What I mean is this:

I think we can quite safely assume that the top-100 ranked players are more or less the 100 best tennis-players in the world (apart of those coming back from injury).

However, we can assume as well that Nancy Loeffler-Caro is NOT among the 967 best tennis-players in the world. ;)
There are definitely tons of better players around the world who are better than her but stick to national tournaments or League-games.
So what about those ranked 300 or 400 ? Are they really 'deserving' this rank ?

I was at some men's 2nd Bundesliga-match last year (the 2nd best tennis-league in Germany). There are players competing who could definitely be top 200 in the world if they played on the tour regularly.

What about the WTA ? How might the best non-WTA-players be ranked ? (maybe you know some as well)

I think that the rankings arent reflective from around 75 down to be honest.

You have lot of players high up who shouldn't be, many who enter weak events for easy points.

I also think that players who have all their results on one surface and havent won anything (or came close to winning anything) but who find them selves in teh top 100 shouldn't really be there.

There are players who are stuck at 250 who are more talented than that, and other who are 150 who are less.

Plus you have all the juniors etc... who are ranked lower than their talent.

I think the ranking system is good, but it still rewards quantity over quality IMO. As a player playing 30 events a year is more liekly to ahve 18 of those with say 5 or more points (talking of challenger players) than someone who plays 20.

I think quality points tell a bigger story to be honest.

But in saying this they do represent a reasonably fair assocation. AS more top 200 players are in top 200, only soem are closer to 100 than they should be an vice versa.

I disagree.

I think you can safely claim that the Top 200 are more or less the two hundred best players in the world. Aside from juniors and the injured, who, like Paul said, are restricted in their total events...if you can't make it into there, playing a pretty full schedule, you just aren't Top 200 material.

I agree with Hurley

the top 300 are reflective in the rankings, IMO

I'd go along with top 300 or so as well.
Below that its very easy to move rapidly up but from 300 onwards now it gets tougher.

I think that the top 300 are fairly accurate and also many in the 301-500 bracket.
However I think that the most accurate of all are the Top 75. For that's when points from challengers cease to make much of an impact and players have to prove themselves on the WTA tour in order to stay in the top 75 or move up.