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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.