PDA

View Full Version : Tier V title vs Slam QF: to be the best lower tier player or to be a top tier player


CanadianGuy
Apr 22nd, 2004, 05:48 PM
Which one do you choose?
Tier V's are usually scheduled side by side with Tier I's or II's, whoever win them though will never get exposure as Tier I winner. To me, I would rather be called as a slam contender, to be considered as a top tier player, by reaching the quarter final, then to be called the best player for a week against low tier players, it is just not the kind of attitude a champion should have.

tennisIlove09
Apr 22nd, 2004, 05:50 PM
Slam quarter, because you probably beat a top player along the way...and it shows that you have potential.

venusfan
Apr 22nd, 2004, 06:00 PM
V title. I would want to be a champion and also.. gain confidence.. Patty Schnyder did it.. everythough those were tier III and it improved her game.. Maybe had Anna done someone of those tournaments she would have a few titles today..

jenny161185
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:05 PM
Slam Quater Definatley - beating a top player ad gettin to play the Quater would b great aswell as the atmosphere exposure etc

LucasArg
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:07 PM
I prefer the tier V title.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:09 PM
i would actually prefer the slam quarter final. Since I could improve later on that result and show HEY I BELONG HERE With the top 8!

ghosts
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:10 PM
QF of course.... although I like Tier V's too :)

WF4EVER
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:22 PM
So why does Anna Kournikova catch so much flack? Hasn't she made the QF of Grand Slams? Yet she's never won a title, V or X, so which is really the more important of the two.

It would be great to reach the QFs consistently and it's worth more points-wise and money-wise, but if after the end of an illustrious Slam QF career I have no title (V or X tier), everybody's gonna hammer me for it a la Anna and say I could never win a single title even though I made Slam Qfs consistently, no?

croat123
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:39 PM
title

a slam qf would be great, but, in the end, it's the number of titles people remember you by...

CoryAnnAvants#1
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:43 PM
Depends on how I got to the slam quarterfinal.

If I did it in the way Fabiola Zuluaga got to quarters of the Aus Open (before moving to the semis), beating very weak players with little to no attention on her match, then I'd pick the Tier V title.

If I knocked out a top 10 player on a big time showcourt, maybe another top 20 win on the Grandstand or something, before losing to a top five player in a close 2 setter, then the Grand Slam quarter.

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:43 PM
God, you keep asking the tough ones. Slam semi is definitely better professonally than Tier V title. Look how long it kept Alexandra Stevenson God Exempt. But QF .....

To me, being the last woman standing has always meant something special, even at the Tier V level.

Good question.

Mr_Molik
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:52 PM
tier V

CanadianGuy
Apr 23rd, 2004, 04:59 AM
Depends on how I got to the slam quarterfinal.

If I did it in the way Fabiola Zuluaga got to quarters of the Aus Open (before moving to the semis), beating very weak players with little to no attention on her match, then I'd pick the Tier V title.

If I knocked out a top 10 player on a big time showcourt, maybe another top 20 win on the Grandstand or something, before losing to a top five player in a close 2 setter, then the Grand Slam quarter.
You cant say that, she got there because she made sure she won her first 4 matches to reach QF. yes, Amelie retired. She was not just lucky, she made sure she was ready for this "luck" to help her into the QF. I'm sure there are a lot of ways to be called an unworthy winner. There are tournaments won where winner only beat one top 100 player, but a win is a win. A QF performance is a QF performance.

A lot of the players have a dream to appear on the centre court of Roland Garros. And many so called "surprise" quarterfinalists or semifinalists, they always indicate that playing in the last 8 in a grand slam is such a dream come true. I'm sure the excitement for that is a lot more than winning a tournament in the far east, e.g. Tashkent, where probably 100 people will salute you victory on site, while in the slam, your showing will be celebrated by 50 times the spectators.

Chunchun
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:04 AM
i prefer Slam QF

Mattographer
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:23 AM
Tough question but I guess I gonna with a Tier V title.

- L i n a -
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:25 AM
Slam QF, obviously...

I don't understand how people can even think a Tier V means more.

faboozadoo15
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:29 AM
id take a slam quarter over a tier V or IV

but i'd take a tier III over a slam quarter.

switz
Apr 23rd, 2004, 05:38 AM
definitely a slam quarter. i'm a huge patty fan but i can hardly remember the names the of tournaments she won back in 98 (except hannover), and she actually beat some good players to win them as well. i can remember that adriani serra-zanetti and virginia ruano pascual have made the AO q/fs but i would have no idea what other titles they have or haven't one. making a slam quarter is a big barrier to get through, winning the majority of tier Vs really doesn't mean much at all in my opinion beyond the fact that you have some mental strength to be able to string a few wins against average players together (that might be a little harsh, but i just don't think it is something the great majority of people are going to remember.

Brαm
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:44 AM
title

a slam qf would be great, but, in the end, it's the number of titles people remember you by...
People don't care how many Casablancas you won :o

space_eef03
Apr 23rd, 2004, 08:27 AM
Qf of a slam.

A'DAM
Apr 23rd, 2004, 08:31 AM
I think you get more ranking points and money for GS QF so I will go with that one!

Vincent
Apr 23rd, 2004, 08:38 AM
I couldn't agree more with Bradshaw, Fabiola gained no attention except for her fans on her way to SF:( The moment of picking a title is wonderful but storming into the last eight in a Slam with wins over players like Davenport or even Justine, who still want a Tier V Title.

Buitenzorg
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:37 PM
I prefer Slam QF ;)

have a look of the Class! Grand Slam!

win tier V ... is nothing better than Reach Round 3 GS ;)

Experimentee
Apr 23rd, 2004, 02:52 PM
So why does Anna Kournikova catch so much flack? Hasn't she made the QF of Grand Slams? Yet she's never won a title, V or X, so which is really the more important of the two.

It would be great to reach the QFs consistently and it's worth more points-wise and money-wise, but if after the end of an illustrious Slam QF career I have no title (V or X tier), everybody's gonna hammer me for it a la Anna and say I could never win a single title even though I made Slam Qfs consistently, no?

Anna K only made a Slam QF twice in her career, and she didnt beat top players to get there. I dont think thats an illustrious Slam QF career like you say.

For me, its a really tough choice. It would be no contest if it was a Slam SF, but a QF is not as good, doesnt get you noticed as much, and plenty of players have done that and not done anything else. I'd probably say a Tier V title, because at least you'll have your name up as the champion for ever, but i doubt many people remember the players who have only made Slam QF's.

whorehand
Apr 23rd, 2004, 06:29 PM
Anna K only made a Slam QF twice in her career, and she didnt beat top players to get there. I dont think thats an illustrious Slam QF career like you say.

For me, its a really tough choice. It would be no contest if it was a Slam SF, but a QF is not as good, doesnt get you noticed as much, and plenty of players have done that and not done anything else. I'd probably say a Tier V title, because at least you'll have your name up as the champion for ever, but i doubt many people remember the players who have only made Slam QF's.

Anna's grand slam career may not have been illustrious, but she did beat some top players. To get to the Wimbledon Semi in 1997 she had to be Iva Majoli (4th seed and recent French Open Champion) and Anke Huber (7th seed), on her debut. That ain't bad.

It is funny though, she'll always be remembered for that great achievement, which really through her into the spotlight, but more so for never winning a title.

As someones already said, if I got to the QF by beating some top players I'd chose that. If not, then the title.