I find it a joke that Alex Eala is ranked No. 29 in the current WTA standings.
She should be ranked higher.
However, I still cannot contest that ranking because the WTA listing is based on points earned by a player from tournaments.
And each tournament has varying levels of points awarded depending on level of competition. This means that a Grand Slam victory earns a tennis player more points compared to 250 and 125 events.
This is what the WTA says in its website on points earned by tennis players:
“A player's ranking is determined by results at a maximum of 18 tournaments for singles and 12 for doubles. Points are awarded based on the level of tournament and a player's round-by-round progression at that tournament.”
Fair enough?
Looking at the WTA’s explanation, one thing is left out in its scoring system: Quality of opposition.
So, let’s say Player A wins the championship of a WTA 1000 event but beats competition mostly ranked below No. 40 with none of them being Grand Slam champions. For sure, Player A will get the most points from the WTA 1000 event because he or she won the title.
However, what if Player B reaches only the quarterfinals but beats two top 10 players before getting beaten by a top 20 player. For sure, Player B will still get less points because he or she did not win the WTA 1000 title.
Now, is that fair?
From where I stand, that is not fair. For one, beating a top 10 player or a Grand Slam champion is harder than beating unheralded opponents enroute to the championship.
So, I think Eala should have gotten additional points in beating current WTA No. 2 and 2026 Australian Open champion Elene Rybakina and and No. 10 and multi-titled Elina Svitolina at Berlin, and defeating defending Wimbledon champion Iga Swiatek in the third round of the Grand Slam.
Comparatively speaking, one player from Poland who went on to contend for the French Open 2026 title is higher than Eala, even if she beat only one top 10 player.
So, Eala being ranked at No. 29 looks strange to me at this point, considering her beating Rybakina, Svitolina, and Swiatek in a less four weeks cannot be overlooked.
Yes, read that again – Eala beat three top 10 players – two of them Grand Slam champions – in less than four weeks.
Maybe the WTA should give additional points to players who beats a top 10 player?
And how about the unquantifiable impact a tennis player has on the sport?
Am I asking too much? Perhaps tennis needs another ranking body, like by a top and respected magazine or social media platform devoted to the sport.
One such ranking entity for boxing exists – The Ring Magazine - which has its own rankings for all divisions and the pound-for-pound (P4P) made up of the best fighters regardless of weight division. Manny Pacquiao and Nonito Donaire at one point of their careers were in The Ring P4P rankings.
However, boxing rankings are not necessarily perfect, including from The Ring Magazine, as they also take into account the views of analysts and boxing writers, who have their own biases.
So, I see a flaw in the current The Ring Magazine rankings, as I believe heavyweight Olyksander Usyk should be ranked at No. 1 and not super bantamweight Naoya Inoue.
The international sanctioning bodies of boxing also take into account the quality of opposition a boxer beats. So, a boxer beating an ex-world champion or a highly-ranked prospect will most likely get a higher ranking than a boxer who feasted on cream puffs and tomato cans to compile an impressive record.
Going back to Eala – I have to accept the fact that she is ranked at No. 29 by the WTA because the leading tennis body’s ranking system is – it is what it is.
But don’t blame Eala if she eclipses other higher-ranked players because like I said before – she is rewriting the rules on who gets the spotlight in tennis.
And woe to Eala’s haters and bashers, because they can’t do anything about that.
(end)
