Unless two different players have won two slams, the one player with two slams in a year should always be the year #1, the player of the year award winner from every assocation! The last 5 years the WTA has been an embarassment in that sense, with the year-end #1 on three seperate occasions being the year-end #1 out of five. Hingis in 2000 ended the year #1 with one slam final, while Venus with two slam wins and Davenport with one slam win and two other runner ups were relegated to lower positions. 2001 got worse with Hingis staying at #1 almost the whole year as her slamless drought reached almost 3 years, and Davenport ending the year year-end #1 despite Capriati and Venus each winning two slam titles. 2003 saw Clijsters spend most of the year at #1 without a slam title, and Henin with two slam titles and an almost-as-good regular tournament record barely edging her out for year-end #1.
2004 again saw Davenport reach no slam finals and end the year #1. I feel for Davenport since had she not injured herself at the U.S open she would be U.S open champion and a more legit #1 but rankings cant consider "what ifs" and "if she wasnt injured" and dont, a computer cant think that way anyway.
There should be a special rule that a 2-slam winner is the automatic year-end #1 if she is the only one, for sure a 3 or 4 slam winner is year-end #1(imagine the embarassment that would create if she/he were not)
and if there are four slam winners one of the four must be year end #1.
There should be a special rule about this, if they cant devise a system in points that greatly decreases the odds of something to the contrary happening.