Congrats to Rajiv Ram in Winning the Campbell’s Grass Court Championships. I’ve watched Rajiv for many years on the challenger circuit and he’s a great guy. What a treat to see him and Sam in the final! LL to Champ!!!

July 12th, 2009 at 11:38 pm

It really is weird that Serena is not no.1…..has she been tanking at smaller events?

July 12th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

“Dinara did a great job to get to No. 1. She won Rome and Madrid.”…
That comment, more than just an attack on Dinara Safina, shows complete disrespect for the organizers of those tournaments.

July 13th, 2009 at 12:42 am

I think its fair to say that Serena should be NO1.
Having won the grandslams she has-Although i am not to familiar with the smaller tournaments.Maybe safina has been consistant with these smaller ones.But its a hard argument.

July 13th, 2009 at 1:52 am

Whether Serena deserves to be no.1 doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that Safnia doesn’t deserve to be. The fact that Safina is no.1 makes the women’s tour look bad.

It’s true that Serena had a terrible clay season, but clay was never her forte, even though she won RG once seven years ago. It’s true that Safina is more consistent. But it’s also true that on the biggest stages Safina looks like a rookie.

The only reason the ranking system exists is for seedings, but for almost every tennis fan it’s much more than that. It means that a tennis player is “the best in the world”. No one, and I mean no one, can say that of Safina. Her game is one-dimensional. All she can do is hit the ball hard from the baseline. Her movement is not good. Her serve is not good. She can’t volley. He mental toughness is non-existent. She’s already an over-achiever coz her talent is so limited, it’s almost hard to believe she can win tournaments and reach slam finals. Goes to show how poor the women’s game has become.

July 13th, 2009 at 3:08 am

Serena being classy as always… if she doesn’t like it, do something about it, I am sure that winning a few smaller tournaments would be easy for her. Or can she not do that because of how unfit she is? I guess she just feels the need to humiliate others and get attention. It’s in the willams’ blood…

The thing I can’t stand with safina (other than her choking) is how poor her serve is. It is horrible. the double faults are absolutely unbearable, quite often it reaches double digits. She chokes almost immediately after stepping on to the slam finals stage. Once? That’s alright, nerves, twice, multiple times, in horrid fashion? All she does after the momentum starts to go against her is mope. There’s no need to play the match.

Of course, this isn’t a big deal at all; with the wta at its current quality, why even care?

July 13th, 2009 at 3:26 am

“SARCASTIC SERENA SAYS ‘I’M NO. 1′ — After capturing the Wimbledon title, Serena Williams entered her post-match press conference wearing a white T-shirt with a slogan across her chest in bold pink letters reading “Are you looking at my titles?” before going on to rake the WTA Tour for still ranking Dinara Safina No. 1 after Wimbledon: “I think if you hold three Grand Slam titles maybe you should be No. 1 — but not on the WTA Tour, obviously. My motivation is to win another Grand Slam and stay No. 2…That’s just shocking. But it is what it is. I’d definitely rather be No. 2 and hold three Grand Slams in the past year than be No. 1 and not have any.” Serena then added sarcastically, “Dinara did a great job to get to No. 1. She won Rome and Madrid.”…”

I have no problem accepting Serena’s ranking system if it means that all other tournaments are removed from the schedule and all that players play is 4 Grand Slams each year. As it is, the other events do count and Dinara must have been racking up a LOT of points in other events in order to make up the 3 slam deficit.

De-emphasise the value of the other events, or remove them completely if you want slams to decide ranking.

“KLEIN SUSPENDED FOR RACIST RANT”

Ugh. These aussie juniors are giving their country a bad name. My nation is quite dry when it comes to tennis talent, and believe it or not, the future rests on this guy and Tomic. They still haven’t learned how to conduct themselves professionally. Future’s not looking bright.

“FRANCE’S MONTCOURT FOUND DEAD”

I have to say, OUCH. This is a shocker. I’m surprised it’s not getting more attention than it is. If a top 10 player was found dead, we’d be getting lots of dedications Jackson style. All Montcourt gets is a small paragraph. My condolences to his family.

“For example, a winner of a Grand Slam is awarded 2,000 points while winners of the next biggest tournaments are awarded 1,000 points. To me, that is a big enough weighting.”

Chris Goldsmith clinches it for me. While I hardly think Dinara is worthy of the #1 status, it is what it is. She has accrued the highest number of points given the weighting system and the stats say she is #1. While I don’t think she’s a very good #1, (it says a lot about the rest of the girls on the tour) neither do I think Serena has earned it. It’s not hard for Serena to get it if she wants it. She just needs to play better in the T1’s. She should put her money where he mouth is and do it, or accept being #2. The fact is, she doesn’t much care for those tournaments.

July 13th, 2009 at 3:53 am

The best player of the decade by far can be the number one trivially if not for her lazy fat ass.

July 13th, 2009 at 5:08 am

I can understand her frustration, but there is no need to take it out on Safina. The WTA and ITF need to be very concerned about the state of women’s tennis. Credit Serena for playing her A game during the past 4 slams. Still, the state of things is not good. Yes, in my mind she is #1 regardless of the alchemy of their rankings system, but attacking a mentally fragile player really only dilutes the product. Attack the WTA only.

July 13th, 2009 at 7:13 am

Dan Martin Said:

“Yes, in my mind she is #1 regardless of the alchemy of their rankings system, but attacking a mentally fragile player really only dilutes the product.”

She’s no.1 in my book too, but I don’t blame her for taking it out on Safina. I was sad for Safina when she lost the RG final last year and the AO Final this year. But after seeing how mentally fragile she was against Kuznetsova in the RG final this year, a play whom she defeated on clay twice already in this year’s clay court season, and watch her get steamrolled by Venus at Wimbledon, I have lost all respect and admiration for her.

July 13th, 2009 at 7:30 am

Taking it out on Safina, though, is still unfair because it’s not Dinara’s fault. Whether or not Dinara wins or loses big matches, she doesn’t control how the ranking system works. If Rafa played Wimbledon, made a decent run, but Roger still won, wouldn’t Rafa still have been ranked #1, even though Roger would’ve been holding 3 slams? I know Rafa would’ve held the other one, but it’s somewhat similar.

As posted here, the rankings are a combination of 52 weeks. Serena is known to perform her best at slams, but doesn’t perform so well outside of slams. And, with her limited schedule as is, she cannot afford early losses, like other players can. Yes, clay is not her best surface, but it’s also not like the grass season, which is 3-4 weeks long (4 weeks, but only 3 tournaments, maximum, you can play). To go that long without a win should impact your ranking.

You also have to take a look at previous performances. Safina made the finals of the Aussie Open this year, but lost 1st round last year. That’s going to dramatically improve her ranking. She hit the same at the French, and made the semis at Wimbledon after never having been past the third round. She plays more and has been very consistent since her first slam final last year.

I think that Serena could easily be the number 1 player (on paper) if she put half as much effort into a few more smaller events as she does the slams.

I just don’t think you can fault a player who goes out, plays the game, and gets the results she does. Yes, Dinara is mentally fragile in slam finals, but that shouldn’t necessarily take away from the accomplishments she has in terms of getting to finals and doing great in other events. I always feel she’s in a lose/lose situation when she’s asked about it. If she says she deserves the ranking, she gets attacked. She looks weak if she says she doesn’t, and it is somewhat insulting to the tournaments she has won.

July 13th, 2009 at 8:21 am

Serena actually can’t keep her mouth shut. She can bitch about her opponents, the WTA and everything else she likes but at the end of the day, it is not going to make her number one, it is just showing what an ignorant person she actually is. She is so disrespectful it’s sickening.

Safina is constantly going deep into Grand Slams and winning and doing extremely well in other tournaments outside of the Slams, that is why she is ranked number one, it isn’t just based on who holds the most Slam titles. (which Serena and others here seem to think).

If Serena deserved to be ranked number 1, then she would be. But she isn’t. End of story.

July 13th, 2009 at 8:29 am

“Fabrice Santoro has played 20 of the 24 players to rank No. 1, excluding Ilie Nastase, John Newcombe, Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe…”

Wow! Pretty impressive!

July 13th, 2009 at 9:21 am

That is impressive by Fabrice. Did anyone catch McEnroe saying that Santoro asked him to play doubles at the US Open (John mentioned it during the Wimbledon final). Would be an interesting pairing.

July 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am

Ref: “2009 NCAA Men’s Division I Champion Devin Britton turned pro.”

Dimitrov batch will make the era a 3-generation era (or 4?). In 2 years Djoko-Murray generation will look old. You could be hearing them mention it.

I am keeping my eye on 7 more Americans who will join the Pro tour soon: Jordan Cox, Denis Kudla, Alex Domijan, Tennys Sandgren, Evan King, Harry Fowler, Frank Mitchell.

From other countries, I think Kuznetsov, 1st Russian in 40+ years to win a juniors’ major, is on the right path. We could be hearing a lot about Indian Yuki Bhambri and Swedish Daniel Berta, currently number 1 & 2 in juniors respectively, if they keep the present course.

Rest Is Over for Players Other than Top 4

From ATP newsletter:
Båstad: “Tommy Robredo chases his third title at the Catella Swedish Open, as he looks to extend Spain’s winning streak at the clay-court tournament to five straight years. Countryman Fernando Verdasco leads the field, while Roland Garros finalist Robin Soderling attempts to become the first Swedish winner since 2000.”

Stuttgart: “Gilles Simon, Davydenko and Berdych enter the MercedesCup as the top title contenders, while No. 5 seed Philipp Kohls leads German hopes at the clay-court tournament. Youzhny returns as the only past champion in the field.”

(I changed my name from “Tennis Freak” into “Xeno-Freak,” where Xeno is abbr. of xenophilous).

July 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am

Tennis Freak has morphed into Xeno-Freak from today. Xeno is abbreviation of xenophilous, one who likes everything that is not me or not native, e.g. foreign peoples, manners, cultures, foods, music, etc. (or players that you do not like or did not like in the past). One of my every day goals in life is to try to find a way to like something I don’t/ didn’t like. So, as I strive to like what I dislike, this new name is decorum to my purpose (not a part, or essential, just an accessory, like fashion to tennis).
You may address me by Xeno-Freak, Xeno, Xenophilous, X-Freak, or XP-Freak.

July 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Unfortunately, Serena is simply not the classiest player around, in either the men’s or women’s game…and she probably doesn’t care or worse yet, doesn’t realize it…

But when you get to her level, 10+ slams, it’s all about legacy…and she won’t be remember for too much in years down the road though she is probably one of the best female players of all time…

July 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

KLEIN SUSPENDED FOR RACIST RANT — Former Australian Open junior champion Brydan Klein has been banned for six months from ATP tour and challenger events for racially abusing an opponent. The 19-year-old Australian was initially fined and suspended by Tennis Australia after he called black South African Raven Klaasan a “kaffir” at the ATP event in Eastbourne last month. “Under the ATP code of conduct, Klein was found to have committed the player major offence, aggravated behavior,” read an ATP statement. “The incident was deemed to have been ‘behavior that is flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament or is singularly egregious.’” At the time Klein reportedly also spat at his opponent’s coach and another South African player.

*********************

Hewitt with his comments about Blake and now Klein? Is there something wrong with Aussie tennis these days or is this just coincidence? I know the Blake incident happened a long time ago but this is more bad news for a country that has had a glorious tennis history and pretty lousy recent past. Maybe this guy should have to take a tennis beating from Serena. That’d probably shut him up.

July 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

PJ says, “I think that Serena could easily be the number 1 player (on paper) if she put half as much effort into a few more smaller events as she does the slams.”

Precisely. And she’s not number 1 in my mind until she does. So what if she saves her efforts for slams and has the talent to pull it off. If she can’t put in that effort for the REST of the tour, then she doesn’t deserve to be number 1.

Maybe there’s an irony here; maybe the Williams girls are part of the the tour’s problem!?

If they don’t push the other players at the lesser events, but just do their thing, and then come along and win the bigger ones, then maybe they’re even contributing to the standard of the tour.

Right now Serena holds no Masters events. I don’t think Venus does either (she won Dubai and Mexico but I don’t think either is masters level).

There’s also the matter of defending points – Safina is, at this point, *gaining* on and improving her performance from last year so she’s collecting points. By contrast, I’d imagine Serena has/had more to defend so maybe she’s not picking up as many points overall.

It would be nice if the Williams sisters could keep up the same consistent level of excellence that they do at the slams; maybe the other girls would be forced to raise their levels or find ways to beat them. Serena is #2 and Venus #3 so it’s not like they’re doing badly!!

If Serena wants to be number 1 she just needs to put in a little more effort, and win a few of the smaller events. I’m just not sure if she is motivated to do so.

Compare them to Roger and Rafa (or any of the top 6 in the ATP, for that matter). These two enter tournaments to win them and often they do. In terms of the Masters Series events this year, Roger holds 1 (Madrid) and Rafa holds 2 or 3 (IW, Rome, and Monte Carlo – if it still is one). And as a result of their efforts throughout the season, the rest of the tour tries to reach their level, and catch them. Djoko raised his game on clay to try and catch Rafa, Murray on hard, to capture Miami MS title.

July 13th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

In Serena’s defense, she did play a lot of events in the clay court season, but just didn’t get good results. At the end of the day, the theory that you have to play your way into contention for the slams also doesn’t hold much water either – Nadal and Djokovic both played a ton on clay and bombed at RG. Whereas Federer did the bare minimum and won. Serena the same if you consider Wimbledon.

I think Serena’s perspective mirrors what I’ve always believed – no matter how interesting we die-hard fans may find the smaller tournaments, the pro’s could give less than a damn about them. There have been rumblings over the years about getting players to play smaller events, but when they do and flame out. I really don’t know what the solution is – for years in Washington, DC we’ve had to make do with just one or two (if we’re VERY lucky) marquee players making an appearance at a time, and for us the tournament is always a treat. But I imagine for the players it’s a chore.

July 13th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

How about this. Had Nadal beaten Federer in that Madrid final Nadal and the rest of the tournament results tsayed the same afterwards (meaning Federer had taken RG and Wimbledon) Nadal would have 11,135 pts while Federer would be 2nd with 10,820. This is with Federer having three GS to Nadal’s 1. I know is not exactly the same as with the women (since Safina has no GS) but you see how a similar scenario could have easily happened for the men as well.

July 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

BTW: The takeaway is that Masters series events are very important for rankings and are a large part of what’s keeping Nadal’s ranking. He has 4,000 points from wins at Rome, Monte Carlo, Indian Wells, and Canada. That’s the same as 2 Grand Slams.

These are part of the rankings, and had Serena done better in a handful of them she’d be no 1. She’s obviously the best player on tour right now but only at the Slams. The rankings however reflect all tournaments on tour.

July 13th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

JCZ,

Re “How about this” – that would be because Federer wouldn’t gain that many points since he’d reached the final of both those slams last year, so he’d gone only one step further.

“[masters series are] a large part of what’s keeping Nadal’s ranking.” – not entirely though – Nadal won the AO this year; he’d gotten only to the semis the year before, so that’d count for a considerable points gain. It’s true he won Canada last year and IW this year on hard, but he lost out sooner at Miami and he didn’t even play Dubai this year. Everything he won on clay he was defending, so no extra points. Plus he won the FO and Wimbledom back to back last year so he LOST a lot of points.

What is keeping his ranking is that from the FO last year, to the FO this year, he really was THE most dominant player on tour. Full stop.

July 13th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

MMT,

I don’t know if you include masters series events as “lesser” events, but if you do, then I totally disagree with this statement: ” the pro’s could give less than a damn about them. ”

I also think that most of the top pros have a lower-level event (lower than masters) that they DO give a damn about personally: it’s their home event or holds some other type of significance in their career, etc. Queens, for instance, has a great field every year and boasts an amazing list of champions.

I think it’s not good to devalue all events besides slams; why not cancel the rest of the tour and just have slams then, if they’re all the pros “give a damn” about? I don’t get it.

July 13th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

JCZ ” The rankings however reflect all tournaments on tour.”

Right, and it’s important to keep in perspective the “rolling” 52 week system, as it means that once a player has gone on a winning streak, and moved up the rankings, then that player has to *defend* those points or lose them. That’s why Murray has shot up, because he’s been producing consistently *better* results than in the previous season/s. I’d assume it’s the same with Safina. The tricky part is defending, and Nadal and Federer are examples of players who can defend points consistently too. So they stay at the top.

July 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

The fact that top male players pretty much win Master Series events or go deep into their draws shows a lot of dedication. I think that gets overlooked sometimes. For example look at Roger’s case this year at Monte Carlo. He wasn’t gonna play it but then got a wild card. Because he didn’t prepare for it mentally or physically and he lost Wawrinka in the 3rd round.

The fact that top players do well at the ATP events shows how much they care about them. They consider them important steps on their way to the Slams. When there is no slam on the line, like after the US Open in the indoor season, a lot of players withdraw.

The same cannot be said for the WTA events coz there are very few top players who care about winning them and even fewer who want to play well in them.

July 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

jane: “I think it’s not good to devalue all events besides slams; why not cancel the rest of the tour and just have slams then, if they’re all the pros “give a damn” about? I don’t get it.”

I mentioned something similar after Federer won Wimby, when many were harping on GS records only, as being the true measurement of greatness. I feel if the GS is where everything’s at, then scrap the whole tour and just focus on the GS tourneys.

For example, Laver accumulated approx. 165 titles, and Connors approx. 120 titles, but those stats are not given credence in the greatest discussion, then of what purpose and value is playing and/or winning smaller tourneys in the grand scheme of ‘greatness’? Nada, as only GS seem to be of importance. And now, it seems that not even MS titles are of significance, albeit, ATP has made them mandatory.

Maybe the ATP and the WTA need to take a hard look at the players’ mind-sets with respect to the emphasis placed on their participating and/or winning in the smaller tourneys. I’d like to know how any player could be called ‘greatest’ when he/she doesn’t match or come close to the number of titles amassed by his/her predecessors. GS wins yield ranking points, and so do the small tourneys, and it’s those ranking points that determine a player’s rank, thus, why is it that ‘greatness’ is only measured by GS wins and not the amount of titles won, and weeks at No. 1? Additionally, I wonder how any player’s CV would look, if he/she were to win only 10 GS without any other titles from smaller tourneys. That pedigree would look kinda sparse an d/or extremely deficient IMO.

The MS tourneys, IMO, are very difficult to win, considering the winners have to play 5 matches in 7 days, as opposed to the GS, where the winner has to play 7 matches in 14 days. Discounting MS tourneys/titles in the greatest discussion is also another flawed argument in favour of the ‘greatest’ shingle, but one which bears credence and should not be overlooked.

July 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

http://www.slate.com/id/2221980

On a unrelated topic, saw this article in slate about steroid use (or rather lack of it) in tennis. Tignor had linked this in his article on tennis.com. The article suggests that tennis does not do enough testing, esp in off season and hence, not many players have been caught.

I don’t agree much with that as players do get tested a lot, esp during major events. Plus in tennis, there is limited use of adding muscle or added stamina, if you don’t have hand eye coordination or the mental strength to match. I mean, tennis players may have the most diverse body types competing together and even in today’s power game, the ‘skills’ can surely find a way to trump the raw power. I think it will be too gullible to say tennis is perfectly clean…but don’t see any major scandals errupting in higher ranks.

July 13th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

I agree whole-heartedly with the following from Kimo and Von:

Kimo says: “The fact that top players do well at the ATP events shows how much they care about them. They consider them important steps on their way to the Slams.”

Therefore they must “give a damn” about events other than the slams. Otherwise, why strive so hard to win even the Masters Series events?

Von points out: ” Laver accumulated approx. 165 titles, and Connors approx. 120 titles, but those stats are not given credence in the greatest discussion, then of what purpose and value is playing and/or winning smaller tourneys in the grand scheme of ‘greatness’? ”

Exactly – and it doesn’t make sense, because that kind of success and consistency is extremely valuable. Of course, both these men did well in slams too, and for lengthy periods of time, with excellent competition.

Von also said “The MS tourneys, IMO, are very difficult to win, considering the winners have to play 5 matches in 7 days, as opposed to the GS, where the winner has to play 7 matches in 14 days.”

It’s like the sprint vs. marathon analogy; they require different skills – and to me, if a player can do well at BOTH then that player is exceptional. Not only can s/he handle the intensity of deep fields and everyday play, be s/he can also last through two-weeks and five-setters.

I am inclined to think that if the Williams sisters had to play 5 setters in the slams they might not win as much; they haven’t won the masters series lately, perhaps because of the fitness required to play day after day? After all, in women’s tennis, it’s best of 3 everywhere – masters and slams. Not sure, but I do wonder. There is no doubt they are both exceptionally talented; I’d only like to see a little more consistency from them and they might in turn have an effect on the other women players to push further. At least it’s possible.

We’ve seen how players like Murray, Djoko, Roddick, JMDP all strive hard to reach the consistency and match up with Fed and Nadal. So it’s about setting the bar on a consistent basis, throughout the year.

July 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

ATP recognizes and lists only 40 of Laver’s titles. Amateur era titles are confusing, some of which had only a couple of players.
Fed has 60 titles, 45 outside Slams. Does anyone have that many titles in Fed’s era? He’s not done yet. Why should his titles be compared to pre-Open era, when a considerably less number of players would be in the draw and far fewer rounds to the final, then?
—————-
If I were asked, I’d vote for eliminating 250 and 500 level of tournaments and upgrading 6 masters to Slam level, which would make 10 Slams, played 1 each month in the 1st 10 months, and 2 months off season.
————–
About top players not playing smaller tournaments, only 18 of them count (plus the 19th YEC if you’re top 8), no matter how many you enter in, and most top players play those. If you count number of matches played, top players play more matches as they play 5-7 matches an event, where as lower ranking players play 1-3 matches an event. Top players are overplayed, thus my vote for eliminating small events. How much more do you want to bust these top players?

July 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

SG says:

“Hewitt with his comments about Blake and now Klein? Is there something wrong with Aussie tennis these days or is this just coincidence? I know the Blake incident happened a long time ago but this is more bad news for a country that has had a glorious tennis history and pretty lousy recent past. Maybe this guy should have to take a tennis beating from Serena. That’d probably shut him up.”

Hewitt’s words implied racism, but he didn’t outright say the word. Action was going to be taken against him, but 2 days after he took the US Open, the WTC got bombed and America was hit by something bigger and more earth shattering than this incident. They forgot about it and let it pass. I believe that match was umpired by a guy Hewitt once called a ‘spastic’. He’s also been fined for homophobic comments as well in a Davis Cup match.

Colourful guy he is.

Klein/Tomic’s behaviour you can chalk down to youth and immaturity.

jane: “Right now Serena holds no Masters events. I don’t think Venus does either (she won Dubai and Mexico but I don’t think either is masters level).”

On the women’s tour theyr’e called Tier I, but that is a good point. The ‘rest of the tour’ added up is bigger than the 4 slams, even if historically less significant. But #1 isn’t really about history. It’s about the moment.

July 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Jane: “not entirely though”. I’m not criticizing the guy. Quite the opposite, I’m saying that in the last 52 weeks he’s bagged 4 masters series tournaments (regardless of whether or not he was defending them) and those four count as much as 2 grand slams. So in terms of points his AO plus the 4 MS count as much as Federer’s 3 GS.

But yeah the point is that a mere win on clay in Madrid for Nadal (something that has happened 9 out of the 11 times they’ve play on the surface) would have meant that he would have still been number one. Similar to the women’s side. And while Safina has not won a slam (like Rafa’s AO), in the last 52 weeks she has the finals of RG, AO, Semis at Wimbledon and US Open plus a few Masters Series. On the other hand, in the last 52 weeks Rafa has the AO, semi at US Open, 4th Round at RG, and nothing at Wimbledon. So his ranking comes mainly from all of those MS events plus the olympics.

July 13th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

JCZ,

I understand what you’re saying; however, I don’t see the two situations as comparable.

Here’s why: Safina has been in gaining mode this season (as in points), except for the FO final, which she defended. Otherwise, she is where she is at because she’s accumulating more points than she’s had to defend. Murray has been the same, although from here on out for the rest of the season, he’ll have to try to defend.

By contrast, if you consider that Rafa was the defending champion at BOTH the FO and Wimbledon, and he lost in the R16 at the French and DIDN’T EVEN PLAY Wimbledon, it is absolutely STRIKING how much of a points lead that he had accumulated, as he’s only lost his number one position by a hair’s breadth and yet he’s lost a ton of points.

Meanwhile, if Fed had lost before the final at the FO and Wimbledon, and Murray had still gone deep at both, I think (?) Murray could have taken over number 2 and Federer would have been number 3. So it was crucial for Fed to do well at these slams.

When Rafa comes back he has some very good results, including one title, to defend; Fed has a slam title to defend and some weak MS events to gain at; Djoko is about medium, with good results, but no wins; Murray, as mentioned, has a lot to defend, including a MS title and slam final; Roddick stands to gain if he can pick up a title or two and go deeper (win?) at the USO; and JMDP has 4 titles to defend as well as Qs at the USO.

So at this point, it is no where near a lock as to who will be where when all is said and done in the ATP.

I suppose one could say the same about the WTA. Can Safina win there? Somehow I think not, that she’s better on clay and slow hard courts. So if Serena or Venus win maybe one could take over at number 1. However, they will have to maintain it throughout indoor season, and somehow I don’t know if they will.

July 13th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Anyone know why JMDP isn’t defending Stuttgart this week? I wonder if he’ll be at Indianapolis? I see Roddick has passed him and is sitting at number 5, but not by much. It would be interesting if they were both playing there.

July 13th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

Not only “JMDP isn’t defending Stuttgart this week,” he won’t be defending Los Angeles and a replacement event for Kitzbuhel, which is, in a way, Hamburg (or Indianapolis). So, he is not defending 3 out of his 4 titles during this period. He will be defending Washington. His plan is to make up those points from the 2 Masters, which he did not play last year.

July 14th, 2009 at 12:36 am

Xeno-Freak, thanks for the update on JMDP. I didn’t realize that he didn’t play the MS events last year. I guess the switch makes sense in that context.

July 14th, 2009 at 12:50 am

I think JMDP will finish the summer hard court season with pretty much the same amount points, if not more.

July 14th, 2009 at 10:15 am

Xeno-Freak Said:

“If I were asked, I’d vote for eliminating 250 and 500 level of tournaments and upgrading 6 masters to Slam level, which would make 10 Slams, played 1 each month in the 1st 10 months, and 2 months off season.”

I used to think like that too, especially considering how global tennis has become, but then I realized that slams are held in countries that picked up a fairly new game and made it what it is today. Tennis wouldn’t be the same if Australia, France, Britain and the USA didn’t organize these four tournaments when only aristocrats were interested in it.

The are only four slams. That’s the way it was, is and should be till the end of time.

July 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am

Kimo Says: “I think JMDP will finish the summer hard court season with pretty much the same amount points, if not more.”

I hope so. JMDP has 1700 points to defend before the USO (Stuttgart 500+ Kitzbuhel 500 + Los Angeles 350 + Washington 350 =1700). Let’s say he successfully defends Washington. He will still have 1200 more to earn before the USO. To defend all of it, he will have to reach 2 finals in the 2 Masters, or any other combination like 1 title plus 1 quarter (aprox.). Let’s give him here 2 semi or equivalent, i.e. 720 points. This brings down to 480.
He reached quarter at the USO last year. If he reaches semi at the USO, he will be able to catch up. He will cut the target to 120 points.

By Basel (10.26.09), where he reached the Semi, which comes right after Madrid’s points drop off (10.19.09), he will have 220+ 110+ 120=450 to defend. If he reaches semi at Paris, he will have defended all his points. Not a tall order, but he will have to work hard. I think after Shanghai or Masters Cup, i.e. by the end of the year, he will have defended all his points.
——————–
About the number of Slams and eliminating smaller tournaments, we just have different opinions. That’s fine.

July 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am

Jane said: “I think it’s not good to devalue all events besides slams; why not cancel the rest of the tour and just have slams then, if they’re all the pros “give a damn” about? I don’t get it.”

Perhaps I overstated it in two ways – first, the pros certainly care about Masters Series or 1000’s, and this is a measure for players since that infrastructure has been in place that can be used to measure over all career achievement, along with the slams. They are mandatory, everyone tries to qualify for them (in that way they are even more exclusive than the slams) and there are a lot of points and money associated with that.

To Von’s point about the overall titles of Laver and Connors, many of those titles were either restricted to a subset of players, not based on ranking, but on contract, and/or did not contain the full set of the top pro’s so, while their victories are a credit to them, they cannot be compared in collective desire to the slams or the masters series.

Also, the Masters Series is a creation of the ATP since it took control of professional tennis more comprehensively in 1990, and as such did not exist in the same way that they do today, again making comparisons to the titles of players who plied their trade before 1990 less reliable.

There are certain events that have always been played and highly coveted, such as the Italian Open and Monte Carlo, and various versions of a west coast Masters Series event like Indian Wells.

But again, if we had to compare the value that players place on the slams versus even the masters series – I would say if you asked a player if he would prefer to win the grand slam or sweek the all 9 masters series events, no player in professional tennis would choose the latter even though the sum total of ranking points is higher for it. They would all choose the slams.

And Serena’s effort and play in the top tier events (just below the slams) shows me that her main objective, which I would imagine is the same with all of the top pros, is to win the slams.

As an example, Andre Agassi went 26-0 in the summer of 1995, sweeping the precursor of the US Open series winning Washington, DC, Montreal, Cincinnati and New Haven, and then reached the US Open final and lost to Sampras. The result: he burned out and didn’t win another title until March of the next year and emotionally he was devasted by winning all those tournaments in the summer except for the one he really wanted, which was the US Open.

July 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am

MMT,

It sounds like Agassi just played too many events; by contrast, Serena just plays too little, or doesn’t go deep enough to win at least 1 or 2 masters series in the season, which could make the difference for her. I still wonder if it’s tougher on her to play masters because play is everyday as opposed to playing every other day and having the extra recovery time of the slams. Maybe not, but I am curious. Maybe she’ll win a couple of hard court events and that’ll give her the edge she needs she take over number 1. But she has to defend the USO title also.

July 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am

July 14th 2007

Serena Williams is at it again. Last Wimbledon she tried to trash Federer, this Wimbledon she is going after Dinara Safina. I wonder who will be the next victim.

Insecurity, I guess, or is it media attention, she wants or both. Typical of Serena Williams. She consistently provides venue for the world to see how immature she is. Since she is all important, right Serena, rules must be changed to accommodate your desire, for number one place.

Here is another example of a American tennis player, James Blake. When in 2007 Tennis Channel Open tournament, played in round robin format, James Blake was out of the tournament based on points. A hue and cry was made by his fans and by members of his entourage, infact, he and his people arrogantly called a official meeting with the tournament organizers, to reverse the decision. Rules are rules. James Blake came to the tournament knowing the rules, and should have accepted his loss, as fair.

It is despicable, that some American players behave this way and give poor name to America and tennis players who represent this America.

Most of our players are good people. Look at Bryan Brothers, win or lose, it is a fair game. Look at Andy Roddick, he has lost many and won many. The above mentioned players know, to succeed, consistent hard work is required. They desire to win and work hard towards this goal, and this is how it should be.

Ranking is based on points accrued through the year. Serena is more than aware of the rulings.

While Serena has won slams, this does not make her number one. If you take Serena’s logic than Federer should eternal number one and Nadal eternal number two. What a load of rubbish.

Dinara Safina has worked very, very hard on her game and has earned number one status. If Serena William’s wants number one place, she must play tournaments through the year.

Serena Williams, leave Dinara Safina out of your insecurities. She is a very good tennis player.

Serena William’s must learn from her sister, who is much more mature, on how not to mouth off or seek negative media attention. It is a shame that Serena William behaves this way. Remember, Serena William’s , you also represent your country when you play tennis. Think before you open your open

July 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Maverick
July 14th 2007
Serena Williams is at it again. Last Wimbledon she tried to trash Federer, this Wimbledon she is going after Dinara Safina. I wonder who will be the next victim.
Insecurity, I guess, or is it media attention, she wants or both. Typical of Serena Williams. She consistently provides venue for the world to see how immature she is. Since she is all important, right Serena, rules must be changed to accommodate your desire, for number one place.
Here is another example of an American tennis player. His name is James Blake. When in 2007 Tennis Channel Open tournament, played in round robin format, James Blake was out of the tournament based on points. A hue and cry was made by his fans and by members of his entourage, infact, he and his people arrogantly called a official meeting with the tournament organizers, to reverse the decision. Rules are rules. James Blake came to the tournament knowing the rules, and should have accepted his loss, as fair.
It is despicable, that some American players behave this way and give poor name to America and tennis players who represent this America.
Most of our players are good people. Look at Bryan Brothers, win or lose, it is a fair game. Look at Andy Roddick, he has lost many and won many. The above mentioned players know, to succeed consistent hard work is required. They desire to win and work hard towards this goal, and this is how it should be.
Ranking is based on points accrued through the year. Serena is more than aware of the rulings. While Serena has won slams, this does not make her number one. If you take Serena’s logic than Federer should eternal number one and Nadal eternal number two. What a load of rubbish.
Dinara Safina has worked very, very hard on her game and has earned number one status. If Serena William’s wants number one place, she must play tournaments through the year. Serena Williams, leave Dinara Safina out of your insecurities. She is a very good tennis player.
Serena William’s must learn from her sister, who is much more mature, on how not to mouth off or seek negative media attention. It is a shame that Serena William behaves this way. Remember, Serena William’s , you also represent your country when you play tennis. Think before you open your open

July 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Do not know what happened. Somehow my blog uploaded twice

July 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Jane,
The last rough debate in the other thread had been sitting in my head. I need to empty it out. I just finished typing it but thought I should ask you first. So, grant me the permission. Trust me it’s not that bad, even if not completely acceptable.

July 14th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Jane said: “It sounds like Agassi just played too many events; by contrast, Serena just plays too little, or doesn’t go deep enough to win at least 1 or 2 masters series in the season, which could make the difference for her.”

It’s true that Agassi stopped playing New Haven after that year, but continued playing DC (Cincinatti and Montreal – I don’t know exactly when they became required events) so when push came to shove, he dropped New Haven from his schedule in subsequent years with only DC as the “unnecessary” additional tournament leading into the US Open.

I agree that the top players care about Masters Series, but whether or not the slams are mandatory I think you’d get near complete attendance from the top players with perhaps a few exceptions. But there are some MS tournaments that I think a lot of pros would like to skip or at the very least be scheduled better relative to the slams.

Serena’s situation is extraordinary – because she is so far ahead of the field, she doesn’t really need to concern herself with her seeding, because she really doesn’t have a peer at the slams, and so her performances in the MS tournaments are almost irrelevant to her success at slams, which everyone on tour would exchange for anything they have accomplished. And because she doesn’t care about her seeding, she doesn’t really care about anything but the slams and maybe Miami which is like the 5th slam on the WTA.

I also think it’s unfair to criticise Safina for not being a genuine #1 – if anyone should be criticized it’s the WTA tour, not Safina – all she’s doing is her best. However, where things become dicey for her is when she’s constantly asked the question (in its many forms) and feels obligated to defend herself.

Nobody would care about the #1 ranking if it were called “Most Consistent Player” in the world, or something to that effect (perhaps it’s better captured as the most consistent performer). The #1 ranking gets all its gravitas from identifying (loosely or otherwise) the best player in the world, so when one person is winning all the tournaments that everyone is definitely trying to win, and someone else is ranked #1, there’s a problem.

Unfortunately, because Safina is the #1 player who isn’t (and as yet hasn’t) winning (won) slams she bears the brunt of the scrutiny, but the scrutiny really should be directed towards the tours.

To me, I would say someone should have to win at least 4 and maybe 5 MS events in a year to earn the same points as winning a slam – that way, if someone cleaned up in MS titles, but went 0-fer in the slams, they’d have to win all of them to match someone who has, won 2 slams, and there’s basically no way to surpass someone who holds 3 at at time.

Of course, there’s a whole long history associated with why the MS titles are weighted the way they are that concerns the struggle between the ATP and the ITF, but that’s for another discussion…mabye.

July 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Jane,
Don’t forget the permission, ref. my post above.

July 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Maverick, I missed it – what did Serena say against Federer at Wimbldeon – was it 2008?

July 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/13072009/58/new-wta-chief-defends-rankings-system.html

WTA chief defends ranking system.

July 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

“James Blake. When in 2007 Tennis Channel Open tournament, played in round robin format, James Blake was out of the tournament based on points. A hue and cry was made by his fans and by members of his entourage, infact, he and his people arrogantly called a official meeting with the tournament organizers, to reverse the decision. Rules are rules. James Blake came to the tournament knowing the rules, and should have accepted his loss, as fair.” — Maverick

The above is what began my disrespect for James Blake; he behaved like a petulant child, and I was embarassed on his behalf. Grow up James!

July 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

maverick: “If you take Serena’s logic than Federer should eternal number one and Nadal eternal number two.”

When and where did Serena say this ? I missed it too.

July 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

“Serena’s situation is extraordinary – because she is so far ahead of the field, she doesn’t really need to concern herself with her seeding, because she really doesn’t have a peer at the slams, and so her performances in the MS tournaments are almost irrelevant to her success at slams, which everyone on tour would exchange for anything they have accomplished. And because she doesn’t care about her seeding, she doesn’t really care about anything but the slams and maybe Miami which is like the 5th slam on the WTA.” MMT

I saw Serena being interviewed on the Tennis Channel, wherein she stated she doesn’t care about the seedings in a tournament because she can beat anyone. She’s also said the rankings are what they are, thus, it doesn’t make sense as to why she’s so peeved and persists on speaking with such lugubriosity for the ranking system and vindictiveness towards Safina.

July 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

“It is despicable, that some American players behave this way and give poor name to America and tennis players who represent this America.

“Most of our players are good people. Look at Bryan Brothers, win or lose, it is a fair game. Look at Andy Roddick, he has lost many and won many. The above mentioned players know, to succeed, consistent hard work is required. They desire to win and work hard towards this goal, and this is how it should be. — Maverick
______________________
I overlooked the above-mentioned comments, and am glad that someone recognizes that the US does have some very good, hard-working players, who are true sportsmen, and take their losses like matured adults instead of looking to put down their opponents when they lose.

July 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Von:

I find one of the problems with the complaints about the ranking system for women is that They are not specific and/or don’t really look at the allocation of points, which is the real problem. Allasters defense is devoid of any discussion of the specific allocation of points and as such, doesn’t address the issue for me.

If you say you a player holding 3 of 4 slams should be #1, it would help to explain numerically how it is that someone who wins say, Beijing, Stuttgart and Moscow (2400) could have more points than the winner of the US Open (2000).

This, by the way, is exactly how Jelena Jankovic became #1 last year, not only without winning a slam, but winning a single mandatory premier event (Rome).

And here’s another thing – take a look at the list of tournament categories and their points allocations on the WTA tour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tennis_Association#Ranking

Does anyone else find this to be byzantine? Goodness gracious – let’s just have 4 tiers and be done with it – slams, top tier, 2nd tier and 3rd tier and that’s it. I realize the doubles are mixed in with the singles, but still – of the 8 tiers above ITF events in singles – 5 of them are some type of “premier”, now I don’t know what kind of valuation systems has a majority (not even plurality, but a majority) of its tiers called “premier”, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Anyway, none of this is to criticize Safina – she’s earned her points and there’s nothing anyone can say about that – I think what bothers people is why should someone who can’t win a grand slam have the possibility of being considered the #1 player in the world – unless #1 is disassociated from being the best player in the world, in which case who the hell cares about the #1 ranking.

By the way, I don’t.

July 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

In Serena’s defense, as in Safina’s, they both get asked the question over and over again. I think she likes being called the #1 player in the world, in as much as it refers to being the best, but I believe her when she says she’d prefer to hold 3 slams than hold the #1 ranking, and I don’t think she’s alone in that assessment.

July 14th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

MMT:

“Does anyone else find this to be byzantine? Goodness gracious – let’s just have 4 tiers and be done with it – slams, top tier, 2nd tier and 3rd tier and that’s it. I realize the doubles are mixed in with the singles, but still – of the 8 tiers above ITF events in singles – 5 of them are some type of “premier”, now I don’t know what kind of valuation systems has a majority (not even plurality, but a majority) of its tiers called “premier”, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
_______________________
Ditto, and a resounding yes, I agree! Talk about mind-boggling, it’s right there. Is it any wonder the WTA players themselves encounter so much confusion with respect to their own ranking system, and the players can’t seem to figure out which tournaments will yield the the most points, thus enabling them to work with a balanced schedule. I feel the confusion is what makes some of the women over-play (Jankovic) and some don’t play enough smaller tournaments (Serena and Venus). If the system were not so complicated, maybe we’d see a more balanced field of WTA players at all of the events. I’d say an ‘OY VEY’ is very appropos here. LOL.

I have to say thank God, the ATP’s ranking system is a lot less complicated.

Anyway, be that as it may, as you’ve stated, Safina has earned her ranking points, and no one can take that away from her, and I feel that in accordance with the WTA’s ranking system which is based on points only, Safina’s deserving of the No. 1 ranking, until someone else steps up, winning tourneys on a more consistent basis, and accumulating the necessary ranking points to oust Safina. This is a situation where Serena can prove her mettle, and one she needs to recognize what’s necessary for her to be ranked the No. 1 player, learn to live with, and move on. Failing Serena’s ability to do so, I think she should pay a visit to a sports Psychologist, where her venting and frustrations could be more appropriately and efficiently alleviated, than by making herself consistently appear as one who’s jealous of Safina whenever she (Serena) speaks.

July 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

Regarding Serena, trash talk in sports will always exist. One thing’s for sure, you don’t get a boring interview with Serena. She delivers on the tennis court and in the pressers. What good is a sports interview if all the player says is “I worked hard and did my best, and my opponent did also.” Give me a break. Maybe Safina is great at Rome, Madrid and Monte Carlo. Good for her, but I don’t watch those events. I follow the French Open, Wimby, and the US open. That’s it. So if Safina is #1 for esoteric reasons, good for her, but on the flashy grand stages of Tennis, Serena rules. If she self promotes, so be it. Why shouldn’t she? This is sports people, not international diplomacy.

July 14th, 2009 at 7:31 pm

What disturbs me is that Klein guy. What the hell is his problem? 2009 and we still see extremely blatant, stupid, racist behavior in public places. Racial slurs and spitting at a player and coach because they are African. SPITTING!!

Chalking this irrational behavior up to immaturity and youth is ridiculous. There is no ‘reason’ for this.

Someone please get this rabid dog some help.

July 14th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

If you dislike the results change the rules.
You are pathetic.

July 15th, 2009 at 6:21 am

“scineram Says:
If you dislike the results change the rules.
You are pathetic.”

What results are you talking about?
Please make yourself clear instead of leaving an ambiguous, snarky comment.

Now that’s pathetic!

July 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Trust us Serena …”we are not looking at your titles” …… classy girl that one …….

July 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Voicemail1 says: “Does anyone else find this to be byzantine? Goodness gracious – let’s just have 4 tiers and be done with it – slams, top tier, 2nd tier and 3rd tier and that’s it. I realize the doubles are mixed in with the singles, but still – of the 8 tiers above ITF events in singles – 5 of them are some type of “premier”, now I don’t know what kind of valuation systems has a majority (not even plurality, but a majority) of its tiers called “premier”, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
—————————————————
OY VAY is right. And this is their “new & improved” ranking system???? Mercy! This has all the makings of a cluster as far as the fans & players are concerned. I agree that Allaster’s response is completely inadequate, blowing it off with “I think this ranking debate is not new, it has gone on for several years.” that’s exactly the point: the ranking system argument is valid & she needs to address it (yet again). My goodness, if I blew off constant criticism from clients & co-workers about a significant component of my business, I wouldn’t be in business long.

To begin with why are the Premier Mandatory & Premier 5 treated differently with regards to points? Because the ATP is not playing? Or is it solely prize money? If the former, this is too ridiculous to comment; if the latter, well the entire structure seems to be based on prize money alone. If you look at the ATP MS 1000 tourneys prize money: Miami, IW, Madrid & Beijing/Shanghai – approx $4.5mm USD; Paris, Roma, Monte Carlo, Cincinnati & Montreal – approx $3mm USD. But all are MS1000 events despite this difference in prize money. What if the WTA made the following 9 tournaments mandatory events with 1000 points awarded: Miami, IW, Madrid & Beijing/Shanghai ($4.5mm USD), Dubai, Rome, Cincinnati, Montreal, and Tokyo ($2mm USD) to begin condensing a confusing and complicated system & would begin to look more like the ATP’s less convoluted structure. I admit, I was skeptical when the ATP announced changes to their tournament designations in 2008 but the new system is clear (the # of points at stake contained in the tournament title), concise (4 tiers) & therefore easier to follow & I think the WTA can learn something from them (in more ways than one). :-)

July 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Tennisfan Says: “Trust us Serena …”we are not looking at your titles” …… classy girl that one …….”

Said it before & will say it again: the girl is pure trailer trash. I understand her frustration at the current rankings situation & being asked to comment time & time again but she does herself OR the WTA no good with catty responses along with: her ungracious behavior in defeat:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/sports/tennis/05roberts.html?_r=1&scp=140&sq=selena%20roberts,%20serena%20williams&st=cse

Her childish jealousy of the attention other women players receive which she views in unwarranted. ex: DL to SW: What is an example of “overrated” in your opinion. SW: Maria Sharapova.

I wish she would get over herself as a sex object & be satisfied as a tennis champion.

July 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

tenisbebe: MMT wrote the post on the Byzantine WTA points system not voicemale1.

I said hello to you on the other thread.

July 15th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

tenisbebe: “I wish she would get over herself as a sex object & be satisfied as a tennis champion.”

Serena is a perfect example of what ‘nouveau riche” does to some people. Their newly acquired wealth makes them think they are invincible, can walk on water, and or/ zip through the air = wonder woman. However, ‘nouveau riche’ does not mean one automatically becomes filled with ‘class’ which is innate and cannot be bought. If Serena is so great, why is it she bombs out of the smaller tourneys? Then one can assume she’s tanking them, since her emphasis is on the GS? Maybe the WTA should investigate this pattern of selectively only winning on the GS level and not so much at the lower level tournaments.

Serena knew of the ranking system when she initially became pro. It’s a simple math scenario: if a player wins a tourney = she gains points; if she loses and is defending a title = she loses points. Subtract the losses from the wins and there will either be an ascent and/or a descent in the rankings. If she plays more tournaments and consistently wins, then she’ll be coming out with a plus instead of a minus = a jump in the rankings. It’s all elementary dear Serena, elementary, and I mean elementary school math as well.

July 15th, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Thanks for the correction Von. Sorry MMT, my earlier post should have been directed to you (instead of Voicemail1):
————————————————
MMT says: “Does anyone else find this to be byzantine? Goodness gracious – let’s just have 4 tiers and be done with it – slams, top tier, 2nd tier and 3rd tier and that’s it. I realize the doubles are mixed in with the singles, but still – of the 8 tiers above ITF events in singles – 5 of them are some type of “premier”, now I don’t know what kind of valuation systems has a majority (not even plurality, but a majority) of its tiers called “premier”, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
—————————————————
OY VAY is right. And this is their “new & improved” ranking system???? Mercy! This has all the makings of a cluster as far as the fans & players are concerned. I agree that Allaster’s response is completely inadequate, blowing it off with “I think this ranking debate is not new, it has gone on for several years.” that’s exactly the point: the ranking system argument is valid & she needs to address it (yet again). My goodness, if I blew off constant criticism from clients & co-workers about a significant component of my business, I wouldn’t be in business long.

To begin with why are the Premier Mandatory & Premier 5 treated differently with regards to points? Because the ATP is not playing? Or is it solely prize money? If the former, this is too ridiculous to comment; if the latter, well the entire structure seems to be based on prize money alone. If you look at the ATP MS 1000 tourneys prize money: Miami, IW, Madrid & Beijing/Shanghai – approx $4.5mm USD; Paris, Roma, Monte Carlo, Cincinnati & Montreal – approx $3mm USD. But all are MS1000 events despite this difference in prize money. What if the WTA made the following 9 tournaments mandatory events with 1000 points awarded: Miami, IW, Madrid & Beijing/Shanghai ($4.5mm USD), Dubai, Rome, Cincinnati, Montreal, and Tokyo ($2mm USD) to begin condensing a confusing and complicated system & would begin to look more like the ATP’s less convoluted structure. I admit, I was skeptical when the ATP announced changes to their tournament designations in 2008 but the new system is clear (the # of points at stake contained in the tournament title), concise (4 tiers) & therefore easier to follow & I think the WTA can learn something from them (in more ways than one). :-)

Posted July 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

July 16th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Plain and simple: Serena Williams is not a nice person.

July 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

alright williams has a point, she made miami final early on in the season; won ao, now wimby. she should be number 1, yet its cause she doesnt have the points from previous year smaller tourneys.
A better point system could be start fresh at the beginning of the year, ranking seed positioning by last year’s end year results. That is heading into the first major.. and whoever wins tourneys gets points accordingly. thus who-ever is winning more of that year and of the Bigger tourneys gets the rank.

but eh i have hopes for safina.. lendl for instance lost/choked how many gs’s b4 gettin on a winnint spree of sorts? I think she would do better with a coach. she doesnt need one who brow-beats here like a abused wife to want to stay with him and gives her no positive vibes. She needs a coaching change, one whose positive, encourages her in mental focus in any situation and improves her serve and strength/speed.

Im rootin for the serve volleyer britton! -cheers

July 20th, 2009 at 11:21 am