Serena Williams' victory at Wimbledon means she is now the owner of three of the four Grand Slam trophies, yet still she has to play second fiddle in the world rankings.

If was a fact brought up in the wake of her 11th Grand Slam singles triumph in SW19 and that was hardly the first time commentators and pundits had criticised the WTA's ranking system over the course of the Wimbledon fortnight.

While the reigning number one, Dinara Safina, hardly did her case much good with her feeble collapse to Williams' sister Venus in the semi-finals at Wimbledon, she is there for a reason.

OK, she remains Slam-less - that seemed to be the biggest cause for concern among those critical of the system at the All England Club - but I for one am more than happy to leap to the defence of the Russian, who certainly seemed to get a raw deal from the media over the past few weeks.

What often weren't discussed on TV commentaries and in newspaper columns were the details behind the ranking system. The general criticism which seemed to be levelled at the WTA was 'it's obvious you have the wrong player as your number one, why?'

I certainly remember BBC commentator David Mercer, in the wake of Safina's semi-final surrender, stressing how the Grand Slam are the pinnacles of his sport.

But that view is already well reflected in the ranking system - there are twice the amount of points on offer at a Grand Slam event than there are at the next highest level of tournament (Premier Mandatory) on the WTA Tour.

Perhaps David wants to increase this to three or four-fold - and he would have a point - but think what that would do to the rest of the tour. Wouldn't it just make the events outside the Slams all rather meaningless?

The Williams sisters are masters at turning up at the big events and performing, but they have been criticised in the past for not supporting the tour as a whole. Were such a points change to be introduced, surely even more of the top players would not show up in places such as Indian Wells, Tokyo and Moscow - and that's before you start to mention the lower-tier events in far-flung places across the globe such as Tashkent and Bogota.

OK, the really big stars such as the Williamses would not suffer, but certainly players lower down the scale would - the reason tennis is the best-paid female sport is not just down to the four Grand Slams. It is the fact that people across the world get to see the players compete on a regular basis. TV companies pay big money to tap into its popularity by showing the tournaments. However, the big bucks becomes small bucks if the top players play less and less.

Essentially the reason Safina is currently top of the pile is that her commitment and level of performance on the tour as a whole is better.

Her Grand Slam results may not have brought the three trophies Williams has collected, but they have hardly been shabby. Two finals (both lost) and two semis in the last 12 months.

Where she has picked up the extra few points currently keeping her above Williams is elsewhere - four other finals, two of which have been won. Serena has reached just one other final on the tour this season. Her claycourt results were once again pretty poor.

Another argument being bandied around was that a Grand Slam winner should earn significantly more points than those getting knocked out in the semis. Again, that already happens. Serena picked up 2,000 points for winning the final; Safina took 900 for her run to the last four.

Personally, I don't see a great deal wrong with the ranking system.

Were you to get players playing just a handful of big events and doing well enough to top the pile, you'd soon have the anti-argument that the rankings did not reward the likes of Safina.

No system is perfect and it's easy to see the current one being tweaked, but it's not the disaster some people have been trying to make out.

Should Serena Williams be ranked as world number one? And what changes would you make to the ranking system to improve it? Send us your comments to: tennisfeedback@sportinglife.com.