Talk:List of WTA number 1 ranked singles tennis players

Jump to navigation Jump to search

INFORMATION ABOUT WORLD RANKINGS BEFORE 1975

hello everybody,

i have a question - perhaps somebody can help me: I m Working on the german version of tennis world rankings. very often i read that there was also a list during the really early period (wills moody, lenglen). does anybody have informations about these early rankings?

thank you in advance!

airmaxxxer


How is anyone supposed to use this information? What are the last two columns for? It's pretty ridiculous. What do the numbers in brackets in the last table mean? Honestly, I couldn't even guess. pfctdayelise 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad title

This article's title Tennis - World No. 1 ranked Women doesn't follow WP:NAME at all, and it is also not precise (world no.1 adult, junior, disabled players?). Better choices would be:

  • List of WTA Tour number 1 ranked women
  • List of WTA number 1 ranked players
  • List of WTA top ranked players

or something alike. No dashes, no arbitrary capitalized words, no ambiguity. If there is no reasonable objection, I will move the article to one of those. rbonvall 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article moved to List of WTA number 1 ranked players. rbonvall 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whats with the bold? I cant figure out what the bold means... Jabencarsey 05:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither can I. Maybe we could be bold and remove the bold. rbonvall 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Tennis expert's reversion to "accurate updates"

I offer this (note edit summary: "rv original research and jumping the gun on updated rankings that the WTA has not yet issued"). Just looking for clarification as to what has prompted his/her change of view in a month. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because in this case, it's not original research. The Women's Tennis Association and the news media have widely reported what is going to happen on Monday, that is, Ivanovic will become World No. 1. In past cases where I objected to premature updates in this article, there were no such reports. Editors did the calculations of the new rankings themselves. Tennis expert (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because you haven't labelled it original research this time doesn't mean it isn't. It's exactly the same issue you had problems with in the link above. I haven't touched reports as to what is likely to happen with the rankings tomorrow (though I will, since they are unsourced); I've only removed information which, at this point in time, is incorrect. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Dudesleeper. There is a standard to uphold here. If she is number one tommorow then place it. You cannot factually say she is yet. Just wait until it is true before presenting it as such. NeuGye (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arguments of both of you are ridiculous. (1) It was not the same problems as before, as I already discussed. (2) If reliable sources like the Women's Tennis Association and reputable news media report that so-and-so is going to be ranked such-and-such on a specified date based on what's already happened, then that new ranking is postable on Wikipedia. Simple as that. Tennis expert (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. Plus, I don't recall seeing a reference anywhere. Apart from that, though... -
It is a moot point now. But the principle is the same. In a factual article you cannot include information even if it is predicted well by reliable sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia to guess events to come, even if they are 99% sure of thier guess. Wait until it is a fact before saying so. I know Bush will leave the White House on January 20th, but I cannot say Bush is not in the White House. I cannot say he stopped being President. There is nothing wrong with waiting for events to happen before including them in an Encyclopedia, even with reliable predictions and mathmatical models. NeuGye (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would be ridiculous is a reversion of a Wikipedia edit saying that President Bush will leave office on January 20, 2009, on the pretext that the date for leaving office has not arrived yet. It is equally ridiculous to revert a Wikipedia edit saying that Ana Ivanovic is going to become the World No. 1 on June 9, 2008, just because it's now June 8, 2008, if the future event is well-supported by reliable sources. That was completely the case here. Sorry you missed the overwhelming publicity in the tennis and sports world about Ivanovic moving up in the rankings. And your statement about factual articles not being able to include future information even if predicted well by reliable sources is just false on its face. Tennis expert (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're still missing the point. Saying that Ivanovic is in line to be number-one in the text is fine, if it is supported by a source; updating the WTA rankings before they are officially released, however, is not. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unneeded Trivia

Please quit adding info about how a player got thier ranking. Every number one has a backstory about how they got there. Please do not add the astrisk about why the current number one is there. It is unneeded trivia. This article is a list of all number ones. Someone's name goes in the list. That's all. NeuGye (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree completely. Tennis expert (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not "the story of how she got to number one". It means she is not the women with the best results this year, regardless of her no. 1 ranking. If you agree to this statement, please bring my comment back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.190.83 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not agree to your statement 82.166. Ana has the most points of any active player. She is the only one who is ranked number one. Henin did retire, therefore she is out of it. Once retired, tennis moves on without her. Since she officially has no points, the astrisk is unneeded trivia. NeuGye (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that it isn't necessary to mention that Henin retired and that's the reason why Ana and Maria are number one. If so, from now on, all number 1 players had to have an astrisk following their name! We can put a note saying that Henin was the first player to retire at number one!! Flipocb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ranking should not be influenced by the players' statements - only the results should count. Therefore Henin was still no. 1 for 13 extra weeks, regardless of the fact that she said she is retiring.

Well, whether it "should" or "should not" be, the fact is that it is. Justine was taken off the rankings. This article is supposed to list the OFFICIAL WTA rankings, not what they "should be". And according to official WTA rankings, Maria regained the no.1 on 19th May and Ana became no.1 on 9th June.

http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/05/15/its-official-maria-sharapova-will-take-over-no-1-ranking/ http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/06/09/sony-ericsson-wta-tour-rankings-june-9-2008/ http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/08/11/sony-ericsson-wta-tour-rankings-august-11-2008/ http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/08/18/sony-ericsson-wta-tour-rankings-august-18-2008/ Nightandday (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WAIT

It doesn't matter if some nerd with a calculator figured out ahead of time who the new number one will be, you still have to wait. Wait for it to be official before including it as fact. Even if the math lines up right, it is speculation until made official. This article should contain fact. NeuGye (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you, but it is official, see: [1] --Göran Smith (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article mentioned has said she will not be number one until August 11th. Since she is not the current one she cannot be listed as so. Since Wikipedia cannot predict the future then adding her with the future date (one that the reader knows has not happened) will not work. There is no harm in waiting. Accoding to your own link, the official rankings have not yet been published, so it is not official yet. I cannot add things to facual lists until they are indeed facts. Please wait. NeuGye (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Ana won French Open on Saturday, we didn't wait until Monday to add her No.1 template. I think we must add Jelena, but we also must make a note, that she is not yet No.1, because we can't ignore the fact. --Göran Smith (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can wait to do so. I am against any future fact being presented in any article as fact. The current number one is still the number one upon anyone checking the article. Not until the new rankings are officially published is the new number one a fact. This list is for the factual number ones. You cannot say something is completed until it is so, even if it will be. Please state a reason she must be included before it is official? No official means no fact. No harm for it to wait. NeuGye (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jelena Jankovic

How come Jelena Jankovic's page on wikipedia lists her as a former World #1 (as does SportsNetwork) but she is not on this list? Mecil (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because whoever wrote the article didn't do their homework. Justine Henin certainly wasn't the no.1 player until August 2008. She announced her retirement on 14th May and asked to be taken off from the rankings. Maria Sharapova, who was no.2 at that moment, automatically regained the no.1 spot, but soon lost it to Ana Ivanovic, around the time when Ana won Roland Garros. Ana has spent most of June, July and August as the world no.1, but briefly lost the spot to Jelena Jankovic, for just one week. Ana is now back to the no.1 spot. Someone should correct this. Maybe I will, if I find time to find the exact data and do it tomorrow... Too busy watching Us Open now. ;) Nightandday (talk)

Thanks to whoever updated the info! Nightandday (talk)

FA status

I tried (maybe I'm not that good at goggle), but I think if we could find some good references for this article, it could be FA list. Can someone try? :) --Göran S (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Margaret Court

Why is MC listed as one of the players who never reached No 1? The Margaret Court article indicates her highest rank _was_ number 1. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about rankings issued by the Women's Tennis Association. Tennis expert (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Thanks. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tie?

How could Graf and Seles be number one the same time for 64 weeks? Does not make any sense. 94.21.98.27 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently Seles was granted honorary No.1 ranking on her return to play in 1995 - as a compensation for the horrific stab in the back Seles received from a Graf fan in 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talkcontribs) 12:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Update in Future

The sections "World No. 1 ranked players" and "Weeks at No. 1" currently show a last updated date of Sept. 28, 2009. As of this writing, that is 5 days in the future. Mikesflowers (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is because the rankings don't change every day, they change once a week, so each update will be accurate for 7 days in to the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.46.180 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WRONG. "Future" updating is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL BALL and WP:NOR. Rankings listed on Wikipedia are to be sourced to the WTA website. Unless they have posted a future ranking, to do so now is a violation of WP: No Original Research.

A player may seem "assured" of keeping the ranking for another week, but consider:

--Justine Henin retired at #1, unexpectedly.

--Monica Seles was stabbed. A player could die in a plane crash.

--A player could fail a drug test.

We don't know for certain who is going to be ranked #1 on July 30, 2012, so don't update to July 30 2012 until...get this...July 30 2012. Actually, don't update until the WTA website does.Ryoung122 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that something can be retrospectively changed doesn't make putting it in original research or a crystal ball as there is very little room for uncertainty, for example the results of competitions can be changed if a competitor fails a drug test the dates of future elections can be changed but that doesn't mean that you don't know what will happen in non-exceptional circumstances. Future ranking is using already published data, such as the points available at tournaments and the existing points earned. An extreme example is if there are no tournaments in a week the ranking cannot change. You might not put it in for other reasons but it isn't original research. As it is projected ranking putting an asterix before it is reasonable to acknowledge that it might change in exceptional circumstances..Brett Dunbar (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates

There reads this under the 'Weeks at No. 1': As of: July 11, 2011.[2][3]
However, when I click the cite [2], it has only 38 weeks for Wozniacki. And the cite [3] has only list of links to many PDF's. So, something is not right. 82.141.119.182 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor was getting ahead of the official source and added a future week Wozniacki is certain to remain No. 1. She is actually certain to remain No. 1 into August but I think we should follow the source and only say what she already has so I have reverted.[2] If we should have any information about future projections then I think it should be sourced and only mentioned outside the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again. Now there is an August 1st date added, even though August begins only next Monday. 85.217.45.223 (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All over again, the same thing is done to the ATP and WTA number ones. Both are updated to October 3, which is six days ahead. 82.141.127.210 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now the ATP article is ok, but this again has next monday as the date. 82.141.74.147 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If putting the date week ahead, why not more instead? Either put the last published date, or put it all the way to the point where the #1 is secured. No halfway there IMO. 85.217.39.127 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not right. As Dudesleeper said over three and half years ago: You're still missing the point. Saying that Ivanovic is in line to be number-one in the text is fine, if it is supported by a source; updating the WTA rankings before they are officially released, however, is not. And same goes to the ATP number ones article, even though I haven't checked it in a few weeks, I'm almost 100 percent sure it also updated to March 19. 85.217.45.44 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning of "#" column

I am quite tired now, so perhaps I am missing the obvious, but I have no clue what the "#" column means in the "World No. 1 ranked players" table. I cannot see any sense in it. What is its purpose? 86.160.217.54 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the number of players who have ever held the WTA number one computer ranking. Chris Evert was the very first, Evonne Goolagong was second...etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, sorry. Thanks! 86.179.117.144 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Future Updates

As per the discussion on the List of ATP #1 ranked players, updates should not be done until/unless there is an actual update done on the corresponding source cite. The WTA site currently says "as of August 27, 2012," NOT "Sept 3, 2012". So, the update should be as of August 27, 2012.

http://www.wtatennis.com/page/RankingsSingles/0,,12781~0~1~100,00.html

Players could hypothetically retire mid-week, become injured or killed, or fail a drug test. Has it happened before? Justin Henin retired at #1. Being number one this week is no assurance of next week's rankings.Ryoung122 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Players who were ranked world no. 5 or higher but never world no. 1

I miss the old "Players who were ranked world no. 5 or higher but never world no. 1" section which was removed last April. I understand it may be in conflict with the article topic, but I think it should be somewhere. If this article is not the right place, where would it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7empty (talkcontribs) 21:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World no. 1 ranked players

This tables is plenty of errors. Please use as reference the following table: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tennis_Association#Jugadoras_que_lograron_ser_No._1_en_el_WTA_Tour_Ranking Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcmarzulli (talkcontribs) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post Dating Year End #1 Rankings

The year end world #1 ranking is set in stone after the last tournament of the year. For all other weeks of the year, the WTA issues a weekly PDF. However, they do not do this after (usually) the beginning of November when the last tournament is played and when all is said and done for the tennis season. Like this year, they issue a statement about year end #1 and update the career stats. Please review the "Stats - Career" section of the WTA website following this link. http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center There, you can clearly see that they have already factored in Serena Williams' total weeks at #1 as 221 (through the end of the year). This page has her at 214. Also, please refer to their press release from October 25th stating the same thing along with consecutive weeks at #1. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/1026_Williams_Errani_Vinci_Year_End_No1s.pdf I don't know how many different ways the WTA can state something before this article abides by their rules. This article is a reflection of WTA statistics. If the WTA states something as fact, then it is so.

In addition, the rankings aren't actually updated after the last tournament in the beginning of November. The year end #1 rankings are subsequently issued at that time. Anyone can check the year end #1 data sheets on the WTA's website to view all the past year end rankings from 1975 including this years. The 2014 Year End Rankings are dated November 3, 2014. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/Singles_Numeric_2014.pdf It is stated that the year end and FINAL rankings have been memorialized on November 3, 2014. There is no reason why #1 tally cannot be post-dated especially when the tally is listed on the WTA website as an official press release. I will not edit this page, but I hope that folks realize that the page is factually incorrect for the remainder of the year and every future it does not update totals when as WTA does. Thanks all.Kube8 (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already brought up at Wikiproject Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of WTA number 1 ranked tennis players. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of WTA number 1 ranked tennis players. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of WTA number 1 ranked tennis players. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubles position of Hingis

WTA claims two different information as of 5 (12) March 2018:

--Kacir 01:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fyunck(click) and Yimingbao: ... Ranking WTA + sect. Ranking history = 2, ITF = 2 – It seems, Hingis is no more No.1 and such information here is incorrect or it should be fix in {{Top ten tennis players}} and {{Current Women's Doubles Individual WTA Rankings}}. Cheers.--Kacir 11:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her No. 1 ranking appears to have ended on March 5. I see those templates have already been fixed. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem was not in templates, but in this article. Hingis have ended on March 4, this is correct record – Latisha Chan is from March 5 the only No. 1 ranked player.
Despite this fact, current revision shows, that Hingis is still currently co-ranked no. 1 and counts for her 89th and 90th week on top (weeks from March 5 and 12). It's an obvious mistake.--Kacir 15:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Martina Hingis is still number 1. See [3] This is official and from the WTA. 174.228.139.97 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the most relevant and reliable source.--Kacir 02:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today, march 19, nobody is #1 in doubles?

Today, march 19, nobody is #1 in doubles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcmarzulli (talkcontribs) 14:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done.--Kacir 03:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sequential number

Why? Could you please explain? My version is sourced, while your revert doesn't even have an edit summary. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted it. While she was one of 16 players ranked number one at the time, she was NOT the 16th player. She was the 2 nd player to be ranked number one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, she was the 16th player to be ranked number one. Read the sources. (As far as I understand, WTA didn't want to rewrite history. When in 2007 they discovered an error in old calculations, they declared Goolagong the 16th number one.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read that source and that's not what it says. That column is in order of the No. 1 ranking, not the announcement of a mistake that was being corrected. You'll have to convince others to change it and go against logic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That column in its current state is unsourced.
It goes against logic to reinvent history by assigning new numbers to everyone on the list. It was widely known back at the time that, for example, Venus Williams was 11th number one, Henin 13th, Sharapova 15th. I can easily source all these numbers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is simply a chronological list of players who were number one, starting with Chris Evert on Nov 3, 1975. "Back at the time" has changed since new data came to light with the WTA. They corrected themselves and we correct that data here. I can't fathom why you have trouble with this except perhaps a language issue for a non-native speaker? I'm not sure. If Goolagong was No. 1 on April 26, 1976, then she was absolutely the second No. 1 player in WTA history. Of course there were a couple dozen No. 1 players before 1975, but the WTA in 2007 corrected their mistake. And surely they would say at the time that Goolagong was the 16th player to reach No. 1, but the meaning is clear that they meant we have 16 players that have reached No. 1 and Goolagong is one of them... not that she was #16 on a list of 16 players. Chronologically she is number two. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

incomplete section

This section is incomplete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_tennis_players#Weeks_at_No._1_leaders_timeline and isn't it redundant anyway? Isn't the first section a timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.218.150 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTA records and particularities

On the corresponding ATP page there is a section called "ATP records and particularities". In this you can find the following information: "Novak Djokovic has the record of 16,950 ranking points, the most ATP points ever accumulated by any player." Does anyone know if there is a corresponding information for the WTA? For example, as follows: "Serena Williams has the record of 14,720 ranking points, the most WTA points ever accumulated by a player." I've already searched half of Google, but haven't found any corresponding information anywhere. Also, I would appreciate if there was a list (ATP and WTA) with the maximum points accumulated by the different players (e.g. the best 10).--Gilbertblake (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.