Is it the number of Slams a player has won in a year?  Or the total titles?  Or what about the head-to-head record against the other top players?  And which of those matters more?  In 2006, women's tennis faces this dilemma... The computer says that Justine Henin-Hardenne is Number One and she did win the season-ending Sony Ericsson Championships, Roland Garros, reach the finals of the other three Slams and collect 4 other titles in 2006.  However, Justine’s 2006 record against the Number Three, Amelie Mauresmo, was only 2-3 although she did have a 3-1 winning record against Number Two, Maria Sharapova.  So what about Mauresmo - she had a career-defining year winning The Australian Open and Wimbledon, as well as 2 other titles and she has a 4-3 record against the other top two players, i.e. Henin-Hardenne and Sharapova.  Once could also argue about the Number Two slot this year.  Maria Sharapova won 5 titles including The U.S. Open, but she had a losing record against Henin-Hardenne, was 1-1 against Mauresmo and collected one Grand Slam compared to Mauresmo.  One can see how Henin-Hardenne garnered the top spot, but why isn’t Mauresmo ranked second?  It’s tough to figure out and decide what’s “fair.”  My vote actually goes for Amelie Mauresmo to be Number One and at a minimum to be ranked second because she won two Grand Slam titles, which everyone knows matter the most, and she has a winning record in 2006 against Henin-Hardenne.  Who gets your vote?