Skip to main content

13 May 2009 - women's #1 thots

13 May 2009

Dinara certainly does seem to be trying to live up to her #1 ranking. She is now the bookies favourite at Roland Garros, and she is guaranteed to hold onto top spot at least through RG.

I think this issue of #1 without a GS tournament should really have come to the fore regarding Lindsay Davenport. The year in question was 2004. I'm still not sure who is popularly regarded as #1 for that year. The WTA computer listed Davenport in the top spot at the end of the year. The WTA player of the year award (issued in April of the next year, I believe, and well before she first reached #1 on the computer in Aug 2005) named Sharapova. The ITF selected Myskina (who never reached computer #1). The highest number of average WTA points per tournament played belonged to Henin in 2004. Davenport didn't even make a GS final in 2004. By contrast Dinara has played two GS finals in the past year and is defending 4 titles (3 of them premier events).
Nonetheless, because Davenport had won GS events in the past (last one was 2000), people weren't as up in arms about it as they are with Safina and Jankovic. Several observers have advocated for clearly regarding that the computer ranking rewards a year's worth of performance and that the correlation between ranking points and GS performance, while strong, is not absolute.

I think it is important to remember that the player with the most potential is not necessarily #1. Sure it's possible that Serena Williams, (or Hantuchova! or Wozniacki!!) might have the best game of any current player on one particular day if they were playing at their absolute best, but being #1 is about realizing your potential. As long as the ranking system is fair and reasonable (that question is, of course, up for debate), the #1 ranking recognizes the actual accomplishments of the last year, not the most talented player. That seems fair to me...

And now for the trivia buffs:
1. Although fans now seem to insist that the woman regarded as #1 for the year have won a Grand Slam title in that year, it used to be common to regard the Wimbledon winner as #1 for the year. In fact since the advent of rankings (about 1919 - these were subjective ranking of "experts") until the open era (1968) there were only five times that a woman won Wimbledon without being regarded as #1 for the year: 1926 - McKane; 1931 - Aussem; 1948, 1949 - Brough; 1962 - Hantze Susman.

2. The first year a woman was regarded as #1 for the year winning only the US (of the four GS events that year), was 1931 - Wills Moody. It also happened in 1948 - Osborne; 1977, 1978 - Evert; 1998 - Davenport; and possibly 2008 - SWilliams (if you accept the WTA player of the year award...)

3. The first year a woman was regarded as #1 for the year winning only Roland Garros (of the four GS events that year), was 1926 - Lenglen. It also happened in 1987 - Graf, and 2006 - Henin.

4. The first year a woman was regarded as #1 for the year winning only the Australian (of the four GS events that year), was 1990 - Graf. It also happened in 1999 - Hingis.
In fact, it wasn't until 1950 that for the first time the woman winning the Australian was regarded as #1 for the year - Brough.

5. Lastly the first and only year in which the popularly regarded #1 for the year didn't win any GS event was 2004 - Davenport (depending, of course, on who you believe was #1 that year...)

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Men’s Tennis 2024 Yearend and 2025 Predictions

2 January 2025   The Big Three is dead!  Long Live the Big Three!  For the first time in 22 years, none of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic are in the yearend top three.  Instead we have a new set – Sinner, Alcaraz, and Zverev.  Now it would certainly be debatable if Zverev has the significance of the other two. Afterall, he still has not won a slam and he’s half a generation older than his younger counterparts.  At age 27 he should be mid-arc in career accomplishments – but in some metrics he’s just starting out.  However, his superlative play over the year landed him at #2 and who are we to argue with the algorithm? One of the biggest clouds hanging over the coming year is the fate of Jannik Sinner.  By all accounts he is the top dog, and primed to have another banner year, but whether or not he will get to play depends on what happens with WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency).  Anyone can see he’s essentially innocent – I mean, a massage...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wimbledon Women 2024

The divas have gathered, the grass is fresh, the blades are out, the Venus Rosewater Dish beckons. Is there a favourite?  There are only three former champions in the draw, and while they may be among the top picks it’s dangerous to count on any of them: Kerber (past her prime), Rybakina (constantly sick), and Vondrousova (chronically unreliable).  So who will it be lifting the plate in two weeks’ time?   First Quarter Iga Swiatek (1) is the top seed and has pretty much nailed down this slot across the board for the last two and a half years.   But grass is her least-accomplished surface.   She pulled out of her warm-up tournament citing emotional recuperation after her fifth slam crown and third consecutive at Roland Garros.   But there is cause for hope among the Swiatek-azzi. She made the quarters last year in a game effort against a surging Svitolina.   Her strokes should hold up well on grass, although I think she loses some of the movement...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

The Case for Rod Laver Two grand slams.   When one considers the near impossibility of winning a calendar year grand slam in this day and age, the thought of one player winning two boggles the mind.   It’s difficult enough to win the career slam – only 7 men have ever done it and only 4 in the Open era.   Winning a non-calendar slam is even more difficult and many great players have won three in a row and fallen just short:   like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Pete Sampras. So Rod Laver should be an open and shut case for the greatest of all time.   But it’s not that simple.   His first grand slam is really negligible and doesn’t count.   It was an amateur slam won in an era when the best players were professionals.   Especially in the 1960’s the pros were gaining more and more credibility.   The sheer number of pros was increasing as more and more tournaments began to be established for pro players.   Laver was by no means considered...
3 comments
Read more