The reign of the most disputed No. 1 in the history of women's tennis is over.
Caroline Wozniacki was ousted from the Australian Open on Tuesday, losing a quarterfinal match to Kim Clijsters, 6-3, 7-6 (5). The loss guarantees that the 21-year-old will fall from the top spot of the WTA rankings when they're released next week.
Petra Kvitova, Victoria Azarenka or Maria Sharapova will take over the No. 1 ranking. Wozniacki will fall to either No. 3 or No. 4. A return to the top spot is unlikely in the near future unless she were to win the Grand Slam that has thus far eluded her.
Wozniacki was the fifth player to ascend to No. 1 without having first won a major. The first two,Amelie Mauresmo and Kim Clijsters, eventually got their majors. Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safinanever did.
The tenures of each of those women drew criticism from tennis fans and media, but none earned the derision that accompanied Wozniacki's rise to the top.
She was the No. 1 without a resume, a benefit of circumstance and a women's field that was too inconsistent or apathetic. Everyone had a favorite stat to marvel at. She had the ninth-most weeks at No. 1 since the advent of rankings in 1973. Her time at the top was more than Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova and Clijsters combined. It took Monica Seles two Grand Slam titles to get to No. 1. It took Caroline Wozniacki two Grand Slam semifinals.
That it wasn't her fault didn't matter. She didn't ask for the No. 1 ranking, she earned it through consistent and frequent play.
A loss in a Grand Slam usually adds to the pressure felt by a player. Just ask Andy Murray or Andre Agassi circa 1991. For Wozniacki, Tuesday's defeat alleviates it. It has to be a bit of a relief to know that she'll never be asked again whether she deserves to be No. 1.
Caroline Wozniacki did deserve it. Never during her 67 weeks at the top was she the best player in the game, nor was she ever a favorite to win a Grand Slam. She was simply the player with the most points, an arbitrary leader of an arbitrary system. What was so wrong with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment