A new world number one tennis player will be crowned on April 20, 2009.
The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour announced on Wednesday that Dinara Safina will debut in the top spot later this month, replacing Serena Williams.
She is only the second Russian woman, along with Maria Sharapova, to hold the World No. 1 title. Safina’s brother Marat Safin reached the ATP World Tour No. 1 ranking on November 20, 2000. Dinara and Marat Safin are the first brother-sister duo in tennis history to reach the World No.1 ranking.
“It’s a great honor to reach the No. 1 ranking and it is a dream that every girl who has ever wanted to play professional tennis shares. It is even extra special for me since my brother Marat was able to reach the No. 1 ranking and I am happy to share this achievement with him,” said Dinara Safina.
“There’s no question that while I am very proud of my results over the past year, I would have liked to reach this achievement in a different manner. I hope to prove to everyone over the coming months that I merit the honor of being World No. 1.”
The Russian sensation from Moscow will become the 19th top-ranked player in women’s tennis history, joining a distinguished list that includes Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong Cawley, Martina Navratilova, Tracy Austin, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Jennifer Capriati, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Amélie Mauresmo, Monica Seles, Steffi Graf, Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic.
Over the past 52 weeks (as of April 20), Safina has won four Sony Ericsson WTA Tour singles titles – Rogers Cup (Montreal), East West Bank Classic (Los Angeles), Qatar Telecom German Open (Berlin), and Toray Pan Pacific Open (Tokyo); and has been a runner-up five times, including the 2009 Australian Open (lost to Serena Williams) and 2008 Roland Garros (lost to Ana Ivanovic).
In addition to winning the coveted US Open Series and a silver medal at the Beijing Olympics, Safina became the first player in Tour history to defeat three reigning No.1 ranked players in the same season (Justine Henin, Maria Sharapova, Jelena Jankovic).
Safina won 44 of 54 matches to end the season and qualified for the year-end Sony Ericsson Championships in Doha, Qatar. Safina’s ranking in 2008 vaulted from No.17 to No.2, which resulted in her winning the Tour’s Most Improved Player of the Year award.
Congratulations to her, but I’m glad she’s acknowledging the fact that her recent run calls for her to show that great form she had last year to justify the move.
If anyone deserves that title, it’s Dinara Safina.
This is just the boost of confidence she needs to go on and win a GS.
What are the rankings coming to, when the winner of the last two Majors loses the #1 spot to someone who has never won a Major?
Andrew, I asked Serena about that in Miami:
If Serena had to lose the No. 1 ranking, I’m glad it was to Safina, not Jankovic, who has had a terrible season. Dinara’s recent form is a bit shaky, but she’s had several solid results over the past few months.
Still, it makes you wonder a lot about the ranking system.
Here’s an analogy: You are a student who just finished taking a really tough class. You worked hard, went to every class, wrote every paper, studied for and did well on every test, and got an A for the class. Then, one of your classmates, who shows up once in a while, aces the final, which is worth 80% of the final grade, and gets an A. Who deserves the A more?
Grand Slams are already the most heavily weighted tournaments in terms of ranking points, so the system does favor players like Serena, who has won a few of those.
I really like Dinara, I hope she shows that she deserves the title of #1. Next to Venus and Serena shes my favorite top female player on the tour.
Let me understand this correctly. The number one ranking is based on the number of tournaments you play and win. That is almost enough to make me sick, it so far away from the original concept of tennis where the the winner of the previous tournament had only to show up and play the finals to retain his number one status. Bill Tilden and Alice marbley must be turning over in thier grave.
Paula, that’s a great analogy and the best I’ve heard yet to explain the constant No. 1 ranking flux.
But that brings up an age old dilemma? :)
What matters the most—quantity or quality?
Paula may be correct but you always want the best player to be number one.
There has to be a bias in favour of quality over quantity.
I seem to remember tha Martina Hingis stayed at number one for a few years after she was no real threat at the Grand Slams by winning lots of small tournaments early in the year.
:: there is no either/or issue
:: Grand Slams earn money and public recognition, and reward precocious talent
:: WTA ranking rewards consistency
:: the really great can achieve both
:: so just enjoy, rather than involve “politics”
to PaulaV
:: my daughter works really hard and does well during the school year, but performs really badly in exams
:: my son is slack during the year, yet performs well in exams
:: same genetics (well, very similar), same influences, same schools
:: one is not better than the other :: and I can enjoy the trials, tribulations and successes of both
I actually disagree with Paula’s analogy. In essence, she’s calling the student who shows up and aces the final a slacker. It is not the student’s fault if the powers that be want to grade the final more heavily than the papers and tests. If the grand slams are weighted heavily, the other players should think smartly about their schedules and focus their goals on doing better in the slams.
I would compare the ranking points to sort of a hampster wheel, you keep going in circles with no real end until you fall off it. If a player wins a slam or a tournament this year comes back next year and successfully defends it, there’s no reward, no additional points. They only stand to lose all that they’ve worked for, each and every year. It’s enough to forget the whole thing, which is probably why the sisters concentrate more on the titles, because in the future when they retire and there are new stars in the game, no one’s going to care how they came about their ranking, but the number of tiltes and the number of slams they won.
I am happy for Dinara and she deserves the #1 ranking, but she better keep defending those titles, or else Vera and Victoria are taking over them in the near future as well.
[...] Williams She might have lost the number one ranking, but Serena Williams has been impressive over the past few months. The 2009 Australian Open [...]
I am hoping that I will make some sense. The ranking points have changed from last year. As an example, last year a GS was worth 1000 point and a Tier One was 500 points. Now a GS is 2000 points and a Mandatory Premium 1000 points. So last year the difference between the two was 500 pts and this year the difference is 1000 pts. That makes the GS’s weighted more this year. So we are still dealing with last year’s points which were weighted differently. Everyone is bringing into 2009 their 2008 points just doubled not using the weighting system. (not sure that makes sense the way I am explaining it) I think that eventually this year the ranking points will start resolving some of these issues about who is #1. Yes one still has to continually defend but when you defend you keep someone else from moving up the rankings, from getting those points. Federer had to defend points for years but managed to stay #1. Chidi, players are remembered for their weeks at #1 and if they finished the year #1 in the statistics not how they came about them. It is up there after GS and Titles. Also, I don’t remember a lot of this discussion when Kim Clijsters reached #1 in (I think) 2003 and she had not won a GS. She did not win one until 2005. I really don’t know if this makes sense except in my own brain except that the points are now weighted differently but may take awhile to show it. Thanks for your patience
Oh, the farcical absurdity of the rankings! When last we saw her, Dinara Safina, the new WTA #1 player, was trounced in the third round of the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami by Samantha Stosur in straight sets (6-1, 6-4). Bypassing tournaments in Florida (Ponte Vedra), Spain (Mirabella and Barcelona) and South Carolina (Charleston), Safina will not appear in competition until the end of April in Stuttgart. So, because an injured Serena Williams loses in two consecutive tourneys, Safina, who lost in the early going in Miami, who has avoided playing in four consecutive tournaments thereafter and who claims that she wants to prove “…that I merit the honor of being World No. 1″ has the ranking handed to her (that’s right, handed to her) with practically no effort on her part.
Yes, Safina had a superfine year in 2008 which put her in a position to win the top ranking this year in competition…but she was stopped in Australia (another demolition at the hands of Serena: 6-0, 6-3) and in Miami, quite decisively by Stosur. Underachievement? Not really. But certainly, so far this year Safina has not truly displayed the kind of form that is deserving of the top ranking.
A quick look at the win/loss statistics for the top five players in 2009 is worth noting: YTD: win/loss (in order of most wins):
Dementieva: 23/5
S. Williams: 21/4
V. Williams: 15/2
Jankovic & Safina: 14/5
The sole Grand Slam event so far this year was won by Serena Williams who also happened to win the last Grand Slam event of 2008 (US Open). Safina has never won a Grand Slam event, though she’s come close.
In all fairness there should be two distinct designations for people who reach the top ranking. The person who gets there via actual competition should have a capital “C” placed beside her name. The person who gets to the top by default (not necessarily by winning but by the losses of another player) should have a “D” placed beside her name. In this way anyone could tell at a glance exactly how the player in question arrived at the top. In addition, an asterisk (*) should be placed next to any “#1″ player who hasn’t won a Grand Slam.
And just to alter the earlier analogy somewhat: the “testing” for the “class” that is the WTA tour actually consists of two very difficult types of exams. The first is the “written” part (most of the tournaments) of the “testing”. These “tests” occur frequently throughout the year and because they are so numerous they are valued less individually. While a certain number of “written” tests must be passed to achieve a good grade, some may be skipped. So, the “student” who takes them all and passes may have a slightly better “grade point average” than the student who doesn’t test as often. However, the second part of the “testing” or the “oral” portion (the Grand Slams) is a much more grueling challenge. The “orals” are held only four times during the year and carry a much higher value than the “written” tests; the “orals” are mandatory and the “students” are really put through their paces in this section of the testing; the students must utilize all they have learned during these fierce “oral” trials: they must not choke during the “oral” exams for they are the true test of a “student’s” acumen. The “oral” tests (or the Grand Slams) really determine who makes it to the top of the “dean’s list” and who merely receives honorably mention.
Is it that the Grand Slam tournaments are that much more difficult to play than other tournaments, or is it that there is a heightened sense of pressure, and simply much more at stake?
I would say the Grand Slams are a truer test of mental fitness.
I agree with the last post by Paula. The GS’ are just one more match than IW and Miami. For that one match more, a player gets more time- 2 weeks for the whole event. And as for the women they still only play 3 sets. So there is really not a whole lot of difference for getting 1000 points more than the next highest tournament. I think the pressure is mental-pressure especially from media and just the players themselves. The men step it up for their extra 1000 points and money by playing 5 sets.
PaulaV: You answer the first part of your last reply with the second part of your last reply. Any condition, circumstance, or “heightened sense of pressure” that places an added burden (either physical or mental or both) on the players during a tournament increases the level of difficulty during the tournament.
At Melbourne, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Flushing all of the top players arrive not merely for the money but for the opportunity to participate in the ongoing prestige of these singular events and, by winning a championship, become part of their grand legacy. And it is precisely because all the best players arrive ready to do battle at these four very special tourneys that the greatest competitive challenge occurs. Just one more match?! Hardly. A championship at a Grand Slam carries a unique aura! Just ask Venus Williams if Wimbledon is just one more match.
I’m certainly not implying that GS’s are just one more match…I’m acknowledging that there is more pressure and more at stake in a GS tournament than others. But for the women (as Sunny points out, they still only play three sets), and usually play against the same people in the top 10 when they get deep into the tournament (Miami being the exception!)
With the added pressure and potential rewards at GS’s, players will try to step up their mental game. With the added mental pressure, players will undoubtedly step up their physical game as well. So I do agree that the level of difficulty is greater at GS tournaments, but I believe that it is more weighted on the mental side.
I’m sure you recall the Rafa/Federer epic Wimbledon final from last year – that win boiled down to mental toughness in my opinion. Or maybe Rafa can just see better in the dark…who knows.
Either way, I still get chills thinking about it.
Please don’t mistake my comments as being nonchalant about GS tournaments. I agree with you on their unique aura.
PaulaV: The second part of my last reply was directed at Sunny and should have been designated appropriately (sorry about that).
On the mental/physical issue, I sometimes believe that people view a tennis match as less of an athletic competition that often requires sudden explosive bursts of running, twisting, turning, leaping and lunging (especially at the professional level) and more as a sedate, cerebral test of wills on the order of a chess match. This, of course, is patently absurd. To be able to stand around, let alone run around, a tennis court for hours and hours as Rafa and Roger did requires extraordinary physical fitness. And in truth, you can have all the determination in the world but if the body is ailing, if the legs don’t move, if the stamina is not there, if you can’t position your body properly or move to the ball in time, all your mental preparation will go up in smoke. (And Rafa was, in all likelihood, in a little better physical condition than Roger). The mind is critical for planning. The body is absolutely essential for executing those plans. If the body falters your game falters.