For many, holding 3 Grand Slam titles should qualify you for the number 1 spot. However, Serena Williams who is exactly in this desirable position has been cast to number 2 by the WTA ranking system. Her place behind Dinara Safina, the world number 1, has placed the spotlight firmly on the WTA.
Williams (as of August 10) has 8628 ranking points, 6500 of which has come from Grand Slams. In other words, the American has only 25% of her ranking points coming from outside the 4 most prestigious events. This compares to 52% for Safina.
These statistics show the already considerable weight given to winning Grand Slams by the WTA. Indeed, winning a Grand Slam buys you 2000 points which is double the next highest for winning Premier Mandatory tournaments.
Should Grand Slams then get you more points? I would argue no, in fact, I would argue in favour of the reverse. Tennis suffers from having excessive focus on these events, after all how many of us take into consideration the winners of Indian Wells, MIami or Madrid when deciding who is the best? Not many and perhaps more worryingly, how many of us even know about these tournaments?
For many Safina is a frustrating number 1 as she was a losing finalist at the US, Australian and French Open. However, this is precisely the point, she was a finalist at three consecutive Grand Slams and won 3 out 5 finals in Tokyo, Sydney, Stuttgart, Rome and Madrid.
The WTA needs to act in the interest of the sport, not perpetuate the obsession with Grand Slams. If history has rendered these 4 events as the most prestigious prizes for tennis players, it is the responsibility of the WTA to divorce themselves from this sentiment and promote professional tennis as a sacrifice to be made all year around.
This is not to say Serena Williams is not committed. The spin the media put on her 4 consecutive defeats in Miami, Marbella, Rome and Madrid was harsh since in all of these matches she was experiencing injury problems. However, injury problems are your own and to see WIlliams still at number 2, let alone number 1, shows how trivial some of these so called Premier tournaments are.
We all know Serena is the most talented female tennis player, but she must be asked to put the points on the board if she wants to be officially number 1. This should mean more consistency outside the Grand Slams.
There are always criticisms of pointing systems which do not represent the true rank of someone/thing. Now there is debate over what makes a tennis player better. The performance in the most important stage, and those grand slams are important for a reason. However, they should also have consistant performance so the question is over weighting. The men’s ranking system is good as there are 8 events with 1000 points, so there is a clear importance to them.
Here is a further thought, it is not a serious suggestion but something to think about. What if they had 4 races on the F1 calender with double the points. It would increase popularity in the general public on those 4 races, but as there would still be 13-14 races with the regular points it would not determine the championship solely.
A second point I forgot to mention was the fact that Andy Murray’s performance on the tour is being rewarded in the men’s rankings. He is set to become world number 2 if he beats Tsonga today. I am suprised it has not become bigger news.
Great article, in spite of the end (aka, Serena most talented female tennis player).
If the WTA wants to get the players more involved in the game as a whole . Then they ought to look at the scheduling . Because that’s where the real problems are . Furthermore it’s the Grand Slam events that attract the fans and widespread tv audience. Not the second tier events. Doesn’t anyone actually realize that and also from a business standpoint as well ?
Alan Parkins
What’s wrong with the scheduling?