Is winning overrated? (ex.Hingis/Serena)
Most people are all of a sudden putting Serena over Hingis because Hingis hasn't won all slams, despite Hingis having twice more titles, about 5 times more weeks at no.1, more then twice of grandslam finals, etc.
However, my question is the following:
Let's take Serena's record at the FO. She has one title but then everything else sucks!
1 title, 1 QF, 1 4R, 1 3R.
However let's take Hingis' record at the FO:
2 finals, 3 Semis, 2 3R.
Is 1 title and basically nothing else bigger then 2 finals + 3 semis?? In my opinion, not at all.
Also many people tend to forget that Hingis reached 6 consecutive grandslam finals at the AO including winning a hat trick, yet Serena has never come close to this and hasn't even defended a grandslam title.
Anyways I just think that winning 1 title and doing nothing else, doesn't mean that it's "greater" then making several finals and semis thus proving consistancy and longevity. Hingis' record at the FO is better then Serena's record at the AO and FO. And add this to the fact that Hingis has many more slam finals overall, many more titles, many more weeks at no.1, Hingis comes out on top easily.
"Winning a title" is very overated, in fact if you compare the Serena final at the AO and the Hingis final at the FO, the only difference is one point or two. That shouldn't make THAT much of a difference. When you look at it Hingis' record at the FO is bigger then Serena's record at the FO or AO.