There have been many heated debates lately about the WTA’s No. 1 ranking. Specifically, how can Dinara Safina be ranked No. 1 and Serena Williams No. 2, after Serena won 2 Grand Slams this year, and Dinara has yet to win any?
On the other hand, how can Serena lose in the 1st round of 3 consecutive tournaments, not win any tournaments outside of this year’s Grand Slams, and still hold her No. 2 ranking position? These questions simply feed into the most heated debate of them all: Who is the best female tennis player in the world?
According to the WTA’s ranking system, the answer is all in the numbers.
How It Works
The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour ranking system is a rolling, 52-week, cumulative system. Ranking points are accrued based on results from the highest round a player reaches in a WTA or ITF tournament, or tournaments which have prize money of $10k or more. The WTA Tour caps a player’s best 16 singles tournament results and best 11 doubles tournament results for one season. The term “rolling” simply means that there are some ranking points that carry over from the previous season. For example, Serena Williams’ ranking points from the 2008 US Open have carried over to 2009. Once she completes the 2009 US Open, her 2008 ranking points will be replaced by the new ones.
WTA Ranking Point Distribution for Singles and Doubles
Grand Slams – 2,000 points
Premier Mandatory – 1,000 points
Premier 5 – 800 points
Premier 700 – 470 points
International – 280 points
The Top-10 Has a Ranking System All Its Own
When a new top-10 player participates in Premier 5 tournaments (Dubai, Rome, Cincinnati, Toronto, and Tokyo), those tournaments take on a whole new meaning. Once a top-10 player has 2 Premier 5 tournaments on her record, any other Premier 5 tournament results from the same season can replace her first 2 Premier 5 tournament results, as long as the results are better. Only a player’s 2 best Premier 5 tournament results are included in her ranking. When it comes to Dinara Safina’s record, she must count her ranking points for her 1st round loss in Dubai, unless her results from the upcoming Cincinnati or Toronto tournaments prove better than Dubai.
When Zero Counts
Any player who qualifies (by ranking) for acceptance into the Main Draw of Grand Slams, Premier Mandatory events or the Sony Ericsson Championships, has the benefit of Automatic Main Draw entry into those events. The down side? Any player who is automatically entered and then withdraws or fails to play, receives 0 ranking points for that tournament, which counts on her ranking as one of her best 16 tournament results. In addition, any top-10 player (or marquee player) who fails to play in a Premier $700 Commitment Tournament receives 0 ranking points for the tournament. For example, Serena Williams currently has 2 mandatory zero-point tournaments that count toward her 16 best tournament results. This rule does not apply to players who do not qualify for Automatic Main Draw entry.
Defending Points and Bonus Points
The idea of “defending points” works this way: If a player reaches the semifinal in the same tournament two years in a row, then she would be “defending her points.” A case in which this would not apply would be the 2008 Olympics.
Bonus points simply do not exist in the WTA ranking system. Bonus prize money, on the other hand, does exist. The Olympus US Open Series awards bonus points (not ranking points) based on player performance at each of the US Open Series tournaments. This puts the top male and female players in a position to win an extra $1 million in prize money at the US Open.
Breaking Down the Numbers
Dinara Safina No. 1
2009 tournaments played to date: 13
2009 Tournament Results and Ranking Points Accrued:
Sydney (Premier 700) – Final –Ranking Points: 320
Australian Open (Grand Slam) – Final – Ranking Points: 1,400
Dubai (Premier 5) – 1st Round – Ranking Points: 1
Indian Wells (Premier Mandatory) – QF – Ranking Points: 250
Miami (Premier Mandatory)- 3rd Round – Ranking Points: 80
Stuttgart (Premier 700) – Final – Ranking Points: 320
Rome (Premier 5) – Winner – Ranking Points: 800
Madrid (Premier Mandatory): Winner – Ranking Points: 1,000
Roland Garros (Grand Slam) – Final – Ranking Points: 1,400
‘s-Hertogenbosch (International) – SF – Ranking Points: (Not Counting)
Wimbledon (Grand Slam) – SF – Ranking Points: 900
Portoroz (International) – Winner – Ranking Points: 280
Los Angeles (Premier 700) – 3rd Round – Ranking Points: 60 (Not Counting)
2008 Roll-Over Ranking Points: (As of August 10)
Olympics – Beijing (Silver) Ranking Points: 490
US Open (Grand Slam) SF Ranking Points: 900
Tokyo (Premier 5) Winner – Ranking Points: 860
Stuttgart (Premier 700) QF – Ranking Points (Not Counting)
Moscow (Premier 700) SF – Ranking Points: 390
Tour Championships –Round Robin- Ranking Points: 210
Total Ranking Points: 9,601 (As of August 10)
Points from Grand Slams: 4,600
Points from Tour Events: 5,001
Serena Williams No. 2
2009 tournaments played to date: 11
2009 Tournament Results and Ranking Points Accrued:
Sydney (Premier 700) – SF – Ranking Points: 200
Australian Open (Grand Slam) – Winner – Ranking Points: 2,000
Paris (indoors) – (Premier 700) SF – Ranking Points: 200
Dubai (Premier 5) – SF – Ranking Points: 350
Miami (Premier Mandatory) – Final – Ranking Points: 700
Marbella (Premier Mandatory) – 1st Round – Ranking Points: 1
Rome (Premier 5) – 2nd Round (1st Round bye) – Ranking Points: 1
Madrid (Premier Mandatory) – 1st Round – Ranking Points: 5
Roland Garros (Grand Slam) – QF – Ranking Points: 500
Wimbledon (Grand Slam) – Winner – Ranking Points: 2,000
Stanford (Premier 700) – QF– Ranking Points: 120
2008 Roll-Over Ranking Points: (As of August 10)
Olympics – Beijing – QF – Ranking Points: 180
US Open (Grand Slam) Winner – Ranking Points: 2,000
Stuttgart 2r (l. in 2r after 1r bye) – Ranking Points: 1
Tour Championships –Round Robin – Ranking Points: 370
Tournaments Not Played in 2009:
Indian Wells (Premier Mandatory) – Ranking Points: 0
Charleston (Premier 700) – Ranking Points: 0
Total Ranking Points: 8,628 (As of August 10)
Points from Grand Slams: 6,500
Points from Tour Events: 2,128
These questions are sure to fan the flames of the No. 1 ranking debate: Does the WTA’s ranking system have a winning formula? Is it appropriate to judge a top-ranked WTA player based exclusively on her success in Grand Slam tournaments?
Paula Vergara is an experienced tennis journalist, who has worked as a regular contributor to On the Baseline Tennis News, USTA New England Magazine, and New England Sports Magazine. To view her work, visit her blog at www.paula-vergara.blogspot.com.
Great explanation, Paula!
After looking over the points, it’s fairly easy to see WHY Serena’s not No. 1 any longer.
Pulling out of Indian Wells cost Serena big time under the new Roadmap policy, plus losing early in Madrid and Rome put her nearly 2,000 points behind Safina. With those kinds of numbers, not even winning a major can help you catch up.
As for your questions, it’s hard to answer those! Clearly, players are remembered for Grand Slam wins, but when you are playing week-in-week-out on the Tour, you can’t focus on the legacy you are leaving behind.
The Grand Slams are already heavily weighted, but you still have to reward the players who consistently achieve high points over the entire season, versus someone who only shows up to play their best tennis three or four times a year.
I don’t give the WTA ranking-system any credibility when it can rank Majorless Safina at #1 and three-time Major champion Maria Sharapova at #49.
It needs to be replaced with an exponential-decay model (points would fade gradually rather than come off after a year), with much more emphasis on winning Majors.
I know probably 1% of Tennis and follow just about that much.
I dare say most people like me, only get to see, thus follow Tennis at Majors.
It is absolutely ridiculous, to then have to hear let alone see so-called-No1′s ripped into pieces.
Tennis is just about the only sport that still manages this.
I dont care how it should be done, @ majors, the most formidable players must bear the proper street ranking, only then can this debate stop.
No one is prepared to spend so much time figuring out how the ranking works, when the game asks for so much explanation as is already to be decently enjoyed.
done.
I follow a lot more tennis than I get to see!
For Safina-Why don’t the following count:
2009
s-Hertogenbosch (International)
Los Angeles (Premier 700)
2008
Stuttgart (Premier 700)
Thanks
Because they are not among her ‘best’ 16 results from the last 52 weeks.
Exactly right, Andrew. Thanks.
What’s annoying, as Peter Bodo says, is that we are still talking about the rankings. Fans will root for who they like and will believe what they want. This discussion has been going on since April. I, for one, think Safina will hold on to that ranking till the end of the year; she deserves it, end of story, especially given the way Serena plays inbetween slams.
Serena is not #1 on paper (and certainly didn’t even look like #2 in Cincy), but there is a reason why all the players want a win over Serena, and why they fear her no matter her ranking because Serena has shown that slam or not, a Serena that shows up to play mind and body is an unbeatable Serena.
It’s the same ranking that has never placed Kuznetsova as #1 in the world, despite having 2 slams, it’s the way it is, so let’s give the rankings a rest already.
When you’re winning Majors, how you do on the WTA Tour is irrelevant. A true #1 would be able to beat Serena in a Major final. Safina got 3 games.
Good point, Andrew. But Serena has a tendency to take 1 or 2 weeks off before a Grand Slam, so she arrives focused and well rested. For example, she skipped this year’s entire grass court season that lead up to Wimbledon. Her results showed.
Dinara almost never takes time off before a Grand Slam. Since she usually does well in smaller tournaments, she usually only has 1-2 days to recover before a GS. But Dinara’s mental challenges have been her greatest opponent, and interfere with her ability to win the big matches. I thought Dinara would have had a better chance of having a tree fall on her than losing the this year’s French Open, but again, she let her nerves and self doubt get the best of her.
what grass court season? There are two weeks between french open and wimbledon. Everyone should take it off because that’s plain ridiculous.
Admittedly, the grass court season is short, Chidi, but a lot of players need those two weeks to adjust to the drastic surface difference . . . unless of course, their last name is Williams.
Yet Serena practices for it on Hard courts in Miami, and has won 3 titles at Wimbledon. So that’s a formula that works for her. Saying she skipped the entire season might lead one to think that she missed 4-5 weeks. I agree she does tend to take time off before the slams, but I don’t recall it being for more than a week generally. I just think it’s funny to call a two week period before a slam event that lasts 2 weeks for a grand total of 4 weeks a “season” :)
Safina is taking a week off before the slams same as the other top players, let’s hope the results show?
I want to begin by saying thank you, Paula, for clearly explaining the WTA ranking system. Hopefully, it is still a work in progress, and will be rectified to reflect who the “real No. 1″ should be (whoever that is).
I also wanted to make several observations, based upon my background as an educator (I am a Sport Management professor). First, if I were to use such a convoluted system to determine grades, the students would be up in arms. Besides which it would take me forever to determine the grades at the end of the semester! Second, if I could liken the current system to the classroom, Safina’s No. 1 ranking would be comparable to a student who receives B’s and C’s on all major assignments, yet never misses class, and therefore ends up with the highest grade in the course. Meanwhile, another student scores 100 on 3 major assignments, yet receives a B or C in the class because of absences. The final grade may not seem fair in either case, but it depends on what is rewarded–attendance, or talent and performance? Clearly, the categories determine how each event and round is weighted.
On that note, I have one question: what was the rationale for including Indian Wells, Madrid and Miami as Premier-Mandatory tournaments? I got the impression that it had to do with whether the tournament offered equal prize money to men and women.
Only a computer can work out the complicated ranking points system. Impossible to do it manually.
A similar complicated ranking points system puts Andy Murray on numner 2 position despite not holding any Grand Slam title and Nadal is the holder of the Australian Open title.
Man how hard can it be to understand? The more a player plays and does well, the ranking value goes up. So you can be #1 winning all the slams and big ones, or you can be #1 never winning a slam but winning a couple big ones and many smaller ones. This same **** debate was raging when poor Hingis was #1 for so long. I see no problem with being rewarded for working hard (winning) outside the **** slams. lol
Nancy – great analogy. It’s the quantity vs. quality debate.
To answer your question, the premier mandatory tournaments are in place to benefit fans, TV broadcasts, and tournament directors/organizers. It offers a “guarantee” that the top 10 players will have to face one another in those four tournaments. There are penalties in place to make it difficult to back out. Although, there is a giant loophole. If a top 10 player misses one of the mandatory tournaments (ex. Williams sisters/Indian Wells), they just have to do some promotional appearances to fulfill their tournament obligation, and to avoid penalties. Why did the WTA choose those particular locations? I’m sure it has something to do with the $4.5 million in equal prize money.
I agree with moot and others – the finer details of the ranking system may be complicated, but the outcome seems pretty fair. Dinara Safina is a deserved No.1 based on the last 12 months performance on the WTA Tour, and Serena should stop complaining and instead try to win some matches outside the Slams, especially during the clay court season (she was 5-5 this year; Safina was 20-2), if she wants to be #1.
Much have been of Safinas big loss to Venus in the Wimbledon semis, but I’m pretty sure the result would have been near reversed, if they had met on red clay at Roland Garros. That’s hypothetical, of course, because Venus lost so early in that Slam, but the fact is that all the recent head-to-heads between Safina and the Williamses have been on hard court or grass, because Serena and Venus almost never reach the later stages of the clay tournaments where they might meet Safina (and loose). So instead of shaming Safina for loosing finals and semifinals at the Slams, we should give her credit for going deep in most tournaments – even on her least favorite surfaces.
It’s important for the sport to not pay too much attention to the grand slams.
Even though history makes them the most prestigious, if the WTA does not reward tournaments outside the slams it makes a mockery of the sport.
Should we change the ranking system?
The #1 ranking should be determined solely by who has won the most Majors in the last 52 weeks, with all other tournaments and non-champion finishes at the Majors used only to break ties between players who have won the same number of Majors.
It does not seem right to consider player rankings just based on results at the Slams (this year or past years). Anyone who plays competitively knows that a person’s tennis game is always in flux. Even Roger and Rafa lose occasionally. It is cumulative results over a period of time that are the best representation of someone’s level/ability and ultimately ranking. Slams are great tests and points are awarded accordingly. Wins (even round wins) at smaller tournaments add up.
Everyone out there playing knows the rules/rankings and are equally held by them. Serena could be number one if she played more tournaments. Maria is ranked where she is because she’s been “out sick” and others have passed her. Am I being too simplistic?
I agree with Karen, slams shouldn’t only count. And as to Paula’s breakdown of the rankings, Charleston is not a mandatory event that count towards Serena’s 16, is it? Yes, she failed to defend those points because of an injury, but if she should do well at another premier event such as Roger’s, her points would count toward the 16 and Charleston may be dropped, or isn’t that the way it works?
Plus Serena lost about 500 points or more from Bangalore because it was taken off the roadmap. Even though Safina has worked hard and showed consistency since getting to #1, and her hardwork placed her in the position to get there, she only got there because of a series of unfortunate events for Serena. Bangalore points, injury stopping her from defending Miami and Charleston and losing early in Andalucia and Madrid.
People keep talking about this heated debate and Serena complaining, but when Serena first said what she said about the rankings, it was because the points worked out the way it did, and not because Safina had actually taken the #1 ranking from Serena by playing or winning a title (like Jelena did in 2008). This debate is only being sparked by reporters and commentators who keep talking about it, not by the players themselves. It’s just to keep Tennis relevant beyond scoreboards, so I don’t understand where people keep saying Serena should stop complaining about the ranking.
Childi – Charleston is a Premier $700 Commitment tournament. Sorry if the word “mandatory” was misleading in that particular part of the breakdown.
Here’s the way it works: Any top 10 player who fails to play in a Premier Mandatory or Premier $700 Commitment tournament will receive 0 ranking points, and those points will count towards her best 16 tournament results.
When it comes to Premier 5 tournaments (Dubai, Rome, Cincinnati, Toronto, and Tokyo), only 2 tournament results will count towards a player’s ranking (the best 2). You can’t replace a Premier $700 tournament result with a Premier 5 tournament result in rankings, but you can replace one Premier 5 with another Premier 5, as long as the results are better.
Thanks Paula
Steve – great point about Andy Murray not having GS title under his belt. If he doesn’t win a GS during the next year, and remains at No. 2, or manages to take over the top spot, he will be feeling the heat, for sure.
sorry to say but it was either rome or madrid were Venus pushed Safina to three but was just not able to close the match out. I think its not that safina doesn’t deserve the no. 1 spot its just that players like dementieva, Kuznetsova, Serena and Venus just appears better than her, especially her record against the Williams especially Serena is what puts that doubt in people,i think that if it wasn’t Serena at no. 2, Safina would not be critisized.
Dennis,
Yes, it was in Rome this year that Venus faced Dinara in the semis, and lost to Dinara 6-7(3) 6-3 6-4. Dinara went on to beat Svetlana Kuznetsova in the final. Dinara did not face Venus in Madrid.
There will be a few other players who will be nipping at Dinara’s heels in the coming year: Kim Clijsters, Melanie Oudin, and Caroline Wozniacki. It will be interesting to see if Dinara can successfully defend her No. 1 ranking.