Is Wozniacki really No. 1 without a Slam?

When Caroline Wozniacki ascended to the top of the world rankings last October, sports talk shows and the blogosphere questioned whether she "deserved" to be No. 1.

Never mind that she had been the tour's most consistent winner, never mind that when she didn't win she was a frequent semifinalist or quarterfinalist. Never mind that she had satisfied the mathematical requirements of the Women's Tennis Association's ranking system, compiling enough points over the rolling one-year ranking period. Wozniacki hadn't won a Grand Slam championship and had been to only one final, the Open here in 2009. She had done her arithmetic to earn No. 1, but had not accumulated the aura of a No. 1, and being No. 1 is more about aura than arithmetic.

"There is a difference between being No. 1 and being a champion," said Chris Evert, who was the very first No. 1 when the women's rankings were introduced in November 1975. "You can be No. 1 and not be a champion. To be a champion, I think you have to win a Slam. And really, to be a champion, you have to win more than one of them."

Paul Annacone is the coach of longtime world No. 1 Roger Federer and before that he was the coach of world No. 1 Pete Sampras. He knows something about players at the top of the heap.

"I think that being No. 1 is a lot about the aura of accomplishment," said Annacone, the former Long Islander. "Yes, it's about winning. But the higher the accomplishment, the more of an aura a player carries around them, and you get that aura by winning multiple Grand Slams."

A player earns 2,000 points for winning a Grand Slam title, 1,400 points for finishing second and so on down the line. The winning point total is double that of any other tournament and second place is 400 more. The rankings system has a very practical application in that it determines a player's direct entry into tournaments, including the Slams. In that sense, just being in the top 100 is more important than being No. 1.

In her day, Evert said that being No. 1 was her primary goal. "The Slams were just not as big as they have become," Evert said. "Plus we had a brand new tour with Virginia Slims as a sponsor and you wanted to play those events. We were so thrilled we had an actual tour with prize money. How many Australian Opens and French Opens did I skip so I could support tennis here, even World Team Tennis."

She is also careful to compliment Wozniacki on her achievements. "You can't take away anything from players who become No. 1 without winning a major because they have to play really well to get there," she said. "They have to be winners."

Wozniacki is far from the first player to become No. 1 without winning a Grand Slam title. Kim Clijsters did so in 2003 before winning her first Slam at the Open in 2005, Amelie Mauresmo did so in 2004 before winning the 2006 Australian. Dinara Safina and Jelena Jankovic became No. 1s but have not won a major.

When Safina became No. 1 in 2009, she supplanted Serena Williams. Williams was asked shortly thereafter what she thought. "Everybody knows who is the real No. 1 in the world," she replied, clearly indicating it was herself, and there was little argument.

Wozniacki is proud and unapologetic about her No. 1 ranking. "I won six tournaments this year already," she said. "You know, I should definitely not be complaining . . . I know everyone has to write their stories, but I think it is time to move on."

For Williams, who has 13 Grand Slam titles, the No. 1 ranking is not the end all, be all.

"My goal is always just to win the tournaments and the ranking will come," she said. "I'll get there. You can't take the ranking with you when you retire, but you can definitely take the titles and the trophies."