TENNIS.com - Features - Viewpoint: The Weakest No. 1s in History

This story was published on April 29, 2009.

By Donal Lynch

Much like her older brother’s, Dinara’s Safina’s default expression in press conferences seems to be “sheepish.” But she had every reason to crack her winsomely awkward smile last week as she ascended to the top of the WTA Tour rankings and, officially at least, took her place alongside Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert and Steffi Graf as one of the 19 women in history to be crowned No. 1. With only nine tournament victories (and no majors) to her name, Safina seemed almost embarrassed by the accomplishment, saying she hopes to prove that she’s earned her place in the game’s pantheon of the elite.

Al Bello/Getty Images
Her accomplishments don't seem to fit the achievement, but Safina is the latest No. 1 on the WTA Tour.

As of now, the 23-year-old hasn’t done so. Though she’s been a finalist at two of the past four majors, Safina remains Slam-less. She’s been a Tour regular since she was 15, but her career doesn’t compare to those of prodigies (and former No. 1s) Monica Seles and Jennifer Capriati. Instead, Safina’s counterparts from previous eras are the likes of Zina Garrison or Anke Huber—stalwart Top 10ers who made respectable mid-career surges. While their paths to the top were perennially blocked by the goddesses of the game, these days it seems any journeywoman can seize the increasingly tarnished No. 1 tiara.

And if Safina represents the low-water mark of achievement, she’s just the latest in a long line of mediocre women’s tennis queens. The last five new No. 1s have won a paltry six Grand Slam singles titles between them. The first five, starting with Evert—who was No. 1 when the modern computer rankings were introduced in 1975—and running up to Steffi Graf, won a total of 67.

The WTA Tour, perhaps foreseeing that the rankings formula made it too easy for undeserving players to ascend to No. 1, changed the system in recent years, awarding more points for wins at Grand Slam events and forcing the top players to play more Tier I events. Still, the sporadic play of the Williams sisters coupled with the unforgiving schedules pursued by the other players (Jelena Jankovic played 102 singles matches in 2007 and 88 last year), has meant the supporting actresses have been able to cast themselves as leading ladies.

The problem, of course, has not been confined to the WTA. The men’s tour has also had its fair share of junkyard dogs-turned-top dogs. While they may not rank among the all-time tennis deities, these 10 players have distinguished themselves in a more dubious way: I rank them as the weakest No. 1s of all time.

Men

5. Yevgeny Kafelnikov: An Olympic gold medal and two Slams is nothing to sneeze at, but Kafelnikov was lucky to squeeze his brief reign in between the dusk of the Sampras-Agassi era and the dawn of the Federer-Nadal golden age.

Hector Mata/AFP/Getty Images
Rios advanced past the quarterfinals of a Slam just once, when he reached the 1998 Australian Open final.

4. Juan Carlos Ferrero: He won the French Open during a stretch when, it seems, every Spanish player claimed at least one Roland Garros crown. But despite achieving the top ranking in 2003—the same year he won the French and made the final of the U.S. Open—“The Mosquito,” currently ranked No. 100, never established himself as a dominant player.

3. Thomas Muster: By winning 11 clay court titles in 1995, including the French, the Musterminator claimed the top spot in the rankings. The respect of his peers was harder to come by, however. Andre Agassi, for one, said Muster would only be deserving of the ranking when he won a Slam on a surface other than clay.

2. Carlos Moya: If there were a tennis player-card trading, you could probably swap twenty Moyas for one Pete Sampras. The likeable dirtballer was another Roland Garros one-hit wonder.

1. Marcelo Rios: With only one career Slam final (at the 1998 Australian Open, which he lost, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 to Petr Korda), Rios—also the surliest player in memory—is the weakest men’s No. 1 in history. When Marat Safin is calling you a wasted talent, you know you could have done better.

Women

5. Amelie Mauresmo: Given the (problematic) parity on the WTA Tour, it was almost a given that the talented but inconsistent Frenchwoman would get her turn on the throne. Mauresmo’s first major title came, sadly, as the result of Justine Henin’s retirement from the 2006 Australian Open final; Mauresmo beat Henin in the Wimbledon final later that same year for her second Slam. The notoriously nervous Mauresmo may have been the first No. 1 to lack any discernible killer instinct.

4. Kim Clijsters: The Belgian’s return provides a welcome boost to the lackluster women’s tour, but Clijsters’ pre-retirement resume wasn’t exactly era-defining. With just one victory in five major finals, she was the “nearly” woman of the early noughties.

3. Ana Ivanovic: Four-time French Open champion Justine Henin abruptly retired before that tourney in 2008, clearing the way for Ivanovic’s Roland Garros triumph. (Henin had overwhelmed the Serb in the final the previous year.) With Ivanovic’s victory came the top ranking. But her performances since then have done nothing to assuage the suspicion that she was a No. 1 by default.

2. Jelena Jankovic: At first she reluctantly admitted she “didn’t deserve” the top spot, but after a little WTA stage managing, Jankovic grew into the “world’s No. 1 player” label. With zero Slams and only six titles at the time of her ascendance (she has since won four more), Jankovic seemed rightfully embarrassed to be mentioned in the same breath as Graf, Seles and Navratilova.

1. Dinara Safina: She may have equalled her brother’s best ranking, but without a single Grand Slam, Safina is a much weaker No. 1 than two-time major champion Safin was. It’s hardly her fault, but Safina’s current position is symptomatic of all that’s wrong with the women’s tour.

Donal Lynch is a New York City-based correspondent for the Sunday Independent, a newspaper in his native Ireland.