I chose the word "best" instead of "#1" for a reason. I'm certainly not the only one right now who doesn't view the rankings as the determination of the best. McEnroe was arguing the same point after the match yesterday. The rankings reflect a full year of performance. "Best" is obviously a subjective term, and therefore, the measure is subjective. Up until this year, it's been pretty much assumed that Nadal was the best on clay, Federer was the best on grass, and also had the edge on the hard courts. Nadal still maitains his superiority on clay (Federer can't touch him there) and has proven - in the past two Wimbledon finals really - to be rather equal to Federer on grass. Nadal does have a real chance of surpassing Federer for #1 later in the season, and from a subjective point of view, when he so dominates one surface, and is so equal in ability on one of two others, I'm not sure how he can be viewed as anything but the best, mathematical equations aside.Originally Posted by Broadway;3110546;
For comparison's sake, look at the women's side. Serena Williams moves up in the rankings by losing in the Wimbledon final. Venus, by virtue of winning two years in a row and therefore merely defending points instead of earning new ones, maintains the same ranking.