

But of course, Bryan and Stacy had to come around to pathetically argue how good the system was.

So here we are at the end of the year. And who is #1?

<snicker, snicker, snicker> Caroline Wozniacki!

I used to think it was bad when Hingis finished #1 in 2000, and stayed #1 most of 2001 even though she wasn't winning Slams, and was getting beaten by Davenport, Venus, and Serena when it mattered. Then Davenport finished #1 in 2001 without even reaching a major final, and duplicated that feat in 2004. And for good measure, she choked 2 major finals, and still wound up #1 in 2005. Those were bad situations. Just as Jankovic and Safina ascending to #1 was pathetically bad.

But nothing, and I mean NOTHING compares to Wozniacki as year end #1, again!

Kvitova finished with a better W-L record in 2011 than Caroline. She had more top 10 wins. And oh yeah, she won a major - Wimbledon! And to boot, she also won the WTA Championships, blasting Wozniacki en route.

Wozniacki's best win in all of 2011 folks was........wait for it now........be ready to be bowled over................
#5 Francesca Schiavone in a small tournament in Brussels.

12 of her 17 losses were to players outside the top 20!

I would just like to have one rational, sane person argue that the current WTA ranking system is a good accurate one for ranking players over the course of a year.

 

[DMan]

Wozniacki may not win majors but she is incredibly consistent at going deep into the tournaments that count. Given the current state of the WTA consistency is an extremely valuable asset.

In 9 of the 22 tournaments she played this year, including 2 of the 4 majors, #1 Wozniacki lost before the QF. In more than 40% of the tournaments she plays, the supposed "best" player in the world didn't even reach the QF! That's "incredible consistency" ?!?!?!

Going deep in the tournaments that count? You mean in events like New Haven, Copenhagen, and Brussels ?!

Given the current state of the WTA, winning majors is an extremely valuable asset. There are 4 majors a year. You know, the big ones. Tournaments that count and matter the most. Where there is the most amount of pressure. And champions perform well under pressure.

And what's Wozniacki's record in the majors?

 

[DMan]

I miss the days when the magazines like Tennis and World Tennis would release ranking lists for players. The days before the computer rankings existed or were universally accepted.

I think it is fair to say and 100% accurate, that Wozniacki would not rank #1 for 2011 by any panel of experts.

FWIW - Petra Kvitova is the de facto #1 for 2011.

She won Wimbledon (back in the day, that almost guaranteed you #1), and to back it up she won the WTA Tour Championships (blitzing Wozniacki en route).

The tour no longer has a dominant player. But Kvitova proved she was the best when it counted most, and most often, more so than any other player.

Now quick, I want someone to try and make a (pathetic) argument as to why Wozniacki should be #1.

 

[Andres]

In 9 of the 22 tournaments she played this year, including 2 of the 4 majors, #1 Wozniacki lost before the QF. In more than 40% of the tournaments she plays, the supposed "best" player in the world didn't even reach the QF! That's "incredible consistency" ?!?!?!

Any stat can be bent with the proper syntax.

Losing before the QF in 9 out of 22 tournaments sounds SO MUCH WORSE than 'Reached 13 QF or better in 22 events entered"

 

[purge]

no one said wozniacki is the best. but as long as the ones that win a major keep losing in the first round of the next she accumulates most points even without having to be amazingly consistent herself

so why do you keep blaming this on the ranking system? why not blame it on kvitova, stosur, li na for being 100 times more inconsistent than woz.
or blame the constant injuries that completely take clijsters or the williams out of the ranking.

i would also prefer to see a #1 whos actually the best player. but i know who or what is to blame. and its not really the ranking system

 

[Caesar]

In 9 of the 22 tournaments she played this year, including 2 of the 4 majors, #1 Wozniacki lost before the QF. In more than 40% of the tournaments she plays, the supposed "best" player in the world didn't even reach the QF! That's "incredible consistency" ?!?!?!

Aside from the silliness of your syntax, it's far more consistent than anyone else on tour.

The computer rankings do an excellent job of measuring who has been the best player over the last 12 months. That's the whole 12 months, not just a few weeks here and there when the big tournaments are on.

Outside of the Slams, Woz has far and away been the best player on the WTA Tour this year. At the Slams, she has put in solid performances. It's not surprising that it puts her miles ahead of the next closest player in the rankings.

Slam ****s can whinge all they like. Trophies are for players who "play well when it counts". The number one ranking is for the player who performs the best over the whole year.

 

[El Diablo]

^^ exactlly. Not "incredible consistency" but actually quite good considering how many players there are, and more importantly, better than anyone else. I think we've somehow come to expect that the best player (or at least the highest ranked player) should never lose, perhaps a consequence of some of the runs we've seen on the men's side in recent years.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Quite good consistency (which is in fact an overstatement for Wozniacki) is not good enough to overcome a complete failure to win any important titles. Extraordinary consistency like Hingis or Davenport in their slamless #1 years is what should be required (and even they were criticized and they were 5 times better performers in their slamless #1 years than Wozniacki in her joke #1 years). It is getting pathetic that players who not only cant win big titles, but often lose in early rounds to nobodies in many of the tournaments they enter on top of that, can end the year #1. Atleast it should be a player who wins big titles and also loses early rounds to nobodies sometimes.

The responses in this thread confirm there are only a small number of intelligent people on this forum though. Thanks to those several individuals who have a clue who posted in this thread.

 

[jokinla]

This whole thread is a good example of why you hear Fed, Nadal, etc., say being #1 isn't the most important thing to them, it's winning the slams, because there is a difference, and when we discuss GOAT, weeks at #1 factors in, but not as much as their slam totals.

 

[TMF]

Since the WTA is such a joke, instead of arguing over who is the most consistent, look for players who are the LEAST inconsistent throughout the year. That's include players play full time, not skipping events, injured. All players fall below Caro.

 

[sunof tennis]

Quite good consistency (which is in fact an overstatement for Wozniacki) is not good enough to overcome a complete failure to win any important titles. Extraordinary consistency like Hingis or Davenport in their slamless #1 years is what should be required (and even they were criticized and they were 5 times better performers in their slamless #1 years than Wozniacki in her joke #1 years). It is getting pathetic that players who not only cant win big titles, but often lose in early rounds to nobodies in many of the tournaments they enter on top of that, can end the year #1. Atleast it should be a player who wins big titles and also loses early rounds to nobodies sometimes.

The responses in this thread confirm there are only a small number of intelligent people on this forum though. Thanks to those several individuals who have a clue who posted in this thread.

My we are being a bit condescending, aren't we? Of course, you mean the few people who agree with you are the smart ones.
Look, I am not going to defend Woz, but at least she tries and plays tournaments which keep the tour afloat.
Personally, I wonder about people who are so concerned with the ranking system that they stay up nights trying to devise one that gives them the results they want. Then, they criticize all who don't completely agree with them.
Bottomline, the people who are at fault for Woz being number one are the other players, not the system.

 

[purge]

Bottomline, the people who are at fault for Woz being number one are the other players, not the system.

finally some sense
thank you

and nadalagassi.. if agreeing with you is precondition for being intelligent around here then youll have to forgive us for rather staying happily unintelligent ;D

 

[boredone3456]

My we are being a bit condescending, aren't we? Of course, you mean the few people who agree with you are the smart ones.
Look, I am not going to defend Woz, but at least she tries and plays tournaments which keep the tour afloat.
Personally, I wonder about people who are so concerned with the ranking system that they stay up nights trying to devise one that gives them the results they want. Then, they criticize all who don't completely agree with them.
Bottomline, the people who are at fault for Woz being number one are the other players, not the system.

I've been saying this for a while now. People want to harp on the system, when the players themselves cannot string any kind of strong form together for more then maybe 2 or 3 weeks at a time. No one in the top 10 was even able to get to the 4th round or better at all 4 majors this year....what does that say about the players today? Not very much. Its not the systems fault that happened. This was never the case even 4 or 5 years ago on the WTA. Changing the system would be the equivalent of using makeup to cover a bruise, it may make things look better but it doesn't actually make the problem go away.

 

[ttbrowne]

If you don't want Woz being #1...find someone to beat her in enuf tourneys so she won't be #1. Savvy?

 

[kiki]

If you don't want Woz being #1...find someone to beat her in enuf tourneys so she won't be #1. Savvy?

... or remove Copenhaguen,Indian Wells and a couple more tournaments from the tour.

 

[Peters]

Changing the system would be the equivalent of using makeup to cover a bruise, it may make things look better but it doesn't actually make the problem go away.

This is ultimately what it comes down to. It's desperation, trying to paper over the cracks of the real problem: It's simply been a weak WTA this last year or two (or longer, depending on your view).

Things go in cycles; we're currently at a low point and the ranking system will naturally allow a solid, consistent player all year round to sneak ahead of a one-off slam winner who goes walkabout for large chunks of the season.

But things will equalize. Kvitova and a few others will hopefully carry on improving (including Wozinacki herself, she's written off far too easily on here) and I expect this time next year to see the top 2 in the ladies rankings having at least one slam to their name in 2012.

There's no need to fix something that doesn't need fixing.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

Not neccessarily. I believe Davenport deserved the year end #1 in 2004 inspite of not winning a major.

Really?

Dinosaur Fatty's only reprieve was that she had already won three grand slam singles titles previously, but that doesn't excuse YE #1 without winning a grand slam singles title.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse

 

[kiki]

There is just something worst than a *******...a Caroltard.

Won´t they be the same people?

 

[Polaris]

What is really amusing is that, on the other tennis forum from which the OP was taken, NadalAgassi is still known as justineheninfan. Apparently, he sings the praises of Henin on that forum, while trashing her on this forum.

This makes me laugh.

 

[DMan]

Quite good consistency (which is in fact an overstatement for Wozniacki) is not good enough to overcome a complete failure to win any important titles. Extraordinary consistency like Hingis or Davenport in their slamless #1 years is what should be required (and even they were criticized and they were 5 times better performers in their slamless #1 years than Wozniacki in her joke #1 years). It is getting pathetic that players who not only cant win big titles, but often lose in early rounds to nobodies in many of the tournaments they enter on top of that, can end the year #1. Atleast it should be a player who wins big titles and also loses early rounds to nobodies sometimes.

The responses in this thread confirm there are only a small number of intelligent people on this forum though. Thanks to those several individuals who have a clue who posted in this thread.

Sniff, sniff....are you talking about.....me ? :-?

Is the world coming to an end, cause we're starting to agree on things?!

Seriously, it is kind of hilarious to see folks defending and trying to pump up Wozniacki as #1.