At the end of the day, how important are the Grand Slams? - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:17 PM Thread Starter
BCP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 1,964
                     
At the end of the day, how important are the Grand Slams?

There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?
BCP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
it's about the whole career but the margaret court less then steffi has to do with the fact that most didn't see her play.

in 30 years a lot (outside the historians under us) people have forgotten the steffi's, nav's and monica's, venus and serena's too

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #3 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:29 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Eurasian Steppe
Posts: 34,211
                     
Not to mention the fact that Helen Wills Moody with her 19 grand slams hardly rates in the "greatest 5" of most fans' lists.

La Divine et les Mousquetaires
Divas: Seles, Sharapova, Muguruza
Pas de Quatre:
Swan Lake, Giselle, The Nutcracker, Coppélia
Quintessential Quintet: Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, Graf

Sam L is offline  
post #4 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: croton, ny
Posts: 947
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCP
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?
the grand slams are very important primarily because you have to win 7 matches under intense physical and mental pressure. playing a tier I final doesn't carry the same pressure. also, we need the grand slams in order for the players to set goals. otherwise, one tournament is indistinguishable from another one.

i agree about sabatini. despite her title drought in the latter stages of her career, she played consistently well throughout her slump.

just a correction: navratilova def. garrison in the 1990 wimbledon final.
doloresc is offline  
post #5 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:35 PM Thread Starter
BCP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 1,964
                     
So are we saying that the GS are no1? I still say that Gaby had a much better career than Mary Pierce, even though she won less GS. Also, say that Martina had lost to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS to Chris's 18, would we still think that Martina was greater than Chris?
BCP is offline  
post #6 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:36 PM Thread Starter
BCP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 1,964
                     
Sorry. You are right about Wimbeldon. i always seem to think that it was 93.
BCP is offline  
post #7 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: croton, ny
Posts: 947
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCP
So are we saying that the GS are no1? I still say that Gaby had a much better career than Mary Pierce, even though she won less GS. Also, say that Martina had lost to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS to Chris's 18, would we still think that Martina was greater than Chris?
it's all relative, depending on your perspective. there's no question that navratilova dominated evert in their final years but we could turn around and laud evert's clay court record and french open title tally and compare it to navratilova's. but to answer your question, overall i would say navratilova had the better career even if she had one less slam than evert because of her head-to-head with evert.
doloresc is offline  
post #8 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
well grand slams are important but the rest counts too. see I don't think rankings on the other hand are so important mandlikova won 4 slams, so did asv. can you say then asv is greater because she was number one? I think mandlikova won also two slams in a year once (I keep it with singles since asv was probably way more succesfull in doubles)

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #9 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: croton, ny
Posts: 947
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by irma
well grand slams are important but the rest counts too. see I don't think rankings on the other hand are so important mandlikova won 4 slams, so did asv. can you say then asv is greater because she was number one? I think mandlikova won also two slams in a year once (I keep it with singles since asv was probably way more succesfull in doubles)
sanchez vicario won two slams in 1994. i love mandlikova's game but sanchez vicario's heart and determination gives her a big edge over mandlikova in my book.
doloresc is offline  
post #10 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Posts: 1,483
                     
I think Slams carry a certain amount of prestige and people are likely to remember who won them etc. However I think some people place too much importance on them. Some tier1s / tier 2s are far more difficult to win than a slam, as you have to play difficult players from round 1. In a slam 7 matches have to be played but especially nowadays with the advent of 32 seeds you can virtually walk yourself (if a top player) into the 2nd week.

Generally all the best players willl have a slam at the end of their careers. But by comparing the number that they have accumulated is pointless i feel.

The number 1 position is harder to achieve than a slam, as can be seen by the number of people holding it.

Go: Kim, Sveta, Amelie, Justine, Daniella, Patty & all the brit girls.
Darran is offline  
post #11 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:48 PM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by doloresc
sanchez vicario won two slams in 1994. i love mandlikova's game but sanchez vicario's heart and determination gives her a big edge over mandlikova in my book.
yeah I know she did in 94. mandlikova was a bit before I really got into tennis so I can't judge her tennis. I only base it on results

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #12 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 12:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: croton, ny
Posts: 947
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darran
I think Slams carry a certain amount of prestige and people are likely to remember who won them etc. However I think some people place too much importance on them. Some tier1s / tier 2s are far more difficult to win than a slam, as you have to play difficult players from round 1. In a slam 7 matches have to be played but especially nowadays with the advent of 32 seeds you can virtually walk yourself (if a top player) into the 2nd week.

Generally all the best players willl have a slam at the end of their careers. But by comparing the number that they have accumulated is pointless i feel.

The number 1 position is harder to achieve than a slam, as can be seen by the number of people holding it.
re: the tier I and tier II, sometimes it's true that draws are tough and sometimes they're not. a habitual thing that occurs at the upper tier tournaments: top contenders pull out of them often (i'm sure a statistician can prevent some evidence), top seeds get byes, top seeds fall early and you'll get a surprise winner.. it's really a case of apples and oranges.

very good point about the #1 ranking.
doloresc is offline  
post #13 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 01:02 PM Thread Starter
BCP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 1,964
                     
I think that most recent dilema the tour encountered was the Hingis/Venus situation in 99/2000. Hingis probably won all of the tier 1's outside the GS, and was at the latter stages of all of the GS. her problem was that she just couldn't win one, but in the rankings, she was streets ahead of venus.

If we were to look at a palyer's career would we prioritise as follows:

1. GS
2. Highest ranking
3. no. of tourneys won?
BCP is offline  
post #14 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 01:04 PM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
but what if you win 30 tier 3's are you greater then when you win 10 tier 1's?

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #15 of 33 (permalink) Old Aug 8th, 2003, 01:05 PM
country flag SJW
Senior Member
 
SJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Allez
Posts: 11,016
                     
also era is everything.

if Serena was to play another 10 years (improbable, not impossible) and was to win on average a slam a year in that time, i think i would have a claim to say its as impressive as Steffis 22 slams, based on competition.

also Courts slams were b4 the Open era right? so thats why Steffi's are more impressive
SJW is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome