Jelena Jankovic ascended to the top of the tennis crop in 2008, yet not without her critics. Among them was Swiss maestro Roger Federer, who condemned the WTA rankings system for crowning an ‘unworthy’ champion.
For all her successes last year, Jankovic failed to win a Grand Slam. Excuse me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t that make her achievement all the more spectacular? The Slams are the richest sources for ranking points, yet Jankovic slugged it out on the Tier I and II stages, accruing points the hard way.
Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic, and Venus and Serena Williams were all victorious at each respective major, yet none finished as the season ending top ranked player. Despite their coveted triumphs, they cooled off when Jankovic burned brightly. These champions failed to consistently find their rhythm week in and week out, instead showing only short bursts of brilliance.
So why do they deserve the top ranking more so than Jankovic, who was a force at almost every tournament she entered?
The Serbian starlet is one of the most dramatic and emotional players on tour. She energizes the crowd with her on-court antics, and fights till her last heaving breath. In the opener at the 2008 Australian Open, she prevailed in a cliffhanger against teenage prodigy Tamira Paszek. Jankovic produced supernatural shotmaking when down match points, later acknowledging that her Houdini-like groundstrokes were “gifts from God”. A match involving this trailblazer is sports entertainment at its finest, surely she deserved the glory of world number one?
For the remainder of the year, Jankovic proved that she’s the player with the greatest versatility. She became runner-up on the grueling fast US hardcourts in Miami and at Flushing Meadows.
She won in Rome on the tricky clay, defied the pollution en route to the Beijing title, and racked up consecutive indoor championships in Moscow and Stuttgart. The tenacious counter-puncher finished up the year with a fearsome 65-19 win-loss record, winning more matches than anyone else in 2008.
So why shouldn’t she have been number one?
Jankovic also enjoyed breakout wins last season. She crushed defending Australian Open champion Serena Williams in Melbourne, swept past juggernaut Venus Williams not once but twice in Rome and Zurich, and annihilated compatriot Ana Ivanovic at the Tour Championships in Doha.
Maria Sharapova withdrew before her encounter with Jankovic in Rome, thereby handing the Serbian an official victory and a clean sweep of wins over the four Grand Slam champions of 2008. Again, why shouldn’t she have been number 1?
Despite falling to world number three after a mauling by Frenchwoman Marion Bartoli at the 2009 Australian Open, Jankovic is still within striking range of returning to number one. She is one of the most consistent baseliners from the past decade, a superb defender with a wondrous underrated backhand.
No other player since the legendary Martina Hingis has had the fortitude to compete with such intensity in so many tournaments. Jelena Jankovic is an icon of the game for her glamour, guile and grit.
Robert Edward Smith is a freelance writer from Melbourne, Australia.
You pull out all the stops in this defence of Jelena.
I must admit I have found some of Roger’s comments recently a bit mystifying (on Djokovic’s retiral at AO, on Murray as favorite for AO, and this). Perhaps he feels the obliged to interject on the basis of being something of a respected statesman in the sport. Still..
Great text, I agree with everything you wrote here!
Especially with this: “Jelena Jankovic is an icon of the game for her glamour, guile and grit.”
I can’t tell if Federer’s beef is with Jelena specifically, or he simply doesn’t agree with the ranking system on the WTA tour. If it’s the ranking system, then he should not single out any one particular player. He should take on the WTA. Jelena has no control over how ranking points are distributed.
As long as the rankings are defined by the ranking system of points then there should be no speculation regarding who is no. 1 or who should be whatever no. The rankings are built on points and if a person like Jankovic is consistent and she earns the points then she is no. 1. The Williams sisters, who many commentators say are the “real” no. 1 and 2, are being made to play more tennis this year-Serena to keep no. 1 and Venus to bring her ranking up. You should have to play well throughout the year to be ranked high. Otherwise tennis is just determined by 4 tournaments. People comment that the GS is different because you have to win 7 matches. But you get days off during those matches. When Jankovic won back to back last year or Dementieva did this year, that took more matches in a row or maybe one or two days off between tournaments than a GS.
Jankovic had a great 2008, but you can’t rule a year without winning a Major. Personally, if I was having the year Jankovic had in 2008, I would have asked the WTA to remove me from the rankings for as long as I had more points than anyone else, because I’d hate to go down in history as a Majorless #1.
That said, it was pretty classless of Federer to trash-talk Jankovic and his fellow ATP players. He has become arrogant since losing the #1 ranking.
Undoubtedly, Jelena Jankovic was the year-end number one player. She deserved that position, as she played well throughout the year.
However, she did not rule the year. She performed consistently: two Grand Slam semis and a final, 4 tournament titles, etc. But tennis is a sport of tradition, and Grand Slams are what are remembered. She did not win a Grand Slam title.
Furthermore, Jankovic’s 4 tournament titles is 2 fewer than the record-minimum wins by Davenport and Henin as the year-end number one’s title count. That is not a dominant champion.
Finally, moments of brilliance, as displayed by the Grand Slam champions of 2008, are more important (in tennis history) than weeks and weeks of consistency.
I think, in the long history of tennis, the Grand Slams have been the pinnacle of the game. However, in today’s game, it’s about who’s going to survive the long and arduous season.
Grand Slams certainly are important, but I enjoy tennis for the entire year, and so do many fans. The Premiere tournaments are gaining more and more respect. At Indian Wells for instance, we will see a player field that will mimic that of a Grand Slam.
Jankovic won Moscow, which a Williams sister has never won, she won in Beijing, again a tournament where a Williams has never claimed the winners prize. I think the new breed of players, Jankovic, Safina, Ivanovic, Azarenka and co. might not be able to beat a determined Serena or Venus Williams when they’re in top form, but these girls will survive, move on and bring a new brand of consistency to the game.
After all, Serena has entered four events this year and only won one, and Venus suffered that shock loss at the Australian Open in the second round. Will be interesting to see how Sharapova performs in her comeback. My tip is that she won’t be the player she once was.
Importance of a no. 1 ranking:
Has any singles player been elected to the Hall of Fame w/o having won a single major (excluding doubles [and doubles specialists] of which, by the way, jankovich has only won one)?
Just asking….
Roger is a great champion and all, but to me he’s really worn out his welcome now. The thing about a dominating player is that they start to get annoying in that regard. Now he has the nerve to criticize in his comments. I just can’t like the guy anymore. I really hope his major slump continues. lol
The game of tennis has changed with the arrival of the power game, new technology with equipment, the all surface game, more lucrative tournaments and a long season. The players are going to have to pace themselves. The days of being able to play,let alone win, all these tournaments are going to go by the wayside if a player plans on sticking around for the long haul. Look at Jankovic in 2009 (not so good). Last years schedule is taking it’s toll already. Serena may have played 4 events already this year and only won one but it was the biggest one and she made it to the semis of all the others. Do you honestly think Jankovic is going to be able to defend all those points? She is already is going backwards.
When a slamless player is #1 there is a clear distinction between the #1 ranked player and the best female baller on the planet. The fact that they are not always one and the same is a little disturbing.
Serena and Venus are in it for the history now. History recognizes GRAND SLAM TITLES.
They’ll be two of the legends of the game certainly, but they didn’t rule 2008, as I stated in my article. Jankovic did, and she became the number 1 ranked player as a result. Simple. I believe Jankovic was the ‘best’ player of last year, and so did the official WTA rankings.
But “rule” has a strong connotation of dominance. Jankovic was the number one player of last year, according to the official WTA rankings, no doubt. However, if she did rule, it was a rather meek reign.
Lisa:“The game of tennis has changed with the arrival of the power game, new technology with equipment, the all surface game, more lucrative tournaments and a long season. The players are going to have to pace themselves. The days of being able to play,let alone win, all these tournaments are going to go by the wayside if a player plans on sticking around for the long haul.”
In another cyber-life, I dubbed the futile quest of playing for “no. 1″ to the exclusion of what has heretofore been the most meaningful achievement in tennis-winning a slam(s) endavouring to negotiate the “Hamster Run” or run yourself ragged, in the face of the changes to the game you’ve mentioned, for what has become, by itself, a virtually a meaningless achievement.
Let me wax Hobbesian: Life on the “hamster run,” for an elite female player is almost guaranteed, in this present day and age, to be nasty, brutish and short.
(my apologies–the above should have read:)
In another cyber-life, I dubbed the futile quest of playing for “no. 1? to the exclusion of what has heretofore been the most meaningful achievement in tennis-winning a slam(s)- endeavouring to negotiate the “Hamster Run” or run yourself ragged, in the face of the changes to the game you’ve mentioned, for what has become, by itself, a virtually meaningless achievement.
Let me wax Hobbesian: Life on the “hamster run,” for an elite female player is almost guaranteed, in this present day and age, to be nasty, brutish and short.
A well-written, engaging and topical piece Robert!
Jankovic definitely deserved the number one ranking for her consistency, as no other woman on tour was able to consistently produce great results across the entire season. Even if people believe Jankovic didn’t deserve this position, can they name someone who they felt deserved it ahead of her?
2008 was one of the most even and non-dominated years in WTA Tour history. There were several women who could claim “best in the world” status:
- Jelena (most match wins and titles)
- Venus (winner at Wimbledon and WTA Champs)
- Serena (winner at US Open and Miami, runner up at Wimbledon)
- Dinara (three Tier One titles, French Open and Olympic runner up)
- Ana (French Open and Indian Wells champ, runner up at Australian open)
With the game’s biggest prizes and accolades being shared among many top players, this proves that nobody “ruled” the tour as Robert wrote.
To settle ranking disputes, the WTA needs to re-introduce quality points to its system (the awarding of points for beating highly-ranked players) in addition to tournament points. This will better reward players who consistently beat players of high calibre.
The second thing the WTA needs to do is begin dividing total ranking points by the number of tournaments played. This will have a two-pronged effect: The system will reward quality over quantity, and will discourage players from playing too many tournaments (which leads to injury and burnout) because no longer will it be an effective tactic to play heaps of events, accrue thousands of points and inflate one’s ranking.
It must be said that Serena is unequivocally the No. 1 at the moment (having reached the last three major finals and winning two). This debate should end now following her ascent to top spot.
Players used to attain points by beating higher ranked players, such as a top ten player or so forth, but that was shelved mainly because it wasn’t a fair system, some players may be unlucky not to draw top ten players regularly, even though they may have had the weapons to beat them. I remember Sharapova didn’t get many points for her Wimbledon win in 2004 because she didn’t face many top ranked players in the early rounds.
I don’t think the WTA will try and encourage less participation in tournaments, they have got their eyes on the dollar, expanding into new cities with new tournaments etc, which isnt a bad thing, because it is building the WTA tour into an even greater superpower.
As for Serena being the ‘best’, I think thats again up for debate, after Venus elevated to another level in Dubai in that third set tiebreak. Venus is the undisputed champion at Wimbledon, and had she survived against Suarez-Navarro at the Australian Open, I think she would have went on to claim the title. Venus could very well be a greater legend of the game than Serena.
Federer did not actually “condemn” the WTA; he was actually rather careful in what he said. Fans, however, have been brutal in their remarks about the ranking system.
I am a Jelena fan, but even if I were not, I personally don’t have a problem with someone’s becoming number 1 without having won a major. But I do understand why many people do.
Hilarious subjective boosterism (the kind of thing you might read on a tennis website “message board” from a rabid fan). So, Robert Edward Smith, you’re a fan of Jelena’s. Fine. She did indeed have a very solid year in 2008. But as Matt cooly and brilliantly pointed out in his response (nice going Matt; you beat me to the punch by at least 12 hours) the “wins” were evenly distributed; and when it came to Grand Slam wins Jankovic was conspicuous by her absence.
The Jankovic Strategy was and is very simple to understand: play in many more of the lesser tourneys, rack up the points in the lesser tourneys where you’re less likely to meet other players in the top twenty, and even when you do meet a player of equal or greater talent, finish higher in the draw as a semi-finalist or finalist. If you’re a very good player with a highly adaptable game as Jankovic is this goal is not impossible. You can win consistently this way. You can reach number one. Plenty of “quantity” in this strategy, but the “quality” of the wins can be called into question.
Grand Slams are another thing entirely. Suddenly the field is crowded with too many talented competitors (and suddenly the fatigue from playing in all those lesser tourneys can catch up with you). As in any sport, if you don’t win the big ones ( the Heavyweight Championship, the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Masters or The US Open in golf, the Indy 500, the Stanley Cup in hockey, etc.) you’re lucky if you receive even grudging respect from fans and professionals. Of course Roger snorted at Jankovic’s “#1″ status! He and many others (those who aren’t rabid fans of J.J.) recognize the limitations of Jankovic’s 2008 achievement. You’ve got to win (at least) one Grand Slam to have true credibility. The Grand Slams are the true test of your talents because that is (usually) where the greatest competitive challenge lies. Roger Federer knows this. And so does every serious observer of the sport. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
2008 was a high point for Jankovic in terms of consistent wins and accumulating points; it was still a low point in terms of (Grand Slam) credibility. She did not rule (certainly not at the Grand Slams); she just won alot.
Factual error: While Jelena did indeed win 2008 titles in Rome, Bejing, Stuttgart and Berlin, she did not sweep past Venus Williams in Zurich, as you stated. The 2008 winner in Zurich was, in fact, Venus Williams. And as Matt pointed out, shortly after Zurich Venus won the Tour Championships in Doha; and awhile before Zurich she won that little old grass tournament held annually at the All England Club.
I’m actually not the greatest fan of Jankovic, but I pay credit where it’s due.
Factual error indeed, but a minor factual error, as she did sweep past Venus twice, the second time it was just in the Stuttgart semifinals, not at Zurich. Jankovic still beat the Grand Slam champs throughout the year, she was formidable on all surfaces.
Clearly many people think she shouldn’t have been number one, but that makes the topic all the more fascinating. All of her title victories were at Tier II level or greater, I wouldn’t exactly call them lesser tournaments.
Thanks for the kind words Wilson!
Robert you have indeed presented a fascinating topic that has produced a wide variety of opinions – the sign of an intriguing piece. Nothing gets me going more than the women’s ranking system, besides that other old chestnut concerning equal prizemoney (which I wholly support!!)
However, I must disagree with your assessment of Venus. Her good week in Dubai will certainly not convince me that there is debate surrounding the world’s best player. Granted, she now holds the Wimbledon, WTA Championships and Dubai titles – three extremely prestigious events – but outside of these her form has been patchy, sporadic and inconsistent, and her loss to Suarez Navarro in Melbourne falls into this category. Not the hallmarks of the world’s best player, I must say! Serena very rarely falls early in a major, whereas Venus has exhibited this trait on several occasions.
You raise good points about Jankovic record against fellow top players – she did indeed defeat Venus on a few occasions, and certainly made Serena work hard in a couple of big finals throughout 2008 (as well as beating her in Australia). She also had a good record against the top Russians. Another sign that she was a fairly deserving number one.