[SannyGlow]

The ranking system isn't nearly as broken as some would believe, we just had a year of a lot of anomalies. That's all. Hardly reason to be outraged.

I think there is some merit to that. On the other hand, while both the ATP and WTA point structures award the more talented money chasers disproportionately, it seems even worse on the WTA side.

[Peretool]

I think there is some merit to that. On the other hand, while both the ATP and WTA point structures award the more talented money chasers disproportionately, it seems even worse on the WTA side.

I agree with you here, part of the reason Davydenko annoys me so much on the ATP side.

[ASSESTYTEAH]

I don't see how that is Safina's fault. Perhaps if the 4 time Slam champion strung together a more consistent year or had not played in the Graf/Seles era, things could be different. Again, not the fault of Safina.

As Thomas Muster once famously said, "I did not buy my points at the supermarket".

Any merit system will have faults if stretched to the edges, and that is simply what we had this year. Serena didn't do anything outside the slams and Safina made two slam finals and won a few WTA tournaments.

The ranking system isn't nearly as broken as some would believe, we just had a year of a lot of anomalies. That's all. Hardly reason to be outraged.

Arantxa's 1994 could be considered Dinara's 2009 - the year they were both 23. Arantxa won 2 Slams, got to the final of a 3rd, and also beat Graf at a number of events that year. Sorry, but it's comical that Dinara has more weeks at #1, without ever having won 1 Slam than Arantxa ever will, having won 2 in 1994, and 4 overall.

[Peretool]

Arantxa's 1994 could be considered Dinara's 2009 - the year they were both 23. Arantxa won 2 Slams, got to the final of a 3rd, and also beat Graf at a number of events that year. Sorry, but it's comical that Dinara has more weeks at #1, without ever having won 1 Slam than Arantxa ever will, having won 2 in 1994, and 4 overall.

So it begs to be asked, what is your solution to this problem?

[ASSESTYTEAH]

So it begs to be asked, what is your solution to this problem?

Weight Slams heavier...Require that to be #1, you own a Slam. I might also look at bringing back quality points, though you had the problem then that you do now, just it did not seem as bad in retrospect.

[Automobill]

Weight Slams heavier...Require that to be #1, you own a Slam.

Why would WTA want to undervalue their own tour?

[Peretool]

Weight Slams heavier...Require that to be #1, you own a Slam. I might also look at bringing back quality points, though you had the problem then that you do now, just it did not seem as bad in retrospect.

Does that slam have to be won in the past 52 weeks to be considered for #1, or could that slam have been achieved years earlier?

I ask because, you see, any system we come up with will also have faults.

[ASSESTYTEAH]

Why would WTA want to undervalue their own tour?

So their #1 player isn't mocked at tournaments and press conferences by other players, reporters and fans is one good reason.

[gardenerextraordinaire]

Weight Slams heavier...Require that to be #1, you own a Slam. I might also look at bringing back quality points, though you had the problem then that you do now, just it did not seem as bad in retrospect.

I was always a BIG fan of the quality points. I cried the day they went away.

But when I look at the tour being what it is today, and the fact that there is basically no difference at all between the player ranked #5 and the player ranked #105, I'm not sure I can advocate it as much of a solution.

But I agree with weighting the majors even more. A major should be worth 3-4 times as much as the top of the Tier 1 value.

[ASSESTYTEAH]

Does that slam have to be won in the past 52 weeks to be considered for #1, or could that slam have been achieved years earlier?

I ask because, you see, any system we come up with will also have faults.

Of course it will have faults. And I don't have all the answers. And so you know I am consistent, I had this same position when Kim was a Slamless Number 1.

The other thing I didn't mention, which I think would be a very good idea personally, is to have the ranking system based on 2 years as opposed to 1 year of results. That is what Golf does. Sure it would take longer for younger players to ascend the rankings, and would reward veterans, but I think in the long run it would be a better reflection of ability.