Am I the only one who thinks the WTA tour ranking system is a bit flawed?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

This year at Wimbledon, there was all kind of talk about Jankovic and others possibly gaining the number 1 ranking depending on how far they went in the tournament, yet Venus and Serena are actually competing for the title and will probably not move at all in the rankings. In fac, if Venus loses, she will probably even go DOWN in the rankings.

I understand how the current system works and about defending points and all that, but I don't think it's neccesarily fair. Consistency doesn't mean the best in the world. What good is it to CONSISTENTLY make the quarterfinals or semifinals of every tournament when players like Venus and Serena don't play as many tournaments, yet WIN them all?

It's a shame every time a Williams sister beats an Ivanovic or Sharapova and everybody talk about a huge upset just because of the rankings. It would seem, that Venus and Serena are clearly the BETTER players when they are on their game, thus, it's not really an upset. Quality, not quantity, counts.




  1. um,just to clarify something....venus and serena DO NOT and HAVE NOT won them all. and this theory basing everything seemingly on this one wimbledon is just absolute rubbish. go check how well and how spotty they've been and the losses they have had at the hands of some of these girls the last months and years and you'll understand completely why they're much lower.

    don't degrade these other girls,because they have done very well and they absolutely deserve to be where they are. it's no one's fault that neither venus or serena have not done as well the last years except their own. had they played more....played like they were in it they would have won and done alot better recently.

  2. The ranking is a joke but you also have to remember that the Williams sisters do not play as much as the other players.  Venus is the defending champion and yet she was at number 7 but both are in the finals.  Most people don't pay attention to the rankings they just watch the games and make their decision based on that fact only.

  3. they changed it so that it's purely cumulative now.. it used to be that they took averages and the player with the better results in the bigger tournaments ranked higher.. before they also had quality points, so when you beat players of a higher caliber you get the chance to earn more extra points..

    i dunno why they took this all away.. now it's all possible that players who just play so many tournaments without really winning in the bigger stages, even though they're capable of reaching later rounds can rank higher than others who might be winning, but don't play as much..

    i think before 1996 it used to be that way.. in the earliest days of hingis, seles & graf, sanchez vicario etc...

    so needless to say, the ranking system sucks, not that i'm necessarily a williams fan.. but it only makes sense that players who perform well get rated accordingly.. but i guess the way they see it is that players who participate more, "contribute" more to the tour so therefore can get all the incentive...

  4. yes ranking is backwards to me..

  5. Rankings are fine as they are. I see your point, but sister Williams don't play many tournaments ( they only play gs ) so if would't be fair to other players for them to be 1st and 2nd when they just show up on 4 tournaments of the year. Rest would do the same than I guess and you wouldn't have anything to watch than.

    And for the record when Serena or Venus beats Ivanovic or Sharapova I don't see it as upset, I see it as upset when one of them loses,since they are still at this age maybe the best female players out there, and I think most people do agree with me. Just proofs that rankings means **** to lot of people out there, specially in women tennis now days.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 5 answers.


Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.