Aussie Open
Jan. 26th, 2011 07:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99If I hear one more thing about Wozniaki not having won a slam and being world number one, I may well explode. She has more points that her opponents, hence she is the world number one. If certain people (Venus, I mean you) can't, for perfectly good reasons, be bothered with smaller opens, then that's going to happen. It is a problem with the system. Or rather it's not, unless you want to over-value four competitions a year, which would be fine, except it really messes up your system. I know of what I speak, the UK fencing rankings work in a similar way to the tennis ones, and because one competition is so massively over-ranked, it makes it bloody hard to get into the top 20, even if some of those people only go to that one competition a year.
Also all players were, at some point, someone who'd never won a slam. For the spaghetti monsters sake, I can remember when Federer and Nadal were good young players who'd never won any slams. I can remember when Sampras was a good young player without any slams. My point, other than I am ancient, is that everyone starts at zero, and some of those people on zero go on to win them. You can't tell if they will until they do, but you can't say that they won't either.
Also all players were, at some point, someone who'd never won a slam. For the spaghetti monsters sake, I can remember when Federer and Nadal were good young players who'd never won any slams. I can remember when Sampras was a good young player without any slams. My point, other than I am ancient, is that everyone starts at zero, and some of those people on zero go on to win them. You can't tell if they will until they do, but you can't say that they won't either.
