Tennis World english 39 Tennis World EN 39 | Page 30

WTA:
a
new
low?
by
Federico
Mariani

Dominika
Cibulkova
wins
the
WTA
Finals
in
the
absence
of
Serena
Williams,
Maria
Sharapova
and
Victoria
Azarenka,
while
Angelique
Kerber
ends
the
year
as
number
one.
Is
this
a
new
low
for
the
WTA
Tour?
It
seemed
like
an
appropriate
ending
to
a
crazy
season.
Dominika
Cibulkova,
after
losing
her
first
two
matches
in
the
round
robin
phase
of
the
WTA
Finals,
managed
to
sneak
in
to
the
semi-finals
thanks
to
some
help
from
other
members
in
her
group.
She
then
went
on
to
win
the
title,
the
second
year
in
a
row
the
winner
of
the
WTA
Finals
had
clinched
the
trophy
after
losing
two
of
her
three
round
robin
matches.

The
way
the
season
ended
has
prompted
a
lot
of
debate
over
the
overall
health
of
women’s
tennis.
Some,
like
tennis
writer
Gianni
Clerici,
having
been
scathing
in
their
comments.
“I
have
never
seen
a
worse
number
one
than
Kerber,”
he
said
recently.
Harsh
though
his
words
may
seem,
he
is
not
alone
in
his
sentiments.

It
is,
however,
unfair
to
pick
on
the
German
in
arguing
for

the
poor
state
of
the
WTA.
She
deserves
the
ranking
given
her
excellent
play
over
the
past
year.
She
won
the
Australian
and
US
Opens
while
also
reaching
the
final
at
Wimbledon.
She
also
won
silver
at
the
Olympics
and
another
title
in
Stuttgart.
She
may
have
conquered
a
weak
field
of
opponents,
but
she
conquered
them
nonetheless.
One
can
only
play
the
people
that
appear
across
the
net
­
who
those
people
are
is
out
of
Kerber’s
control.
Serena
Williams
certainly
did
not
appear
across
the
net
from
Kerber
very
often
in

2016.
The
American
was
racked
with
injury
throughout
the
year,
playing
in
only
seven
tournaments.
Yet,
despite
the
fact
that
she
barely
participated
in
the
Tour,
she
still
ended
the
year
ranked
number
two
in
the
world.
Kerber
is
not
even
that
far
ahead
of
her
in
terms
of
points.
Kerber
also
has
a
lower
winning
percentage
for
2016
compared
to
Williams
(71.4%
versus
84.2%
for
Williams),
though
she
did
play
many
more
matches,
making
a
lower
percentage
somewhat
expected.
But
still,
a
13%
difference
is
massive,
and
not
worthy
of
a
number
one