21 out of 23 not bad. Missed tracy austin and jelena janckovic. No insult to ms. Austin...atleast she won two u.s. open grand slams. While janckovic was a paper wta "computer glitch" world #1...who never won a grand slam. Funny how those rankings work..win a few non grand slam tourneys and go deep enough in the slams and you can be ranked higher than the actual grand slam champion(s).
Part of it was the best player didn't play a lot of tournaments. But part of it is problems with the points system, where compared to the men's rankings, getting to quarter and semi finals gets rewarded significantly more, but winning doesn't.
Eg. Slam winner 2000, runner up 1400, 900 for semi, 500 for quarter for women
Slam winner 2000, runner up 1200 semi 720, 360 for quater for men.
And 70 for each match lost in the round robin wta finals!!! Compared to 0 for men.
1n 2011 Petra Kvitova would have finished year ending No.1 if Wozniacki had not gotten 140 points extra free for the 2 matches she lost in the WTA finals. Kvitova won Wimbledon and was the better player overall in 2011.
For 2014, they've reduced points for not winning a bit. But they still have 70 oints for each match lost in the round robin of the WTA finals.
Well yes... although I suppose the point being made is that, not so very long ago, world no. 1s were household names (Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova etc.) but now they simply aren't - presumably because none of them is as dominant as those big names used to be.
Dinara Safina didn't win a slam either. Grand Slams (although very important) are only four tournaments; dont judge a player's success on how many grandslams they won; each player deserves what they get; and you say the point system is unfair for women, may ii ask how so? each player has an equal shot of winning and going further in tournaments and each player has equal chance of earning points in WTA finals too. and pls dont compare men and women, men have a different system altogether, theres no "overlap", so dont say men play unfair and women dont, coz both have different categorisation, prize money, ranking points etc etc
Same for me. I used to watch tennis all the time in the era from Graf to Hingis and the early years of the Williamses' dominance. Since then, I barely recognize the names. I knew Sharapova and I should have remembered Wozniacki, but none of the others.
Same! I was a big fan of Jana Novotna after that excruciating 1993 Wimbledon final. When she retired, I kind of lost interest, maybe because her style of play largely died with her.
Eg. Slam winner 2000, runner up 1400, 900 for semi, 500 for quarter for women
Slam winner 2000, runner up 1200 semi 720, 360 for quater for men.
And 70 for each match lost in the round robin wta finals!!! Compared to 0 for men.
1n 2011 Petra Kvitova would have finished year ending No.1 if Wozniacki had not gotten 140 points extra free for the 2 matches she lost in the WTA finals. Kvitova won Wimbledon and was the better player overall in 2011.
For 2014, they've reduced points for not winning a bit. But they still have 70 oints for each match lost in the round robin of the WTA finals.
the latter.
And why haven't you corrected the Mauresmo one who should be 2006.