Talk About Tennis 2.0

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:05 pm So, for the 20th century, we are on pace for one new #1 per year., especially if you count the century as beginning in the year 2001.

Yes, approximately. 11 new ones in the first decade and 10 in the second. So far only two in the third, but still plenty of time for a bunch of 2-10 week position holders.

I wonder if there has ever been a Slam winner of either gender who never reach the top 10. Seems like Raducanu will get in before Wimbledon even if only very briefly.

Remember that we had those lean years at the Aussie. Mark Edmonson won it ranked 212. So even with that Aussie open, his highest ranking was 15.
Chris O'Neill (1978) reached a high of 80. Barbara Jordan (1979) had a career high of 55.
But those are certainly anomalies.

Suliso wrote:I wonder if there has ever been a Slam winner of either gender who never reach the top 10. Seems like Raducanu will get in before Wimbledon even if only very briefly.

Thought maybe Gaudio but even he got to #5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also remember than in the past the Slams gave a much smaller amount of points, vis a vis regular tournaments, than the 2,000 points of today. So you have to look at those Aussie winners.

ponchi101 wrote:Also remember than in the past the Slams gave a much smaller amount of points, vis a vis regular tournaments, than the 2,000 points of today. So you have to look at those Aussie winners.

Exactly, would be hard to stay out of the top 10 with 2000 points, which alone is enough for #21 in the WTA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What makes me mad about WTA management is that they have a good example in how ATP tour is organized and managed and nonetheless making a mess out of their tour. Take ranking system. ATP has 1000/500/250 series – everything is as clear as it gets. The designation of the series means that winner gets the amount of points – 1000/500/250 respectively. And this is true for all tournaments of the series. Now on the surface WTA took this as an example and have WTA1000, WTA500, WTA250. But WHY ON GREEN EARTH some WTA 1000 give 1000 points, while others – 900? I know this is because the former were Premier Mandatory. But so what? Did you introduce a new system or not?

mick1303 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 6:02 am What makes me mad about WTA management is that they have a good example in how ATP tour is organized and managed and nonetheless making a mess out of their tour. Take ranking system. ATP has 1000/500/250 series – everything is as clear as it gets. The designation of the series means that winner gets the amount of points – 1000/500/250 respectively. And this is true for all tournaments of the series. Now on the surface WTA took this as an example and have WTA1000, WTA500, WTA250. But WHY ON GREEN EARTH some WTA 1000 give 1000 points, while others – 900? I know this is because the former were Premier Mandatory. But so what? Did you introduce a new system or not?

I didn't know that. Indeed, it makes no sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The smaller tournaments will not be able to follow the lack of points. Wimbledon can. Wimbledon is bigger than the ATP or the WTA. The only people that have the power are the players, and only via boycott.

I feel reasonably certain this will be sorted out before Wimbledon in favor of the tours if they really intend on not awarding points.

JTContinental wrote:I feel reasonably certain this will be sorted out before Wimbledon in favor of the tours if they really intend on not awarding points.

I wonder why they can’t award points but freeze last year’s points for any banned player. Not recognizing any points seems like a swipe at Wimbledon, but it just hurts more players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 4:21 am

JTContinental wrote:I feel reasonably certain this will be sorted out before Wimbledon in favor of the tours if they really intend on not awarding points.

I wonder why they can’t award points but freeze last year’s points for any banned player. Not recognizing any points seems like a swipe at Wimbledon, but it just hurts more players.

And I'm wondering why Wimbledon doesn't simply comply with common sense and fairness and allow all eligible players to play, rather than discriminate against certain players who are not responsible for bombing any city, or for shooting or injuring any human being - in Ukraine or anywhere else.

Not awarding points at Wimbledon and at lead-up events in the U.K. is a kind of 'back door' way to deliberately provoke at least a partial boycott. I would think that a bunch of players would skip those tournaments if there is no points benefit.

Is it ultimately Wimbledon's decision or more of a stance of UK government? If government refuses to give visas those players can't come.

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 7:10 am Is it ultimately Wimbledon's decision or more of a stance of UK government? If government refuses to give visas those players can't come.

Like Djokovic and the Australia Open?