tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36
From: DavidW
Subject: JJ can't be serious
http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
...
Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the outstanding
trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign at
season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
runner-up is unequivocal.

"I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as the No.
1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a grand
slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks, and
being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best results from
all the other players.
...
I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.

Also on the no. 1 ranking, if JJ reads The Age over breakfast this morning
she'll see "RANKINGS SPAT" beside the masthead on the front page, with photos of
herself and Serena Williams, and on the front page of the sports section there's
a big (and nice) picture of JJ holding up one finger during practice, over which
it says "Serena Williams ridicules Jelena Jankovic's no. 1 ranking." But it's
all a beat-up. Serena is not quoted saying anything about JJ not having won a
slam and doesn't really criticize her at all. She simply says that she always
believes that she is the best player, therefore Jankovic isn't.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/im-no1-says-brash-williams/2009/01/15/1231608889541.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1






 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 22:44:15
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:qXNbl.23800$H12.23352@newsfe12.iad...
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
> ...
> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
> country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
> outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been
> able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she would have
> chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
> the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said.
> "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best
> for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have
> had the best results from all the other players.
> ...
> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.

why not? being able to say you were the best female player in the world in
2008 is quite an accolade. Especially since she obviously expects to win a
slam at some point.




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 15:46:38
From: Raja
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 3:31=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
> ...
> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
> country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the outsta=
nding
> trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign =
at
> season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
> runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as t=
he No.
> 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a=
grand
> slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks, =
and
> being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best result=
s from
> all the other players.
> ...
> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> Also on the no. 1 ranking, if JJ reads The Age over breakfast this mornin=
g
> she'll see "RANKINGS SPAT" beside the masthead on the front page, with ph=
otos of
> herself and Serena Williams, and on the front page of the sports section =
there's
> a big (and nice) picture of JJ holding up one finger during practice, ove=
r which
> it says "Serena Williams ridicules Jelena Jankovic's no. 1 ranking." But =
it's
> all a beat-up. Serena is not quoted saying anything about JJ not having w=
on a
> slam and doesn't really criticize her at all. She simply says that she al=
ways
> believes that she is the best player, therefore Jankovic isn't.http://www=
.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/im-no1-says-brash-williams...

She can tell her grandchildren she was the best player and No.1 in the
world once. What is Iva Majoli gonna tell? She fluked out a slam?



  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:59:04
From: Raja
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 6:15=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Raja" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f13b0e8-5061-4eff-a9c1-1fefd9bb0022@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
> > ...
> > Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won thei=
r
> > country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
> > outstanding
> > trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reig=
n
> > at
> > season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Ope=
n
> > runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> > "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
> > the No.
> > 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning=
a
> > grand
> > slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks=
,
> > and
> > being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best resu=
lts
> > from
> > all the other players.
> > ...
> > I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> > Also on the no. 1 ranking, if JJ reads The Age over breakfast this morn=
ing
> > she'll see "RANKINGS SPAT" beside the masthead on the front page, with
> > photos of
> > herself and Serena Williams, and on the front page of the sports sectio=
n
> > there's
> > a big (and nice) picture of JJ holding up one finger during practice, o=
ver
> > which
> > it says "Serena Williams ridicules Jelena Jankovic's no. 1 ranking." Bu=
t
> > it's
> > all a beat-up. Serena is not quoted saying anything about JJ not having
> > won a
> > slam and doesn't really criticize her at all. She simply says that she
> > always
> > believes that she is the best player, therefore Jankovic
> > isn't.http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/im-no1-says-brash-will=
iams...
>
> She can tell her grandchildren she was the best player and No.1 in the
> world once. What is Iva Majoli gonna tell? She fluked out a slam?
>
> ***
>
> Beating #1 player in the world convincigly is not fluking a slam, imo.
> Especially when you consider the fact that Hingis was undefeated in 1997 =
up
> to that point. (IIRC)
>
> It was a fluke in a way that it was her only slam final and only win, but
> don't let it missguide you, she had a potential for more, just didn't
> care/want enough.
>
> Whitout slams, YE#1 is just as worth(less) as any #1, regardless of weeks
> spent there.
> You just get remembered as a curiosity, as a #1 player without a slam tit=
le.
> So I don't think Majoli would have traded her FO title for #1, even it wa=
s
> YE#1.
>
> Or that V.Williams would have traded =A0her Wimbledon crown for Davenport=
's
> YE#1 in 2005 even though she never was Ye#1.
> Not to mention some multiple slam winners like Vilas swaping with Rios.
>
> Jankovic achieved it and it's a success, but even she knows, and especial=
ly
> she, it's a shallow achievement without a grand slam title.

Can you be any less coherent?



  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 01:15:53
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:5f13b0e8-5061-4eff-a9c1-1fefd9bb0022@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
> ...
> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
> country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
> outstanding
> trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign
> at
> season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
> runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
> the No.
> 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a
> grand
> slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks,
> and
> being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best results
> from
> all the other players.
> ...
> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> Also on the no. 1 ranking, if JJ reads The Age over breakfast this morning
> she'll see "RANKINGS SPAT" beside the masthead on the front page, with
> photos of
> herself and Serena Williams, and on the front page of the sports section
> there's
> a big (and nice) picture of JJ holding up one finger during practice, over
> which
> it says "Serena Williams ridicules Jelena Jankovic's no. 1 ranking." But
> it's
> all a beat-up. Serena is not quoted saying anything about JJ not having
> won a
> slam and doesn't really criticize her at all. She simply says that she
> always
> believes that she is the best player, therefore Jankovic
> isn't.http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/im-no1-says-brash-williams...

She can tell her grandchildren she was the best player and No.1 in the
world once. What is Iva Majoli gonna tell? She fluked out a slam?

***

Beating #1 player in the world convincigly is not fluking a slam, imo.
Especially when you consider the fact that Hingis was undefeated in 1997 up
to that point. (IIRC)

It was a fluke in a way that it was her only slam final and only win, but
don't let it missguide you, she had a potential for more, just didn't
care/want enough.

Whitout slams, YE#1 is just as worth(less) as any #1, regardless of weeks
spent there.
You just get remembered as a curiosity, as a #1 player without a slam title.
So I don't think Majoli would have traded her FO title for #1, even it was
YE#1.

Or that V.Williams would have traded her Wimbledon crown for Davenport's
YE#1 in 2005 even though she never was Ye#1.
Not to mention some multiple slam winners like Vilas swaping with Rios.

Jankovic achieved it and it's a success, but even she knows, and especially
she, it's a shallow achievement without a grand slam title.




 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 00:55:06
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>...
>Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
>country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the outstanding
>trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign at
>season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
>runner-up is unequivocal.
>
>"I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as the No.
>1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a grand
>slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks, and
>being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best results from
>all the other players.
>...
>I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.

Does this shake your world view? Every player might not think the same
way you do? She might even say she would like to win FO more than
Wimbledon :-)


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 10:12:49
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>> ...
>> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won
>> their country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of
>> the outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation
>> has been able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she
>> would have chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
>>
>> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year
>> as the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she
>> said. "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only
>> being the best for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during
>> all the year you have had the best results from all the other
>> players. ...
>> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> Does this shake your world view? Every player might not think the same
> way you do? She might even say she would like to win FO more than
> Wimbledon :-)

She's my favourite player atm, so don't say that...not even as a joke.

Actually, she says in that article that the AO is the one she wants to win first
(because she won the junior AO at 15). So it's one far-fetched statement after
another.




   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:56:39
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:12:49 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>>> ...
>>> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won
>>> their country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of
>>> the outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation
>>> has been able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she
>>> would have chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
>>>
>>> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year
>>> as the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she
>>> said. "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only
>>> being the best for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during
>>> all the year you have had the best results from all the other
>>> players. ...
>>> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>>
>> Does this shake your world view? Every player might not think the same
>> way you do? She might even say she would like to win FO more than
>> Wimbledon :-)
>
>She's my favourite player atm, so don't say that...not even as a joke.
>
>Actually, she says in that article that the AO is the one she wants to win first
>(because she won the junior AO at 15). So it's one far-fetched statement after
>another.

This is hard for you clearly :-)



    
Date: 16 Jan 2009 17:19:53
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:12:49 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>>>> ...
>>>> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won
>>>> their country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of
>>>> the outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation
>>>> has been able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she
>>>> would have chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
>>>>
>>>> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year
>>>> as the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she
>>>> said. "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only
>>>> being the best for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during
>>>> all the year you have had the best results from all the other
>>>> players. ...
>>>> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>>> Does this shake your world view? Every player might not think the same
>>> way you do? She might even say she would like to win FO more than
>>> Wimbledon :-)
>> She's my favourite player atm, so don't say that...not even as a joke.
>>
>> Actually, she says in that article that the AO is the one she wants to win first
>> (because she won the junior AO at 15). So it's one far-fetched statement after
>> another.
>
> This is hard for you clearly :-)
>

DavidW has firmly committed himself to "Slam beats everything else" and
"Wimbledon beats all other slams" positions for all living beings
irrespective of all else. No wonder he has trouble digesting actual
statements from real people.

It is similar to his laughable claims that except for a few
recalcitrants in rst, 7543 is a universally accepted formula among
tennis cognoscenti.

--
Cheers,

vc


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 01:39:20
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

On 15-Jan-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
> >> ...
> >> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won
> >> their country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of
> >> the outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation
> >> has been able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she
> >> would have chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
> >>
> >> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year
> >> as the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she
> >> said. "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only
> >> being the best for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during
> >> all the year you have had the best results from all the other
> >> players. ...
> >> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
> >
> > Does this shake your world view? Every player might not think the same
> > way you do? She might even say she would like to win FO more than
> > Wimbledon :-)
>
> She's my favourite player atm, so don't say that...not even as a joke.
>
> Actually, she says in that article that the AO is the one she wants to win
> first
> (because she won the junior AO at 15). So it's one far-fetched statement
> after
> another.

lol. Scares you a little bit, eh?


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 00:00:56
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:ujfvm41o7u65ga7ofljdgk5eeka1ns0fu1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>>...
>>Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
>>country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
>>outstanding
>>trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign
>>at
>>season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
>>runner-up is unequivocal.
>>
>>"I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
>>the No.
>>1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a
>>grand
>>slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks,
>>and
>>being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best results
>>from
>>all the other players.
>>...
>>I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> Does this shake your world view? Every player might not think the same
> way you do? She might even say she would like to win FO more than
> Wimbledon :-)


Stop trolling.




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:00:49
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 4:31=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
> ...
> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
> country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the outsta=
nding
> trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign =
at
> season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
> runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as t=
he No.
> 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a=
grand
> slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks, =
and
> being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best result=
s from
> all the other players.
> ...
> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.

I don't think her evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
indicate that she's not serious. However, I agree with you in the
sense that I don't think truly reliable answers can be expected from
players who have achieved either a slam or no. 1, but not both.
Reliable answers come from players who have achieved both (which one
they value more) or neither (which one they desire more).

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 07:57:33
From: number_six
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 8:47=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:39=A0pm, JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
>
> > Joe wrote:
>
> > "I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
> > indicate that she's not serious."
>
> > of course she's serious. =A0furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that
> > her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything else in this
> > thread.
>
> I will spell out my objections:
>
> 1. Jankovic is applying the wrong measurement scale by suggesting that
> a year's worth of top dog status is superior to a mere two weeks'
> worth. Winning a slam involves actually beating opponents on the court
> for seven straight matches. Being year-end no. 1 means coming out on
> top in a calculation. These are very different achievements that can't
> be reduced to a simple comparison of duration.
>
> 2. Her argument is circular, in part. She says that being year-end no.
> 1 means "you have had the best results from all the other players."
> That is true only if you consider the "best results" to be having the
> highest number in the final calculation. If you consider the "best
> results" to be winning the most important tournament(s), regardless of
> what you do for the rest of the year, then the calculation is
> secondary. Thus, Janovic's *argument* that no. 1 is better than a slam
> actually assumes the *premise* that no. 1 is better than a slam.
>
> Note that this does not mean Jankovic is "wrong" about what she
> prefers, or thinks she prefers. It just means her attempt to justify
> the preference is not particularly strong, IMO.
>
> > BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less reliabl=
e
> > than those who have achieved both or neither because she is defending
> > the one she has achieved (no pun intended).
>
> Yes, unconscious bias is clearly more likely in her situation.
>
> >=A0Where on the reliability
> > scale would you place someone who achieved one but maintains that he/sh=
e
> > would rather achieve the other?
>
> Having one goal in hand, but not the other, creates the potential for
> a distorted perspective, of either the defensive or grass-is-greener
> varieties. Thus, the scale, in order of reliability:
> 1. Having both
> 2. Having neither
> 3. Having one but stating a preference for the other
> 4. Having one and stating a preference for it
>
> Joe Ramirez

It is a classic four-box matrix.

JJ may not be considering the theory, but she faces the dilemma
nonetheless.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 22:12:08
From: Raja
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 10:47=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:39=A0pm, JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
>
> > Joe wrote:
>
> > "I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
> > indicate that she's not serious."
>
> > of course she's serious. =A0furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that
> > her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything else in this
> > thread.
>
> I will spell out my objections:
>
> 1. Jankovic is applying the wrong measurement scale by suggesting that
> a year's worth of top dog status is superior to a mere two weeks'
> worth. Winning a slam involves actually beating opponents on the court
> for seven straight matches. Being year-end no. 1 means coming out on
> top in a calculation. These are very different achievements that can't
> be reduced to a simple comparison of duration.
>
> 2. Her argument is circular, in part. She says that being year-end no.
> 1 means "you have had the best results from all the other players."
> That is true only if you consider the "best results" to be having the
> highest number in the final calculation. If you consider the "best
> results" to be winning the most important tournament(s), regardless of
> what you do for the rest of the year, then the calculation is
> secondary. Thus, Janovic's *argument* that no. 1 is better than a slam
> actually assumes the *premise* that no. 1 is better than a slam.
>
> Note that this does not mean Jankovic is "wrong" about what she
> prefers, or thinks she prefers. It just means her attempt to justify
> the preference is not particularly strong, IMO.
>
> > BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less reliabl=
e
> > than those who have achieved both or neither because she is defending
> > the one she has achieved (no pun intended).
>
> Yes, unconscious bias is clearly more likely in her situation.
>
> >=A0Where on the reliability
> > scale would you place someone who achieved one but maintains that he/sh=
e
> > would rather achieve the other?
>
> Having one goal in hand, but not the other, creates the potential for
> a distorted perspective, of either the defensive or grass-is-greener
> varieties. Thus, the scale, in order of reliability:
> 1. Having both
> 2. Having neither
> 3. Having one but stating a preference for the other
> 4. Having one and stating a preference for it
>
> Joe Ramirez

You are being too much of a nerd here. What would you like to brag
about?

1) Being ranked the best tennis player once in your life (even if it
is for a week?)
or
2) Fluking out a slam and disappearing into obscurity

I say Jankovic has had a better career than say Iva Majoli



  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:47:32
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 10:39=A0pm, JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
> "I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
> indicate that she's not serious."
>
> of course she's serious. =A0furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that
> her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything else in this
> thread.

I will spell out my objections:

1. Jankovic is applying the wrong measurement scale by suggesting that
a year's worth of top dog status is superior to a mere two weeks'
worth. Winning a slam involves actually beating opponents on the court
for seven straight matches. Being year-end no. 1 means coming out on
top in a calculation. These are very different achievements that can't
be reduced to a simple comparison of duration.

2. Her argument is circular, in part. She says that being year-end no.
1 means "you have had the best results from all the other players."
That is true only if you consider the "best results" to be having the
highest number in the final calculation. If you consider the "best
results" to be winning the most important tournament(s), regardless of
what you do for the rest of the year, then the calculation is
secondary. Thus, Janovic's *argument* that no. 1 is better than a slam
actually assumes the *premise* that no. 1 is better than a slam.

Note that this does not mean Jankovic is "wrong" about what she
prefers, or thinks she prefers. It just means her attempt to justify
the preference is not particularly strong, IMO.

> BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less reliable
> than those who have achieved both or neither because she is defending
> the one she has achieved (no pun intended).

Yes, unconscious bias is clearly more likely in her situation.

>=A0Where on the reliability
> scale would you place someone who achieved one but maintains that he/she
> would rather achieve the other?

Having one goal in hand, but not the other, creates the potential for
a distorted perspective, of either the defensive or grass-is-greener
varieties. Thus, the scale, in order of reliability:
1. Having both
2. Having neither
3. Having one but stating a preference for the other
4. Having one and stating a preference for it

Joe Ramirez



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:57:21
From: John P
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Joe,

your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.

but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. She is not from one
of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at all,
for that matter. So it strikes me as rather understandable that a young
Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a Slam.
Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping her
nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. She probably
views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
year.



    
Date: 18 Jan 2009 13:10:53
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 17, 7:55=A0pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <14160-49714911-1...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
>
> > your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.
>
> > but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. =A0She is not
> > from one
> > of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at
> > all,
> > for that matter. =A0So it strikes me as rather understandable that a
> > young
> > Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a
> > Slam.
> > Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping
> > her
> > nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. =A0She
> > probably
> > views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
> > year.
>
> I thought she had pretty good logic. Winning a Slam says you were the bes=
t
> for two weeks; being #1 shows you were the best over a whole year.

I've already tried to explain why this comparison is invalid. Winning
a slam is an on-court, direct competitive achievement that can't be
reduced to a measure of time. Winning a slam doesn't mean you were
"the best" for 1/26th of a year; it means you captured one of the four
top prizes tennis has to offer. Unlike the no. 1 ranking, it's not a
calculated result -- it's earned head-on.

By Jankovic's logic, the player whose cumulative W-L match record is
tops over a five-year period, but who never won a slam nor finished as
year-end no. 1 in any particular year, has done better than a player
who *was* the year-end no. 1 once, or even several times. It's more
desirable to be "the best" over five years than over a mere one year,
right? Because we all know 5 >1, so there can't be anything else to
it.

As I mentioned, I don't doubt Jankovic's sincerity, just her
reasoning.

> It
> doesn't say your peaks were the highest like a Slam win does. But these
> days just staying uninjured for a year so you can win enough matches to b=
e
> #1 is quite an accomplishment.

Yes, but that's not in dispute.

The ultimate test of superiority in virtually every sport -- and
certainly in every game sport -- is to prevail in the biggest contest,
however that is defined by the sport. That means actually *winning*
the biggest game, match, series, tournament, bout, whatever. Being
year-end no. 1 *without* winning a slam is like being the best team in
the regular season but losing in the playoffs, and thus failing to win
the championship. It's an excellent achievement, and one that may very
well be remembered for a long time (depending on the level of regular-
season dominance), but it will remain a somewhat hollow triumph
without the validation of the championship. Just ask the New England
Patriots of 2007-08. Tennis does not have a single championship, so
the slams have to substitute. We often discuss "the best player never
to win a slam," but few of us care much about "the best player never
to be ranked no. 1." (And "best player never to be *year-end* no. 1"
is a discussion I've never even heard of.) A player who wins a slam
but is never ranked no. 1 will be remembered as a champion, albeit
perhaps a bit of a flukey champion, if there was only one title. A
player who is ranked no. 1 but never wins a slam, especially one who
gets the year-end no. 1 but never wins a slam, will be remembered as a
good player but an underachiever at best, an artifact of an
incompetent ranking system at worst.

Fortunately for Jankovic, she still has time to be an Ivanisevic
rather than a R=EDos.

Joe Ramirez


     
Date: 19 Jan 2009 10:54:49
From: John P
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Joe wrote:

"Fortunately for Jankovic, she still has time to be an Ivanisevic rather
than a Rios."

UGH! Don't do it, JJ! Rios was a tennis artist, Goran a one-stroke,
one Slam wonder, imo. Geesh, like saying Obama still has time to be a
Bush rather than a Lincoln.



      
Date: 19 Jan 2009 17:30:20
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"John P" <JTPDC@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:23614-4974A249-2935@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> Joe wrote:
>
> "Fortunately for Jankovic, she still has time to be an Ivanisevic rather
> than a Rios."
>
> UGH! Don't do it, JJ! Rios was a tennis artist, Goran a one-stroke,
> one Slam wonder, imo. Geesh, like saying Obama still has time to be a
> Bush rather than a Lincoln.

Awful post.




       
Date: 19 Jan 2009 19:56:36
From: John P
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
skripits wrote:

"awful post."

brilliant. if you had seen Goran and Rios play, and were even remotely
familiar with world affairs, you might understand that it was a timely
and good post.



        
Date: 20 Jan 2009 02:07:13
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"John P" <JTPDC@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:6358-49752144-3200@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> skripits wrote:
>
> "awful post."
>
> brilliant. if you had seen Goran and Rios play, and were even remotely
> familiar with world affairs, you might understand that it was a timely
> and good post.


fuck off raja




     
Date: 19 Jan 2009 15:10:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> Yes, but that's not in dispute.
>
> The ultimate test of superiority in virtually every sport -- and
> certainly in every game sport -- is to prevail in the biggest contest,
> however that is defined by the sport. That means actually *winning*
> the biggest game, match, series, tournament, bout, whatever. Being
> year-end no. 1 *without* winning a slam is like being the best team in
> the regular season but losing in the playoffs, and thus failing to win
> the championship. It's an excellent achievement, and one that may very
> well be remembered for a long time (depending on the level of regular-
> season dominance), but it will remain a somewhat hollow triumph
> without the validation of the championship. Just ask the New England
> Patriots of 2007-08. Tennis does not have a single championship, so
> the slams have to substitute. We often discuss "the best player never
> to win a slam," but few of us care much about "the best player never
> to be ranked no. 1." (And "best player never to be *year-end* no. 1"
> is a discussion I've never even heard of.) A player who wins a slam
> but is never ranked no. 1 will be remembered as a champion, albeit
> perhaps a bit of a flukey champion, if there was only one title. A
> player who is ranked no. 1 but never wins a slam, especially one who
> gets the year-end no. 1 but never wins a slam, will be remembered as a
> good player but an underachiever at best, an artifact of an
> incompetent ranking system at worst.
>
> Fortunately for Jankovic, she still has time to be an Ivanisevic
> rather than a Ríos.
>
> Joe Ramirez


Rios was never yr-end No.1 so that's a saving grace - ie he was never a
real No.1. Jankovic could become the 1st player in history to rank
yr-end No.1 without ever winning a slam title.

But like you say she has plenty of time, & indeed is my tip to win AO.



    
Date: 18 Jan 2009 04:38:31
From:
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 18, 8:43=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <14160-49714911-1...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,
> > JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
>
> >> your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.
>
> >> but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. =A0She is not
> >> from one
> >> of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at
> >> all,
> >> for that matter. =A0So it strikes me as rather understandable that a
> >> young
> >> Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a
> >> Slam.
> >> Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping
> >> her
> >> nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. =A0She
> >> probably
> >> views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
> >> year.
>
> > I thought she had pretty good logic. Winning a Slam says you were the
> > best for two weeks; being #1 shows you were the best over a whole
> > year. It doesn't say your peaks were the highest like a Slam win
> > does. But these days just staying uninjured for a year so you can win
> > enough matches to be #1 is quite an accomplishment. If you ask the
> > players they *all* want to be #1 - they want to be the best in the
> > world. *And* they want to win Slams. Why is it so hard for people
> > here to accept that players may have multiple goals and different
> > ones come to the fore at different times depending what the immediate
> > challenge is and what they've achieved so far?
>
> Because it doesn't make sense. In people's minds the no. 1 ranking means =
the
> best player in the world, and if you are the best player in the world you
> should be beating all the other players in slams. Otherwise it's just
> artificial. Jankovic is no. 1 only according to a formula that few people
> understand or care about. At this level, sport is about _winning_. If Jan=
kovic
> keeps not winning slams but stays no. 1, the rankings will cease to have =
any
> meaning to fans. She should be saying that she doesn't deserve the top ra=
nking
> yet.
>
> P.S. I have picked JJ to win and I hope she does, but she is not the best
> player yet.

Part of the problem is that there are better players who do not play
consistently or enough tournaments to keep the #1 ranking (e.g.
Williams sisters)



     
Date: 18 Jan 2009 13:56:45
From:
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
In article
<71608cd9-f005-4c7f-95f9-8311bff8bd57@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com >,
gregorawe@hotmail.com () wrote:

>
> Part of the problem is that there are better players who do not play
> consistently or enough tournaments to keep the #1 ranking (e.g.
> Williams sisters)
>

Yes, and efforts to get them to play more consistently have utterly
failed. And had they succeeded, neither might be playing now due to
chronic injuries. The recent history of women's tennis ought to be
seriously alarming the WTA heads in terms of the impact of chronic and
long-term injuries and illnesses, and yet they keep trying to force the
players to play more.

wg


    
Date: 17 Jan 2009 18:55:58
From:
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
In article <14160-49714911-1529@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net >,
JTPDC@webtv.net (John P) wrote:

>
> your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.
>
> but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. She is not
> from one
> of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at
> all,
> for that matter. So it strikes me as rather understandable that a
> young
> Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a
> Slam.
> Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping
> her
> nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. She
> probably
> views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
> year.
>

I thought she had pretty good logic. Winning a Slam says you were the best
for two weeks; being #1 shows you were the best over a whole year. It
doesn't say your peaks were the highest like a Slam win does. But these
days just staying uninjured for a year so you can win enough matches to be
#1 is quite an accomplishment. If you ask the players they *all* want to
be #1 - they want to be the best in the world. *And* they want to win
Slams. Why is it so hard for people here to accept that players may have
multiple goals and different ones come to the fore at different times
depending what the immediate challenge is and what they've achieved so far?

wg


     
Date: 18 Jan 2009 19:43:15
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <14160-49714911-1529@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,
> JTPDC@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
>
>>
>> your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.
>>
>> but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. She is not
>> from one
>> of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at
>> all,
>> for that matter. So it strikes me as rather understandable that a
>> young
>> Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a
>> Slam.
>> Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping
>> her
>> nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. She
>> probably
>> views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
>> year.
>>
>
> I thought she had pretty good logic. Winning a Slam says you were the
> best for two weeks; being #1 shows you were the best over a whole
> year. It doesn't say your peaks were the highest like a Slam win
> does. But these days just staying uninjured for a year so you can win
> enough matches to be #1 is quite an accomplishment. If you ask the
> players they *all* want to be #1 - they want to be the best in the
> world. *And* they want to win Slams. Why is it so hard for people
> here to accept that players may have multiple goals and different
> ones come to the fore at different times depending what the immediate
> challenge is and what they've achieved so far?

Because it doesn't make sense. In people's minds the no. 1 ranking means the
best player in the world, and if you are the best player in the world you
should be beating all the other players in slams. Otherwise it's just
artificial. Jankovic is no. 1 only according to a formula that few people
understand or care about. At this level, sport is about _winning_. If Jankovic
keeps not winning slams but stays no. 1, the rankings will cease to have any
meaning to fans. She should be saying that she doesn't deserve the top ranking
yet.

P.S. I have picked JJ to win and I hope she does, but she is not the best
player yet.





    
Date: 17 Jan 2009 22:00:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
John P wrote:
> Joe,
>
> your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.
>
> but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. She is not from one
> of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at all,
> for that matter. So it strikes me as rather understandable that a young
> Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a Slam.
> Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping her
> nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. She probably
> views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
> year.
>


If I'm not mistaken Ivanovic is also a Serb & also won a slam. She said
her goals were to win as many slams as possible.



     
Date: 17 Jan 2009 12:41:19
From: John P
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Whisper,

yes, that's true about Ivanovic, but as they say: different strokes (or
in this case priorities) for different folks (or in this case Serbian
women tennis players).



    
Date: 17 Jan 2009 10:08:50
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"John P" <JTPDC@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:14160-49714911-1529@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
> Joe,
>
> your objections to JJ's position are well made and well taken.
>
> but try looking at it from her Serbian perspective. She is not from one
> of the Slam countries, or a country that has much tennis history at all,
> for that matter.

I agree that Serbia isn't any near eg Australia when it comes to tennis but
to say that the country "hasn't much tennis history at all" is a bit harsh.
imo it has more history than some other even much bigger and larger
countries. Considering its size eg I would say for China "it has no history
at all".
The Serbia and/or Yugoslavia before had some top players and considerable
number of slam contenders/finalist. Even winners.
Tennis has always been closely followed there, and today isn't any more
popular than it was at the height of Seles' success.
All the three Djokovic, Jankovic, Ivanovic, if I am correct were inspired
and motived by Seles and tennis mania of that time.

And to be noted, Ivanovic is considered "the" player in Serbia, not
Jankovic.
And it's not because of the looks but because of the fact Ivanovic won a
slam.



>So it strikes me as rather understandable that a young
> Serb would rather be #1 in the whole world over a year than win a Slam.
> Furthermore, she travelled the world for most of the year, keeping her
> nose to the tennis tour grindstone week in and week out. She probably
> views the #1 ranking as the best indicator of her hard work over the
> year.

She maybe sees it in that way, and people are definitely proud of her, but
she doesn't come top of Ivanovic, not even in her home country.




     
Date: 17 Jan 2009 18:55:58
From:
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
In article <gks77d$b2j$1@ss408.t-com.hr >, skriptis@post.t-com.hr
(*skriptis) wrote:

>
> She maybe sees it in that way, and people are definitely proud of
> her, but she doesn't come top of Ivanovic, not even in her home
> country.
>
>

They made a documentary movie about Jankovic that has played to packed
houses over xmas. I can't imagine she's at all minor.

wg


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 23:04:48
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:2ae87086-9795-4036-884d-fa26e511ab8b@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 4:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
> ...
> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
> country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
> outstanding
> trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign
> at
> season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
> runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
> the No.
> 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a
> grand
> slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks,
> and
> being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best results
> from
> all the other players.
> ...
> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.

I don't think her evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
indicate that she's not serious. However, I agree with you in the
sense that I don't think truly reliable answers can be expected from
players who have achieved either a slam or no. 1, but not both.
Reliable answers come from players who have achieved both (which one
they value more) or neither (which one they desire more).

Joe Ramirez
***

So you're saying eg Giovanna is more credible than Jankovic to answer that
question?

Tough position to defend. :)




  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 22:39:40
From: John P
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Joe wrote:

"I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
indicate that she's not serious."

of course she's serious. furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that
her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything else in this
thread.

BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less reliable
than those who have achieved both or neither because she is defending
the one she has achieved (no pun intended). Where on the reliability
scale would you place someone who achieved one but maintains that he/she
would rather achieve the other?



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 14:55:39
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
John P wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
> "I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing
> to indicate that she's not serious."
>
> of course she's serious. furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that
> her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything else in
> this thread.
>
> BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less
> reliable than those who have achieved both or neither because she is
> defending the one she has achieved (no pun intended). Where on the
> reliability scale would you place someone who achieved one but
> maintains that he/she would rather achieve the other?

That would be much more reliable IMO.




    
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:16:50
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

On 15-Jan-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

> John P wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > "I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing
> > to indicate that she's not serious."
> >
> > of course she's serious. furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that
> > her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything else in
> > this thread.
> >
> > BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less
> > reliable than those who have achieved both or neither because she is
> > defending the one she has achieved (no pun intended). Where on the
> > reliability scale would you place someone who achieved one but
> > maintains that he/she would rather achieve the other?
>
> That would be much more reliable IMO.

Really? Even if it was different than your opinion?


     
Date: 16 Jan 2009 15:58:46
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
jdeluise wrote:
> On 15-Jan-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> John P wrote:
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>
>>> "I don't think [JJ's] evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing
>>> to indicate that she's not serious."
>>>
>>> of course she's serious. furthermore, I see nothing to indicate
>>> that her evaluation isn't at least as well-reasoned as anything
>>> else in this thread.
>>>
>>> BTW, Joe, it sounds like JJ's evaluation is somehow deemed less
>>> reliable than those who have achieved both or neither because she is
>>> defending the one she has achieved (no pun intended). Where on the
>>> reliability scale would you place someone who achieved one but
>>> maintains that he/she would rather achieve the other?
>>
>> That would be much more reliable IMO.
>
> Really? Even if it was different than your opinion?

Even then, extraordinary as that might appear.




  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:17:42
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 15, 5:04=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2ae87086-9795-4036-884d-fa26e511ab8b@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 4:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
> > ...
> > Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won thei=
r
> > country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
> > outstanding
> > trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reig=
n
> > at
> > season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Ope=
n
> > runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> > "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
> > the No.
> > 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning=
a
> > grand
> > slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks=
,
> > and
> > being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best resu=
lts
> > from
> > all the other players.
> > ...
> > I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> I don't think her evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
> indicate that she's not serious. However, I agree with you in the
> sense that I don't think truly reliable answers can be expected from
> players who have achieved either a slam or no. 1, but not both.
> Reliable answers come from players who have achieved both (which one
> they value more) or neither (which one they desire more).
>
> Joe Ramirez
> ***
>
> So you're saying eg Giovanna is more credible than Jankovic to answer tha=
t
> question?
>
> Tough position to defend. :)

I said "reliable answers come from *players* ...." :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:06:02
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
>> ...
>> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won
>> their country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of
>> the outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation
>> has been able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she
>> would have chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
>>
>> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year
>> as the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she
>> said. "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only
>> being the best for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during
>> all the year you have had the best results from all the other
>> players. ...
>> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> I don't think her evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
> indicate that she's not serious.

I suppose we have to take her at her word, but what she says is at odds with
what has mattered most to players up to now, as far as I can remember. The
rankings are just a mathematical formula, and the one in current use is not
necessarily better than many others that wouldn't put her at no. 1. I'm not sure
that this year's formula would be so kind to her in similar circumstances.




   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:37:50
From:
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
In article <XsObl.83238$ln7.62457@newsfe04.iad >, no@email.provided
(DavidW) wrote:

>
> I suppose we have to take her at her word, but what she says is at
> odds with what has mattered most to players up to now, as far as I
> can remember. The rankings are just a mathematical formula, and the
> one in current use is not necessarily better than many others that
> wouldn't put her at no. 1. I'm not sure that this year's formula
> would be so kind to her in similar circumstances.

At YE, Waltz always calculates the rankings under a number of different
systems - previous WTA ranking rules, quality points, win percentage,
matches won, etc. Last year, JJ came #1 in well over half of them. I think
we were all surprised by that, but it does make the ranking seem less
undeserved.

wg


    
Date: 17 Jan 2009 10:11:01
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

<wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk > wrote in message
news:6_adnZr83aLDtezUnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article <XsObl.83238$ln7.62457@newsfe04.iad>, no@email.provided
> (DavidW) wrote:
>
>>
>> I suppose we have to take her at her word, but what she says is at
>> odds with what has mattered most to players up to now, as far as I
>> can remember. The rankings are just a mathematical formula, and the
>> one in current use is not necessarily better than many others that
>> wouldn't put her at no. 1. I'm not sure that this year's formula
>> would be so kind to her in similar circumstances.
>
> At YE, Waltz always calculates the rankings under a number of different
> systems - previous WTA ranking rules, quality points, win percentage,
> matches won, etc. Last year, JJ came #1 in well over half of them.


Is there a link?




     
Date: 17 Jan 2009 07:40:28
From:
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
In article <gks7bg$bdo$1@ss408.t-com.hr >, skriptis@post.t-com.hr
(*skriptis) wrote:

> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6_adnZr83aLDtezUnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > In article <XsObl.83238$ln7.62457@newsfe04.iad>, no@email.provided
> > (DavidW) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I suppose we have to take her at her word, but what she says is
> at
> >> odds with what has mattered most to players up to now, as far as
> I
> >> can remember. The rankings are just a mathematical formula, and
> the
> >> one in current use is not necessarily better than many others
> that
> >> wouldn't put her at no. 1. I'm not sure that this year's formula
> >> would be so kind to her in similar circumstances.
> >
> > At YE, Waltz always calculates the rankings under a number of
> > different
> > systems - previous WTA ranking rules, quality points, win
> > percentage,
> > matches won, etc. Last year, JJ came #1 in well over half of them.
>
>
> Is there a link?
>
>

Sadly, no. But I can ask his permission to post that feature.

wg


   
Date: 15 Jan 2009 23:22:44
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:XsObl.83238$ln7.62457@newsfe04.iad...
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 4:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/...
>>> ...
>>> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won
>>> their country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of
>>> the outstanding trio from the small but productive Balkans nation
>>> has been able to reign at season's end. When asked which status she
>>> would have chosen, the US Open runner-up is unequivocal.
>>>
>>> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year
>>> as the No. 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she
>>> said. "Winning a grand slam is also a great result, but it's only
>>> being the best for two weeks, and being No. 1 in the world during
>>> all the year you have had the best results from all the other
>>> players. ...
>>> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>>
>> I don't think her evaluation is well-reasoned, but I see nothing to
>> indicate that she's not serious.
>
> I suppose we have to take her at her word, but what she says is at odds
> with what has mattered most to players up to now, as far as I can
> remember. The rankings are just a mathematical formula, and the one in
> current use is not necessarily better than many others that wouldn't put
> her at no. 1. I'm not sure that this year's formula would be so kind to
> her in similar circumstances.

It's the same formula (or very similar) like it was in WTA 2008 season/that
men used 2000-2008, just doubled.

slam rounds:

2000
1400
0900
0500
etc


New men's formula is:

2000
1200
0720
0360
etc






 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 21:38:01
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious

On 15-Jan-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/point-to-prove/2009/01/15/1231608889388.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
> ...
> Fellow Serbs Novak Djokovic (Australian) and Ivanovic (French) won their
> country's first two big titles in 2008, but only the eldest of the
> outstanding
> trio from the small but productive Balkans nation has been able to reign
> at
> season's end. When asked which status she would have chosen, the US Open
> runner-up is unequivocal.
>
> "I would have taken the No. 1 ranking; especially finishing the year as
> the No.
> 1 player in the world is really a huge achievement," she said. "Winning a
> grand
> slam is also a great result, but it's only being the best for two weeks,
> and
> being No. 1 in the world during all the year you have had the best results
> from
> all the other players.
> ...
> I can't believe she would have said this if she'd won the USO.
>
> Also on the no. 1 ranking, if JJ reads The Age over breakfast this morning
>
> she'll see "RANKINGS SPAT" beside the masthead on the front page, with
> photos of
> herself and Serena Williams, and on the front page of the sports section
> there's
> a big (and nice) picture of JJ holding up one finger during practice, over
> which
> it says "Serena Williams ridicules Jelena Jankovic's no. 1 ranking." But
> it's
> all a beat-up. Serena is not quoted saying anything about JJ not having
> won a
> slam and doesn't really criticize her at all. She simply says that she
> always
> believes that she is the best player, therefore Jankovic isn't.
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/im-no1-says-brash-williams/2009/01/15/1231608889541.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Well, this year it should be harder to get the #1 spot without winning slams
due to the point changes, right?


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 19:07:21
From: Scott
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Jan 16, 5:17=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>
> > Well, this year it should be harder to get the #1 spot without winning =
slams
> > due to the point changes, right?
>
> ATP finally seeing some sense.

yes, from the perspective of Tier One types. however, there are still
the tournament promoters of lesser tourneys who want people coming to
their events. they can't give zilch points to the smaller venues and
have big names show up.





  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:17:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
jdeluise wrote:
>
> Well, this year it should be harder to get the #1 spot without winning slams
> due to the point changes, right?


ATP finally seeing some sense.



  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 21:18:40
From: Ted S.
Subject: Re: JJ can't be serious
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:38:01 GMT, jdeluise wrote:

> Well, this year it should be harder to get the #1 spot without winning
> slams due to the point changes, right?

They changed the rankings after 2001 to make that harder.

They changed the rankings again a few years back to make that harder.

They've changed the rankings *again* this year. As long as you've got a
rash of injuries, you're liable to end up with a Slamless #1.

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova