Regular readers know that I hold the year-end no. 1 ranking in high esteem, and it me it's partly because the ATP has always produced worthy year-end no. 1s. To me, securing the annual top spot is the top accomplishment in the "general excellence" category - that body of achievements that can't be linked to performance a single event. Let's face it, in any given year, any of about a dozen or more candidates can play lights-out tennis for two weeks and take advantage of a confluence of circumstances to win a major (see "J" for Johansson, or "G" for Gaudio). I wouldn't belittle the effort it takes too win a major, but in order to be considered a great player you need to be consistent and able to step up and assert yourself on big occasions, too.
For that reason, I've always had a bone to pick with the women's ranking system, or perhaps it's just with the inconsistency (commitment or performance-wise) of the top women players of this era. Lindsay Davenport finished no. 1 on three separate occasions (2001 and '04 and '05) when she failed to win a major. But then, Lindsay' has been a Grand Slam semifinalist (or better) on 17 occasions, and won just three titles (by contrast, Justine Henin won 7 majors in 16 trips to the semis or better (feel free to fact check my math). I'd be tempted to call her the exception that proves the rule, but not when she's turned the same feat three times.
Now, Jankovic is poised to follow in Davenport's footsteps, following Li Na's upset of Serena Williams in Stuttgart. And if that happens, it will further de-value the idea of the year-end no. 1 ranking. The Kremlin Cup, which starts on Monday, is the last Tier 1 event on the calendar. Serena is entered in it, as well as the YEC in Doha - but that's it (as of now) for her. Jankovic also is entered in both, and Zurich as well - and she has almost no points coming off from 2007. Just about anything she earns will be gravy and padding for what seems more and more like an inevitable top-ranking for 2008. And let's face it: Jankovic is many things, almost all of them delightful. But she's not a great player - not yet.
And let's not forget Dinara Safina in this conversation, either - she's defending semifinal points in Moscow, and a handful from Zurich and Linz. A strong finish capped with a win in Doha could vault her to the top, especially if Serena doesn't make a big push for the top spot, or if Jankovic doesn't have great results. The thing is, Jankovic almost always goes deep in events. So she's in the driver's seat. So we have three strong contenders for the year-end no. 1 slot,but only one of them has bagged a major this year.
Among the men, every year-end no. 1 in the Open era won at least one major before he collected the top annual ranking, and Lindsay did, too. But we're now in a position to have a female year-end no. 1 who's has yet to win a major. Compared to the realities coughed up by the ATP system, it's clear that the WTA is rewarding consistency and commitment to a degree that skews most people's sense of performance-based justice - or am I wrong about that? The WTA seems wedded to a ranking system that is more of a consistency rating than an accurate reflection of competitive ability, and one other unfortunate thing about that is the way it diminished the value of the year-end ranking . I prefer a rankings system that demands that you win a major in order to finish no. 1 for the year, although unusual circumstances could certainly conspire to create the exception - as they almost did in '98 i the ATP tour.
That year, the defending no. 1 Pete Sampras got to semis or better in only the last two majors, while Rios built his strong showing on back-to-back wins at Indian Wells and Key Biscayne. He was also a finalist at the Australian Open, losing to Petr Korda, who later that year was convicted of a doping offense following his Wimbledon drug test.
You have to wonder how long Korda was able to get away with doping, and how much illicit drug use might have affected the final in Melbourne. Had Rios won that Australian final, Sampras might not have even bothered trying to catch him in the rankings. As it was, Sampras made a Herculean push in the fall to retain his year-end no. 1 ranking for a record sixth straight year, and even then the top spot was up for grabs until Rios pulled out of the year-end championships (with a bad back that helped cut short his puzzling career), averting a potential showdown match for the top spot.
I'm glad Sampras ended up with the top ranking in '98, because it's hard to argue that a guy (or woman) who can't manage to win a major ought to be considered the best player of the year. And while neither tour claims that the year-end ranking boils down to that, to my mind it does - and should. There's always room for argument on that, especially when there's no clear-cut, dominant player on the scene. That's fine, too. The New York Giants are the defending Super Bowl champs, and hence the best team in football - even though the New England Patriots had complied a perfect season going into that ultimate game.
Our sport doesn't have a Super Bowl, although some constituents have tried mightily to turn the YECs into just that. What we have, instead of a final showdown of that magnitude, is a year-end no. 1 ranking. And make no mistake about it - the prestige of the year-end no. 1 spot was ingrained in the sport long before we had quantifiable results via a points system. Back in the day, various entities (including Tennis magazine), issued a year-end Top 10, usually based on the vote of a panel of experts (much like the college football rankings in the US). The system was a little too subjective, but it existed not to create confusion or stoke the egos of "experts" as much as to produce something for which everyone longed - an annual "champ" of tennis.
The WTA has struggled in recent years to promote the YEC, and build up its prestige. Now, with a move out of the media spotlight to Doha, it needs more than ever to make it seem as if the YEC matters. Here's an intriguing question: Will Serena make a Sampras-like drive to capture the top ranking, adding events to her schedule, or targeting Jankovic in a potential showdown in Doha. I hope she will. In addition to any other positive outcome, it would make the annual ranking something more than a laundry list of who compiled the most performance points.
Given the recent history of the WTA YEC, as well as the vagaries of the ranking system, Serena may be tempted to take a pass on Doha, especially if odds on snatching back the ranking from Jelena seem remote. In the bigger picture, one way to make the YEC more than "just another tournament" held at a time of year when everyone is tired and eager for a break is to tweak the system to try to ensure that whoever wins the YEC will also have won at least one major. It's a change from which everyone would benefit.
