With a victory over Francesca Schiavone at the WTA Championships, Caroline Wozniacki was able to secure the year-end world number one position. WTA’s Chief Executive Stacey Allaster offered a few positive words about Wozniacki’s ranking at the year-end address in Doha, “She is a bright, young, smart, and charismatic star. We are thrilled to have her as number one. She was tested [here in Doha] and she proved why she is deserving of that number one.”
While Wozniacki may hold the number one title, there is considerable debate as to whether the 20 year-old Dane truly merits being named the best female tennis player in the world.
Wozniacki’s position is being challenged with the criticism that she does not deserve to be ranked number one until she attains a Grand Slam victory. Previously, Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina received flak for hitting the top spot without having won a Grand Slam and now, it’s Wozniacki’s that seems to be the brunt of some criticism.
When Wozniacki’s credentials are examined, they fall somewhat short of what one would expect from the number one player in the world.
Wozniacki has only been to one Grand Slam final and one semi-final. Moreover, Wozniacki’s head-to-head record with some of the current powerhouse players, like Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Kim Clijsters, and Justine Henin, is basically DOA, with her record against the aforementioned foursome being a concerning 0-9.
With lackluster statistics like that, it’s not surprising that Wozniacki’s number one position is raising a few eyebrows.
However, this is not to say that the tennis prowess of Wozniacki does not still merit some esteem. Wozniacki possesses a renowned fighting spirit, and she did manage to push Clijsters into a third set at the Doha final.
Now, it’s hardly Wozniacki’s fault that that ranking system thrust her into the top position, but in many ways, it does not appear that there is anything wrong with the current system, which rewards performances away from Grand Slam events in order to make the year-long calendar mean something to the viewers and fans. One aspect that might need tweaking, however, is starting to allocate points for wins over highly ranked players.
A significant factor in Wozniacki’s year-end ranking is the fact that in 2010 she played 22 WTA tournaments, and many people view her climbing up in the ranks as remuneration for her commitment to the tour.
This is particularly noteworthy because of the four rival players that were previously mentioned, not one managed more than 15 appearances in 2010 for a variety of reasons, mostly injuries.
The lower number of appearances of these players does not really come as a shock, however, given that all four players are 27 or older, a reality that is also taken into account by the WTA.
Wozniacki may hold the number one position, but the fact remains that the Williams sisters and the Belgians are still the players who continue to be the faces of women’s tennis. Allaster may have had this in mind when she said the following in her year-end address: “I think in 2011 you’ll see some exciting new marketing programs specifically targeted on the young players who are in that 30 to 50 [ranking] category, the next group of stars.” She went on to add, “That’s fantastic for us because we need that energy to help market and promote those future stars.”
It will be to the WTA’s advantage for the effects of this marketing strategy to take root quickly, so as to thwart some of the negative attention that they may receive pertaining to Wozniacki’s number one position.
Yet, with no evidence of retirement being on the horizon for the Williams sisters, and the Belgians continuing to be satisfied with a limited schedule, it could take awhile before the new WTA marketing strategy has significant effect.
What are your thoughts on the world’s best female player? Do you think the ranking system should be changed or modified? Let us know.
Michaela Zanello is a contributing writer for www.onthebaseline.com
No, the ranking system needs no changing. The WTA’s problem is not its ranking system, but that its perceived best player does not give a damn for anything but the slams.
Now, let me hurry to say that I am not making Serena the problem. She appears to be quite satisfied if she just get her slam crowns – the rankings, it seems, is another thing she does not give a damn about. No, the problem is the number of people who think that Serena is SO awesome, so she ought to be no. 1, no matter how few tournaments she has played. It is these people (and those making similar statements about Clijsters, Venus or Henin) who are the problem, because their discontent is bound to be permanent. The ranking system they demand just cannot be devised, and if it could, it should not – for the sake of the tour WTA needs to reward commitment to the tour as such over occasional flashes of brilliance.
Do not get me wrong, I would also find it ideal if no. 1 was also generally perceived to be the strongest player on the tour – and although I am a Dane and a Wozniacki-fan I do not consider Caro to be that (yet). But the situation IS that we have a group of top players who for various reasons (age, inclination, family) choose to play a limited schedule, and their fans just have to accept that an otherwise fair ranking system cannot and should not be changed to accommodate them.
As to the suggestion of reintroducing quality points my answer is an emphatic NO, for three reasons:
1).It is way too complicated. Plenty of fans (and surprisingly many journalists) have trouble finding out of the present system – imagine what it would be like with a system where you do not know how much a player gets out of a tournament till it is over and you know, who has won against who.
2).It is unfair. The players have no influence on the draw and whether they get a chance of playing and beating high-ranked players. An example: Zvonareva and Jankovic played a roughly similar number of matches in 2010 (67 to 61) – but Zvonareva had 19 meetings with top-10 players, while Jankovic had only 8. And another: Zvonareva won 10 of those matches for a winning percentage of 53%. Caro had a winning percentage of 67, but only played top-10 players 12 times – that is 8 wins. So, having two more top-10 wins, Zvonareva would earn more quality points in 2010 in spite of having a much lower winning percentage – hardly a way of ‘rewarding quality over quantity’, as many demand the ranking system should (anyway I am somewhat dubious about that idea).
3).It would not change anything. At least in 2010 it wouldn’t. As mentioned Zvonareva had two more top-10 wins, as had Clijsters, but though the average ranking of the players beaten was also a bit higher (Zvonareva 5,5, Clijsters 6,6 against 6,9 for Caro), they are 1250 and 1400 points behind respectively. To put one of them in front of Caro you would need to hand out quality points in such numbers that who wins a tournament becomes secondary to who beats who – and at that point objection 2 comes in again.
To conclude I should say, that most of this was written before I learned of Serena’s withdrawal from the AO, but that only serves to emphasize my point. With her Sydney and AO points coming off, Serena will have only 4 counting results – no matter how much one may argue that she is the greatest player of the present tour, there is just no way to make a ranking system, that would keep her at no. 1.
This debate is out of place and really ridiculous. There was nothing wrong with the ranking system when it put Williamses on the top so how can the very same system be suddenly wrong because it awarded Caroline Wozniacki a no.1 post? Laughable.
Caroline is a legitimate no.1 as well as all other players who got that rank before her. That a so-called best player of WTA is at the same time an average player as far as tour events are concerned is not Wozniacki’s problem. Tennis is not just about four slam tournaments a year. To be the best a player should be able to play a full schedule and play it well. And the current no.1 did just that so no doubt she is the best player of the season. Kudos to Caroline for such a great year.
The ranking system should be changed. For the same reason given that Serena only cares about the slams, some players may just play as many tournaments as they can with the hope that the top players don’t or won’t and therefore they end up #1. While I enjoy Caroline, if she cannot and has not beat the top players, she really isn’t truly #1.
Great girl, Great athlete, she just needs to prove she can beat the best in the biz
Anyone who rails against a player who achieves #1 just doesn’t understand what the ranking reflects. It rewards she who garnered the most points, i.e., who won. The best player may not win a tournament, but the winner is no less of a champion because she’s not “the best”.
Even more absurd are those who disparage a #1 for not winning a major. It is more of an accomplishment if you DON’T win a major and still attain #1. Anyone can win a couple majors and make #1.
@Judah. The question here is not whether Caro is the best player of the present – not even a fanboy like me is claiming that she is. The question is whether the ranking system should and could be changed to make one of the perceived better players #1 in spite of their playing very limited schedules. You are saying it should – now you have to show how it could.
And it has to be a realistic solution, which means that raising the points of slams or requiring a slam victory for a 31-ranking is out of the question. WTA has a natural interest in promoting the tour as a whole, and it does not even arrange the slams – there is no way you will make them accept a solution that further encourages players to ignore the regular tour in favour of the slams.
As to quality points, I believe I have already shown that they just will not work. So I am quite curious as to HOW you will achieve the desired effect. Personally, I suspect that anything you come up with will just put Zvonareva in the #1-spot instead of Caro – but you may surprise me.
I agree with Braxe, those who win a major have a huge advantage in terms of points. But they cannot expect that the whole tour will just stop playing and let them get to no.1 easily just because they have got a major. The athletes who haven’t won a slam had to work much harder to get to no.1 and it’s worth admiration that they were so consistent. At the same time it just shows that winning a slam is not the most important thing in the world and it certainly isn’t enough to get to the top because the competition is just too strong. Fortunately. As for me I prefer players who play well the whole season and not those who drop out here and there or lose early on purpose to save their strenght for the big-wallet events. Let’s face it…