FanNation - The Republic of Sport

   The coming fortnight is a momentous one for tennis. It will bear witness to the crowning of not one but two new world number ones. To the casual observer, this may not seem such an extraordinary event. In a number of sports the world rankings shift constantly, and for some sportsmen and women their time spent at the pinnacle of their chosen profession is all too brief. This is not the case in tennis. Sure positions interchange frequently in the lower echelons of the rankings, but at the summit there has been a remarkable degree of continuity. Roger Federer has enjoyed a four and a half year unbroken reign at the top, while on the women's side Justine Henin's superb 2007 ensured she had established a similar monopoly on the top spot before her sudden retirement in May. However, next week Jelena Jankovic will realize a dream and become the 18^th top-ranked player in women's tennis history, albeit by a slim eight point margin over countrywoman Ana Ivanovic. The following week will see Rafael Nadal make his long awaited debut as the world number one, finally ending Federer's remarkable run of dominance. Yet as we are about to examine, the path taken by each of these two players on their respective journeys to the top differs considerably, which in turn exposes the ambiguities within the current ranking system employed by the sport's governing bodies.

Let us begin with the rise of Rafael Nadal, who has seemed almost destined for the top spot since bursting onto the scene as a precocious talent in 2005. That year Nadal captured a teenage record eleven titles, including his maiden Grand Slam on the clay in Paris and four other Master Series events. This remarkable breakthrough was to culminate in Nadal finishing the year as world number two, the highest ever year-end ranking for a Spaniard. The following year was just as impressive, as Nadal retained his French Open title, became the first Spanish player since Manuel Santana 40 years earlier to contest the final of Wimbledon, and shattered Guillermo Vilas' Open Era record for consecutive matches won on clay. The defeat versus Federer at the All England Club ended Nadal's streak of consecutive finals won at 14. There was no let up in 2007 either. Nadal became the first player since the inception of the ATP rankings system in 1973 to finish as the world number two for the third straight year, a spot he has occupied continuously since July 25, 2005. His successive winning streak on clay was finally halted at 81 by Federer in the final of Hamburg, but Nadal rebounded by winning his third consecutive French Open and then nearly dethroning Federer several weeks later in a five set Wimbledon final, a match where Nadal seemed to hold the upper hand for long periods. Rafa was also winning steadily on hard courts, and closed the year as the only player on the tour to win at least 30 matches on both clay and hard court surfaces.

This year began relatively slowly for Nadal, but the last several months have seen an astonishing run of success for the Spaniard which has catapulted him to the summit of the sport, and has guaranteed an end to Federer's current 235 week spell as world number one on August 18. A disappointing start to the season on hard courts was quickly forgotten once the clay court season began, as Rafa won back to back titles in Monte Carlo and Barcelona before remarkably going on to win five straight tournaments on three different surfaces, including his fourth French Open and arguably even more impressively his first Wimbledon crown, where he defeated Federer once again in what will surely go down as one of the greatest matches of all-time. His run of successive tournaments won was only finally ended this past weekend when he lost to Novak Djokovic in the semi-final of the Cincinnati Masters. It was during this tournament that Nadal was confirmed as the new world number one, when Federer's early loss at the hands of Ivo Karlovic ensured that Rafa would finally usurp the Swiss maestro at the top of the rankings in a fortnight's time.

So just how has Nadal managed to puncture Federer's one time invincibility? Well firstly, he has damaged his rival by dominating their head-to-head matchups, even when he was some way behind him in terms of ranking points. Nadal won six of their first seven meetings up to and including the 2006 French Open final, which included two matches on hard courts and four finals altogether. Thus he was able to establish a mental stranglehold on the incumbent number one right from the very beginning, and although Federer has posted some important wins over his nemesis in the past couple of years, Nadal has always seemed to possess a psychological edge over him in the great majority of their battles. Nadal's journey to the summit has also been a product of his immense drive to better himself and his game. He has always possessed an unrivalled physicality and mental toughness, and his speed around the court is the envy of his fellow professionals. His topspin forehand is the single greatest weapon in tennis. But Nadal has not rested on his laurels. In the past couple of years he has added speed and accuracy to his serve, to the point where it is also now a weapon. Nadal is always among the leaders in first serve percentage in the end of year statistics. Furthermore, under the tutelage of his uncle and coach, Rafa has successfully modified his approach and developed an all-around game which is more suited to playing on all surfaces. He has demonstrated a greater willingness to come to net and kill off points in his recent grass tournaments, and now stands closer to the baseline than he used to on hard courts, meaning he is less vulnerable to the big-hitting and drop-volley combination used by Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in Australia earlier this year which exposed Nadal's rather one-dimensional play. In short, Nadal now looks every inch the world number one that Federer does not. However, in the case of Jelena Jankovic there is not such a seamless progression towards the number one spot.

Jankovic first emerged on the tennis landscape in 2004, when she captured her first singles title at Budapest and posted her first top-30 finish, finishing the season ranked at 28. Unlike Nadal, Jankovic's progress was neither sudden nor spectacular. 2005 was a steady year for her, as she reached a further three finals (although she lost them all), and made her debut in the world's top 20, peaking at number 17 where she stayed for seven weeks. The following year represents the defining moment of her career. Jankovic suffered ten straight defeats on her way to opening the year with a 1-10 record, while her ranking dipped all the way to 38. Yet she turned things around after Rome, posting a 44-17 mark the rest of the way and reaching her first career Grand Slam semi-final at the US Open that September. Jankovic had vaulted to number twelve in the rankings by year end, and she successfully carried this momentum into the following season, her true breakthrough campaign. She won four titles at Auckland, Charleston, Rome and Birmingham, finished as runner-up in four other tournaments and made the semi-finals on a further seven occasions. Jankovic also reached the French Open semis, losing to eventual champion Justine Henin, after which she peaked at a career high number three in the rankings, a position she was to occupy for the rest of the year. However, her Grand Slam performances were still unspectacular, with fourth round defeats at both the Australian Open and Wimbledon and a third set tiebreak quarter-final loss to Venus Williams at Flushing Meadows when she was seeded number three for the event.

Jankovic has enjoyed a consistent 2008 to date, which has featured numerous quarter- and semi-final appearances. But rarely has she taken that next step, beating the top opponents or winning the really big matches. Her win over Serena Williams in Australia was most impressive, but she followed that with a tame defeat to Maria Sharapova in the semis when physically she broke down, a common theme in many of Jelena's tournament runs. In this case her injury may have been irrelevant anyway given the fantastic form of her opponent in that event. Jankovic was runner-up in Miami, and then managed to defend her Tier I title in Rome, her sixth career title overall, albeit with victory over qualifier Alize Cornet, who was playing her first final at that level. Her biggest moment was to come at Roland Garros however, where she squandered a 3-1 third set lead against compatriot Ana Ivanovic in the semi-final. Incidentally Ivanovic was to claim the world number one spot in the wake of that victory, which she has held ever since. Wimbledon was also a major disappointment, with defeat to veteran Tamarine Tanasugarn for which she astonishingly elected to blame the court chosen to host their match rather than the variety of physical ailments which once again hindered her play. The past fortnight has witnessed Jankovic desperately trying to wrest the number one ranking from Ivanovic, which she failed to do in Los Angeles following a loss to eventual winner Dinara Safina in the semis. Similarly, at the Rogers Cup Ivanovic's early exit once again opened the door, but Jelena was unable to seize the opportunity when she suffered a shock defeat to Dominika Cibulkova. But only this past weekend the WTA announced that Jankovic will indeed succeed her fellow Serb as the new world number one when the rankings list is released on 11 August.

The question is - does Jankovic merit the top spot? Certainly a direct comparison with Rafael Nadal, her equivalent on the men's side, is not favourable to Jelena. After all, we are talking about arguably the greatest number two player of all time here, perhaps in any sport! Moreover, if you take their grand slam records into consideration, again it is a no-contest. Jankovic, for all her talent, has still yet to make a Grand Slam Final, while Nadal already has five to his name with more seemingly on the way. Nadal's thirty career titles dwarf Jankovic's six. A more worthy comparison to undertake is to examine if Jelena has made similar improvements in her game that Nadal so evidently has. Jankovic has and probably always will be an attritional baseliner with a fantastic double-handed backhand and a below-average serve. This doesn't really separate her from any of her peers at the top of the game - most of them fit into this category. Where Jankovic falls down is that unlike some of the other female players, she has not made great strides in improving her main area of weakness. The serve is the same as it always was, as she is content to roll the ball into court and commence the long rallies she so dearly loves. Jankovic is a stubborn character, and it is both an advantage and disadvantage. It is why she rarely loses early in tournaments, even when below par she usually manages to fight her way through. It is also why she sometimes appears reluctant to change her approach and improve her game. Contrast this with Ana Ivanovic, whose new fitness regime has clearly paid great dividends. Slimmer than before, Ana has undoubtedly improved her court coverage, and although she is still not a natural mover, this single advancement has complimented her already powerful serve and booming forehand, which has led to her winning her first Slam in Paris and becoming the world number one immediately afterwards. In the case of Maria Sharapova, a great deal of work was done in the off-season to improve her forecourt play, resulting in her displaying a greater tendency to get into the net and put away the short ball earlier this season. This tactic was particularly effective during her dominant run to the Australian Open crown back in January. The fact of the matter is that Jankovic seems to have changed little in comparison, and were it not for the injuries and mental fatigue suffered of late by her two aforementioned rivals, it is questionable whether Jelena would occupy the spot she now does. So the question that must now be posed is just how has Jankovic managed to attain the number one ranking when her season has been nothing more than steady? Part of the problem is that Henin's sudden retirement several months ago removed the true dominant female player from the equation, and created a power vacuum at the top of the game that her fellow WTA stars have struggled to occupy. The other factor which must be addressed is the very nature of the ranking system itself.

First adopted by the ATP in 1973 and the WTA in 1975, tennis employs a cumulative points system over the course of a calendar year which is principally designed to reward those players who advance the furthest in and ultimately win the most tournaments. A player's ATP ranking is based on calculating his total points from the 13 mandatory events - the four Grand Slams and the nine Masters Series tournaments. His further five best results from the eligible International Series events are also counted. Obviously the bigger the tournament, the more points there are at stake, and the further the player advances through the rounds, the more points he obtains. The player then ends that calendar year with an accumulated total of points which reflects how well he has performed. The following year however he is required to defend the points he accrued at each particular tournament. If he is unable to advance as far as previously, points will come off his ranking total. In theory this is a reasonably fair system, since a particular player is in actuality being graded against himself, against his own previous year's performances. This system has led the very top players such as Roger Federer, who would usually expect to go far in nearly every tournament he enters, to reduce their schedules and play less often, thereby ensuring consistent performances in the big events where the bulk of their points will be at stake. On the women's side, the number of tournament results that comprise a player's ranking is capped at 17. The results which determine her ranking are those 17 tournaments yielding the highest number of ranking points over the past 52 weeks including the mandatory Tier I events and the Grand Slams. The women are also obliged to play a small number of lower-tiered tournaments which are also counted in their total. To complicate matters still further, a number of tournaments have shifted positions on the tennis calendar, either permanently or to accommodate the summer Olympics. But the points gained at those tournaments the previous year are deducted from a player's total in the week the tournament was originally played, regardless of when that event is due to take place in the current season. It is unquestionably a complicated system that even the most ardent tennis fan sometimes may struggle to understand. When you factor in the frequent injuries and withdrawals from tournaments that are prevalent on both tours, and how these will impinge on the following year's ranking totals, you can quickly see that there are inherent anomalies in such a system. To give but one example, this season Serena Williams successfully defended her title in Miami and actually dropped a place in the rankings, as Elena Dementieva, ranked directly below her, made a greater improvement on her previous year's performance there.

The journeys of Rafael Nadal and Jelena Jankovic to the number one spot perfectly illustrate the ambiguous nature of the ranking system. Nadal has been a dominant player in his own right for several years already. He may well go down as the greatest clay courter in the history of the game. It was simply his misfortune that he had to share the limelight at the top with a player of equal dominance in Roger Federer. While Federer set new standards, Nadal has risen to the challenge and taken his game to yet greater levels. In this instance, the ranking system has adequately reflected the shift in the balance of power. Nadal's victory at Wimbledon symbolically represented a changing of the guard, and a month or so later the computer system has now confirmed it. He is unquestionably deserving of his newfound status. As for Jelena Jankovic, she seems to have benefited from a ranking system which rewards consistent results and playing many tournaments just as much as ultimate success in the big events. By consistently making the semis and the quarters of just about every tournament she plays, Jankovic has managed to amass a healthy stack of ranking points that is much less susceptible to the peaks and troughs experienced by some of those players around her. Now that is not to be disrespectful to Jelena, she is to be commended for maintaining a high level of play and nearly always featuring in the select few who contest the big events. Yet without a truly big title to her name, she lacks the credibility a world number one nearly always possesses. To some degree Jankovic is both a victim and beneficiary of circumstances. Henin's retirement has left the WTA without a true number one, and in the meantime Sharapova and Ivanovic have looked uncomfortable with the added burden that comes with being recognized as the world's best player. Their injuries and loss of form have presented Jankovic with a golden opportunity to take the mantle and run with it. A strong showing in Beijing next week and in New York later this month will prove all the naysayers wrong. If she finally manages to take that next step and lands one or both of those tournaments, Jankovic will acquire an air of legitimacy that she is currently lacking. After all, at the end of the day shouldn't we expect a world number one to possess that little something extra which distinguishes them from the rest?