Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: home sweet home
What's better for the game: top players OR unknowns making it far in slams?
This debate has been raging in several different threads lately.. So I figured we could bring everyone together here, and also I want to see what the majority thinks so I want a poll.
On one side is Martina Navratilova: she thinks it's bad for the game when Serena and Venus keep making slam finals. These people tend to feel that upsets are good, and it's just plain boring when the top players win all the time.
An example of this is the 2010 Wimbledon, where Kvitova, Pironkova (both pretty unknown) and Zvonareva (a former top player who has struggled the last year or so) are all in the semifinals. Also, I consider both Stosur and Schiavone lower ranked players, so French 2010 would fall into that category as well.
On the other side are the fans of Venus/Serena: they think the best players should perform in slams. The best players deserve to be there, the fans want to see the best players, and the tour is just in shambles when the top players choke and let unknowns through.
Also on this side is 2009 Wimbledon, where the top 4 seeds (Safina, Serena, Venus and Dementieva) all made the semifinals, with Venus and Serena squaring off in the final.
So in general, what's better for the WTA Tour: top players always making slam quarters/semis/finals, or the surprise lower ranked/unknown players making it deep into slams? And why?
Obviously the easy answer is: top players should be most successful, with the occasional upset run by an unknown. But I don't want that answer! If you had to swing one way or the other, which would you choose
I used to list my favorite tennis players here...
...then they all retired.I used to keep track of my rankings in fantasy games here...
...then I realized how much I suck.I used to update this signature, once in a while...
...then I realized no one actually reads it.
Last edited by twight6; Jun 30th, 2010 at 02:40 AM.