PDA

View Full Version : Sharapova: winning only Wimbledons is good enough for me..


ys
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:44 PM
"If I win 10 more Wimbledons and no other Grand Slams, I won't mind. Wimbledon is the biggest tournament"

Funny, that's what Roger just said too.. :)

Allez-H
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:45 PM
yeah, isn't she like copying Roger :scratch:

ys
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Yeah, copying.. But , in reality, they both are just stating the obvious.. One tournament that is universally considered the greatest by far.. It's like if a football player said - "It is OK if I win few World Cups and nothing else" or if figure skater would say -"With winning several Olympics I don't need to win anything else"..

goldenlox
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Only 10 more?

ys
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:49 PM
Only 10 more?

Humble girl, I know.. :lol:

Allez-H
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:53 PM
Yeah, copying.. But , in reality, they both are just stating the obvious.. One tournament that is universally considered the greatest by far.. It's like if a football player said - "It is OK if I win few World Cups and nothing else" or if figure skater would say -"With winning several Olympics I don't need to win anything else"..
I don't know about Wimbeldon being the greatest tournament. For Sampras it was, for federER it is and same goes for Maria apparently but some players like other tourneyS above Wimby :shrug: eg the Spanish/Argtinian armada, don't talk to them bout Wimby if they have RG. And Justine just said that Wimby is maybe the only Slam she hasn't won yet and she would really like to win it one day,RG is her favorite and the greatest tournament in her eyes. And then continiued: "don't ask me why, it's just like that" But generally Wimby is seen as the greatest tourney,yes;

V-MAC
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:54 PM
hmm, Venus should be really proud of herself then with her 2 titles and 2 finals there :bounce: :bounce:

ys
Jun 4th, 2005, 06:57 PM
I don't know about Wimbeldon being the greatest tournament. For Sampras it was, for feder it is and same goes for Maria apparently but some players like other tourney above Wimby :shrug: eg the Sapnish/Argintian armade, don't talk to them bout Wimby if they have RG.

That's why none of that "armade" makes it to the list of all time greats..

Like - Venus won 4 Slams and Olympics, and so did Justine. Both were #1s.. Won Fed Cup. But .. Who has the better career at this point? Justine won 3 different Slams.. That would give her a nod .. but .. In fact it is no contest. Justine does not own the pinnacle of the sport. Venus has 2.

SJW
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:04 PM
thats because Wimbledon is the best tournament. i wish Monica won it...cuz all the truly great players seem to win it

i have to admit, Wimbledon is the slam i truly want my faves to win. others are a bonus. Wimbledon is the most prestigous

manu32
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:06 PM
for a lot of players wimby is the top, but federer,agassi,sampras,graf,davenport,the williams,hingis...etc....won also other GS.......

ys
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:08 PM
for a lot of players wimby is the top, but federer,agassi,sampras,graf,davenport,the williams,hingis...etc....won also other GS.......

Don't worry, she will too..

harloo
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:09 PM
yeah, isn't she like copying Roger :scratch:

the girl is a copycat, but she's only 18. Let's all give her a break.:eek: :lol:

10nisfanofruz
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:10 PM
No doubt that Wimbledon is the most important GS for Maria.
Her life has totally changed since winning Wimbledon. ;) :lol:
Maria is also capable to win US Open, it's just the matter of time. :)

ezekiel
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Maria is way too young to be adopting this loser mentality, clearly pressure to win is making her say fuzzy things.

VivalaSeles
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:15 PM
Hmmm ... ever read the story about the fox and the grapes?

ys
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:16 PM
Maria is way too young to be adopting this loser mentality, clearly pressure to win is making her say fuzzy things.

It's just that she is saying those things at the right time. Roger saying the same two weeks ago was an equaivalent of saying "Fuck you and your Slam - I don't care" to the French.. Maria says that it just before Wimbledon.. "I want it. That's what I really care about".. So no excuses about value of the event in case she loses.

Pengwin
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Shows that sdgas about RG? :shrug:

goldenlox
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Maria is saying this because in the last 3 majors, she's 12-3. One semi.
Nadia is 13-3, one semi.

lindsayno1
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:22 PM
ha well the weathers gonna be great this year and there will be no rain breaks!!

bandabou
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:34 PM
she talked the talk....

bandabou
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:36 PM
although girl really needs to start working on being original..

Daniel
Jun 6th, 2005, 05:08 AM
I wish nastya wins Wimbledon :hug:

Leo_DFP
Jun 6th, 2005, 05:36 AM
Sour grapes after Paris. ;)

ys, not everyone considers this the greatest tournament in the world. Get over it. Stupid thread.

Denise4925
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:53 AM
Maria is saying this because in the last 3 majors, she's 12-3. One semi.
Nadia is 13-3, one semi.
I think the same thing. Players say this to make them feel better about themselves because they know or feel they can never win any other slam. To me, a truly great tennis player can play and win a major on all four surfaces. But, that's just me.

The Crow
Jun 6th, 2005, 10:48 AM
It indeed sounds more like sour grapes from someone who lost to me.

And Venus still obviously having the better career than Justine at this time? I love Vee and all but give me a break :rolleyes:

gopher
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:09 AM
The quote is misplaced in view of her recent loss but she is right that Wimbledon is the greatest tournament. That is also Kim Clijsters' opinion while she has never made the final there.

That said, I sincerely doubt whether Sharapova will take the title this time.

fifiricci
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:19 AM
not everyone considers this the greatest tournament in the world

A lot of posters in here might not think that Wimbledon is the best GS in the world, (particularly as most of the planet appears to be so anti British atm! :lol: ), but from what I've heard when players are interviewed, most of them indeed seem to think that Wimbledon IS the best GS tournament and the one they most want to win.

Maybe it's all the nice green decor they like, that matches the grass! :lol:

VRee_Willario
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:23 AM
If you win wimbledon, You'll become more famoust than Winning, say Australian Open. Wimbledon is the best time of the year for me, I'm glued to the television screen!!! :D :D :worship:

Altough I live here in north, and love Winter!! :D , so this tells a lot

rockbottom
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:28 AM
ha well the weathers gonna be great this year and there will be no rain breaks!!
fantastic!!! that means davenpoorsport can't make up excuses when maria gives her another whoopin.

Dan23
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Isnt this the 3rd thread about exactly the same thing :scratch:

The Crow
Jun 6th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Oh and I wasn't implying that Wimbledon isn't generally seen as the most important GS (cause it is), but it's not everything. And I'm sure that someone who has won all GS's has a better career than someone who wins Wimbledon 4 times.

volta
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:15 PM
i think that most of the players think this way. face it Wimbledon is the tournament that every1 wants to say i won.

Allez-H
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:29 PM
That's why none of that "armade" makes it to the list of all time greats..

Like - Venus won 4 Slams and Olympics, and so did Justine. Both were #1s.. Won Fed Cup. But .. Who has the better career at this point? Justine won 3 different Slams.. That would give her a nod .. but .. In fact it is no contest. Justine does not own the pinnacle of the sport. Venus has 2.

Say what :scratch:

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:44 PM
How did Venus and Justine even end up in this thread?

Anyway just to touch on that... Yes Venus has the better career she has the same number of slams more doubles slams and more titles.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:19 PM
How did Venus and Justine even end up in this thread?

Because they are the only two currently active players who won the same number of Slams.. With one winning W and other not..

Anyway just to touch on that... Yes Venus has the better career she has the same number of slams more doubles slams and more titles.

Doubles Slams are mostly irrelevant. Wimbledon is.

Spunky83
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:25 PM
10 more... :lol:


Wimbledon HALL OF FAME

2004: Maria Sharapova
2005: Maria Sharapova
2006: Maria Sharapova
2007: Maria Sharapova
2008: Maria Sharapova
2009: Maria Sharapova
2010: Maria Sharapova
2011: Maria Sharapova
2012: Maria Sharapova
2013: Maria Sharapova
2014: Maria Sharapova :worship:

Shes right...it is cool and sooo not possible, but anyway, Id rather have a career slam than tons of Wimbys, ask Pete Sampras.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:33 PM
10 more... :lol:


:worship:

Shes right...it is cool and sooo not possible, but anyway, Id rather have a career slam than tons of Wimbys, ask Pete Sampras.

And ask Ivan Lendl. I am surely they both would agree.. :lol:

Veritas
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:40 PM
I love Maria, but if I were her, I'd rather spread my Slam wins liberally. She and others may put Wimbledon up there as the pinnacle, but there are millions of other tennis players and fans who I reckon would probably either view Wimbledon as the least important or decide to place each Slam with equal importance.

Anyway, so Justine has 3 different Slams while Venus has 2, but (if someone can correct me here), isn't that about the only advantage that Justine has so far?

Venus has been on the top-end of the rankings since she was 17; Justine only made a big impact back in 2001 when she was about 18 or 19. Venus has won more singles titles - I don't think I need to bring up the number of doubles titles won to show who's got the advantage there. Plus, Venus has made more appearences in GS finals - from memory, I think she has about 9, while Justine has 5.

I also get the feeling that when Venus was at her peak, she was really dominant. Her forehand back then was, IMO, her most impressive shot: just take a look at how she steps inside the baseline when she receives a second serve, and scorches the ball mercilessly. Justine has a more refined game, but she had to work harder to dictate a match and nail her opponents to the ground. Of course, that doesn't mean Justine's game's less impressive - she just takes a bit longer to hammer things home - but Venus, at her peak, would be too much for Justine to handle.

And it's stupid to discount doubles achievement. If anything, Venus should be applauded for her versatility.

bandabou
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Or ask Agassi....Pete has more like 6 more wimbledons than Agassi, but some are willing to make the case that Andre was the better player because Andre has the career slam.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:43 PM
Or ask Agassi....Pete has more like 6 more wimbledons than Agassi, but some are willing to make the case that Andre was the better player because Andre has the career slam.

That is laughable.. Andre would be the first lhao at that..

azinna
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Not that great a statement, from either Roger or Maria. And it's obviously a reaction to a (timely) shift in the way folks are assessing player's careers and achievements. Without doubt, the prestige of Roland Garros and clay has risen over the past decade or so, especially since The Missing French has emerged as a pattern. There's serious pressure now not to leave the circuit without a French in hand. Just as there was always pressure to win a Wimbledon title. The clay-court specialists have had to deal with this since the early 90s. They've not always acted like adults (skipping W, grass is for cows), but now they're seeing the light and expanding from the French into US and Aussie and even Wimbey territory. It's no coincidence, then, that while the "clay-courters" are maturing and encroaching, we're getting a few grass-court enthusiasts getting territorial, acting like babies, feeling the pressure to be truly versatile.

Denise4925
Jun 6th, 2005, 10:16 PM
That is laughable.. Andre would be the first lhao at that..
I doubt he would be the first or the last to laugh at that suggestion. I agree that he was/is a better player than Pete. He was/is more versatile and his game more adaptable. To me, Pete was a one surface genius. His game was one-dimensional (serve and volley).

lindsayno1
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:04 PM
fantastic!!! that means davenpoorsport can't make up excuses when maria gives her another whoopin.


Did u forget Lindsay was kicking her arse up until the rain break?!

bandabou
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:10 PM
That is laughable.. Andre would be the first lhao at that..

I think so too, but the comparison has been made.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:57 PM
I think so too, but the comparison has been made.

Only by clueless. 12 big Slams against only 4.. 6 year end #1s against just 1. There are two players at Open Era who are different galaxy - Borg and Sampras. 10+ big Slams. Those two are comparable and can be argued about which of the two is greater. No one else comes even close, save probably Laver.

SJW
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:01 AM
while i like Andre soooooooooooo much more...if i had to give up a a FO title for 6 more Wimbledons than i would :o

ys
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:03 AM
while i like Andre soooooooooooo much more...if i had to give up a a FO title for 6 more Wimbledons than i would :o

I am sure he would have given it up for just one.. :)

bandabou
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:12 AM
Only by clueless. 12 big Slams against only 4.. 6 year end #1s against just 1. There are two players at Open Era who are different galaxy - Borg and Sampras. 10+ big Slams. Those two are comparable and can be argued about which of the two is greater. No one else comes even close, save probably Laver.


Bottom line...

Denise4925
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Only by clueless. 12 big Slams against only 4.. 6 year end #1s against just 1. There are two players at Open Era who are different galaxy - Borg and Sampras. 10+ big Slams. Those two are comparable and can be argued about which of the two is greater. No one else comes even close, save probably Laver.
:lol: Only the clueless, like you make up shit as they go along. You should stick to trolling WS threads, because tennis is just not your forte.

Let me clue in you on Andre, he's won 8 slams and they are as follows:

53 career tournament wins including the career grand slam; Wimbledon (1992), U.S. Open (1994,99), Australian Open (1995,2000,2001,2003), French Open (1999).

He's also been No. 1 three times, 1996, 1999 and 2003, and he's still in the top 5 with Sampras long gone and retired.

Now what? :lol:

ys
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:20 AM
:lol: Only the clueless, like you make up shit as they go along. You should stick to trolling WS threads, because tennis is just not your forte.

Let me clue in you on Andre, he's won 8 slams and they are as follows:

53 career tournament wins including the career grand slam; Wimbledon (1992), U.S. Open (1994,99), Australian Open (1995,2000,2001,2003), French Open (1999).

He's also been No. 1 three times, 1996, 1999 and 2003, and he's still in the top 5 with Sampras long gone and retired.

Now what? :lol:

If you only knew how silly you look from aside.. :lol:

volta
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:21 AM
just ask all players all of them wants Wimbledon. Wimbledon is THA Tournament. its the super sumo of slams

Denise4925
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:25 AM
If you only knew how silly you look from aside.. :lol:
Well, a personal attack always works when you have nothing to respond with.

How is it silly to tell the truth. You lied when you say that Andre only has 4 slams and been No. 1 once?

Dana Marcy
Jun 7th, 2005, 11:01 PM
Good for Maria! At least she's honest about having a one track mind. :p

Hayato
Jun 7th, 2005, 11:03 PM
I think only winning Wimbledon is good enough for anyone, except for Martina Navratilova.

Cariaoke
Jun 8th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Of course Maria wants only Wimbledon titles! Those grass stains are going to help her get that Tide detergent endorsement. Dolla, dolla bills y'all!

Now if only she could get that Snuggle fabric softener commercial for a complete set... what are you waiting for, IMG? Chop, chop! :p

Dawn Marie
Jun 8th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Oh please, Maria and Roger need to shut this crap talk up.

you don't spend hours on the court training from 9-? to ONLY win Wimbeldon.

Imho the French Open displays the best tourneys ever!! It shows how tennis is played.

Roger if you felt that way then why spend early years on a clay court? Maria why play Rome and RG?

Tennis players who state this crap "that they wouldn't care if they win anything BUT wimbeldon" are fools and don't even understand the game that they are playing!!!

azmad_88
Jun 8th, 2005, 03:16 AM
i think
just because she didnt win the other 3 after she won wimbledon
she can say that
federer has won at least 2 otehrs right
but i have to admit she is darn good on grass

CooCooCachoo
Jun 8th, 2005, 07:37 AM
This is just so typical of Maria. Always thinking about herself and about what's good for her? Ever wondered what would be good enough for CooCooCachoo? I bet not.

Kelly
Jun 8th, 2005, 12:38 PM
so she only wants 10 wimbledons....not much of a challenge really is it. Maybe they could make it a bit more challenging if she could do whilst not making any noise.

CooCooCachoo
Jun 8th, 2005, 12:44 PM
so she only wants 10 wimbledons....not much of a challenge really is it. Maybe they could make it a bit more challenging if she could do whilst not making any noise.

Keeping quiet? Now, then what is there to keep the audience awake during her matches?

Kelly
Jun 8th, 2005, 12:49 PM
cliff could do a sing song?

SilK
Jun 8th, 2005, 01:04 PM
"If I win 10 more Wimbledons and no other Grand Slams, I won't mind. Wimbledon is the biggest tournament"

Funny, that's what Roger just said too.. :)

OK! Here's my vision... Roger has won every Grand Slam, except for the French. He somehow seems unable to win in Paris. Therefor, I can truly understand why he would say that he'd pick 10 Wimbly titles over 1 French Open title...

As for Maria. She's a great player, I respect her for that. But she has only won ONE GrandSlam. Wimbledon. How can she say she would only want to win that one, and that will be good enough, if she hasn't even won another GrandSlam??? Hasn't expierenced it... I don't feel she is a Champion at heart, if she doesn't wanna win them all. :shrug:

I bet she signed a good deal to promote the PETA, cause GRASS = FOR COWS! :tape:

:bolt:

SilK
Jun 8th, 2005, 01:05 PM
This is just so typical of Maria. Always thinking about herself and about what's good for her? Ever wondered what would be good enough for CooCooCachoo? I bet not.

Are you telling us Maria Time is over, and that it's CooCooCachoo Time? :eek:

faboozadoo15
Jun 8th, 2005, 02:57 PM
I doubt he would be the first or the last to laugh at that suggestion. I agree that he was/is a better player than Pete. He was/is more versatile and his game more adaptable. To me, Pete was a one surface genius. His game was one-dimensional (serve and volley).
i hope you realize how retarded you look for calling pete's game one dimensional. serve and volley tennis with a huge serve and a great forehand is more than one dimension. if anything, bashing the ball from the baseline (andre) is BY FAR the more dimensionless game, not that there's anything wrong or 'less' about that.

just look at pete's head to head against andre to get an eye opener :eek:

andre is still playing bc-- let's face it, who wants to go home to steffi? pete has done all he wants and has bridgette.
andre sticking around so long not getting past the quarters of majors just shows that hes chasing pete or chasing something that he's just not going to accomplish. pete has done all he wanted.
hell, his last match on tour is the us open final, where he beat andre...

Denise4925
Jun 8th, 2005, 04:26 PM
i hope you realize how retarded you look for calling pete's game one dimensional. serve and volley tennis with a huge serve and a great forehand is more than one dimension. if anything, bashing the ball from the baseline (andre) is BY FAR the more dimensionless game, not that there's anything wrong or 'less' about that.

just look at pete's head to head against andre to get an eye opener :eek:

andre is still playing bc-- let's face it, who wants to go home to steffi? pete has done all he wants and has bridgette.
andre sticking around so long not getting past the quarters of majors just shows that hes chasing pete or chasing something that he's just not going to accomplish. pete has done all he wanted.
hell, his last match on tour is the us open final, where he beat andre...
Do you know how retarded you sound for personally attacking someone for having an opinion? Do you know how retarded you sound for attacking Andre and Steffi personally to try and make your point? Why not try a more diplomatic approach by refuting my comments with facts about the differences between his game and Andre's game, instead of comparing their wives and home life? :retard:

I didn't like Pete's game, but that doesn't make my opinion of his game any less valid than your obiviously biased and unnecessary opinion about Pete's life with Bridgette and Andre's life with Steffi. I don't like serve and volley, it doesn't translate obviously to other surfaces because he could only win on hardcourts and grass. In my opinion it's boring. I like rallies and you seldom get that with serve and volley. I prefer baseline players, and I'm sure I'm not alone. It takes a lot of skill to control the rally from the baseline to set up your point. Andre does that beautifully. I don't have to look at the H2H between Andre and Pete to know that Pete's game on hardcourt and grass worked for him against a baseline player like Andre, but obviously it didn't work all of the time because Andre did win some of those H2H's. With this type of logic, you would agree that Serena is a better player than Justine because she is ahead on H2H's and she has 3 more GS titles than Justine, not including doubles and mixed, but we all know you wouldn't agree to that because you have something personal against the WS :rolleyes:

Let's face it, you have no idea why Andre is still playing and your personal swipe at his wife is immature and undeserving since you don't know them personally and have no idea what their home life is like. It smacks of your lack of tennis knowledge since that's all you seem to have in your arsenal, other than saying that his baseline game is dimentionless. Care to back that up with some discussion on his game?

Andre sticking around at 30 plus years old still winning titles, still in the top five and getting to the quarters of majors is a lot more than some of his younger counter parts are doing. Your narrowmind assumes that he's chasing Pete :lol: I doubt he's even thinking about Pete and there are far better tennis players out there, e.g. Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg to chase if that's what his agenda is. I wonder if you realize how stupid that sounds?

Since you know what the tennis player's goals are and you have an insight as to when they are satisfied with their accomplishments, can you please enlighten us on the top 20 of the WTA and those retired such as BJK, the two Martinas, Steffi and Chrissy. Can you tell us, oh great one, when Monica is coming back and when she will retire and why pray tell hasn't she retired? :worship:

faboozadoo15
Jun 8th, 2005, 04:47 PM
it would be great if you knew what you were talking about.

you say you want nothing personal and no bias to come into your play, and then you go off into saying that you hate serve and volley tennis.

it's also funny that sampras has beaten andre twice on clay, including the last time they played on the surface.

Denise4925
Jun 8th, 2005, 04:53 PM
it would be great if you knew what you were talking about.

Well, if that's the best you can do. :lol:

you say you want nothing personal and no bias to come into your play, and then you go off into saying that you hate serve and volley tennis.

:retard:

it's also funny that sampras has beaten andre twice on clay, including the last time they played on the surface.

Andre has beaten Sampras on hardcourts. What's your point?

rikvanlooy
Jun 8th, 2005, 04:58 PM
I love Maria, but if I were her, I'd rather spread my Slam wins liberally. She and others may put Wimbledon up there as the pinnacle, but there are millions of other tennis players and fans who I reckon would probably either view Wimbledon as the least important or decide to place each Slam with equal importance.

Anyway, so Justine has 3 different Slams while Venus has 2, but (if someone can correct me here), isn't that about the only advantage that Justine has so far?

Venus has been on the top-end of the rankings since she was 17; Justine only made a big impact back in 2001 when she was about 18 or 19. Venus has won more singles titles - I don't think I need to bring up the number of doubles titles won to show who's got the advantage there. Plus, Venus has made more appearences in GS finals - from memory, I think she has about 9, while Justine has 5.

I also get the feeling that when Venus was at her peak, she was really dominant. Her forehand back then was, IMO, her most impressive shot: just take a look at how she steps inside the baseline when she receives a second serve, and scorches the ball mercilessly. Justine has a more refined game, but she had to work harder to dictate a match and nail her opponents to the ground. Of course, that doesn't mean Justine's game's less impressive - she just takes a bit longer to hammer things home - but Venus, at her peak, would be too much for Justine to handle.

And it's stupid to discount doubles achievement. If anything, Venus should be applauded for her versatility.

Hm, wasn't it already established that only slam wins count.

They have the same at the moment, so ...

JHH will have more at the end of her career, so ...

faboozadoo15
Jun 8th, 2005, 04:58 PM
there's no point in talking 'real tennis' with someone who calls pete sampras 'one dimensional' while lauding andre agassi (who is FAR more one dimensional than pete ever could be).

let's see, sampras has a way better (and imo a more beautiful serve), a better forehand, better vollies, and a better overhead. andre has a better backhand and better lateral movement. overall, pete has more game, and that's why he was able to beat andre on every surface they played on.

fact is, andre ISN'T in the top 5, ISN'T winning titles, and ISN'T consistently making the quarters of majors.

another thing: serena > justine. and :haha: about me having some sort of vendetta against the WS. i didn't really understand what this had to do with anything.

monica hasn't retired because she doesn't need to. she is holding onto the hope of coming back and being healthy, and if she retires, she loses money from active endorsements. why retire until she's SURE she won't play?

there.

faboozadoo15
Jun 8th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Andre has beaten Sampras on hardcourts. What's your point?
well if the only reason andre is better (with 6 fewer slams) than pete is because his game translated better to clay, then i think it's odd that sampras has beaten andre twice, rather easily on the dirt.

here goes

Pete Sampras (USA) leads 20:14
Hard: Pete Sampras (USA) leads 11:9
Clay: Andre Agassi (USA) leads 3:2
Grass: Pete Sampras (USA) leads 2:0
Indoor: Pete Sampras (USA) leads 7:4

so you wanted to talk about game? sampras had so much of it that he could succeed over the person we're comparing him to 2/5 times they played over their long career.

alexusjonesfan
Jun 8th, 2005, 05:47 PM
umm err...was this a wntp thread? :o :scratch:

Denise4925
Jun 8th, 2005, 05:47 PM
there's no point in talking 'real tennis' with someone who calls pete sampras 'one dimensional' while lauding andre agassi (who is FAR more one dimensional than pete ever could be).

let's see, sampras has a way better (and imo a more beautiful serve), a better forehand, better vollies, and a better overhead. andre has a better backhand and better lateral movement. overall, pete has more game, and that's why he was able to beat andre on every surface they played on.

fact is, andre ISN'T in the top 5, ISN'T winning titles, and ISN'T consistently making the quarters of majors.

another thing: serena > justine. and :haha: about me having some sort of vendetta against the WS. i didn't really understand what this had to do with anything.

monica hasn't retired because she doesn't need to. she is holding onto the hope of coming back and being healthy, and if she retires, she loses money from active endorsements. why retire until she's SURE she won't play?

there.
All that you've stated above with regard to who has better this or that is your opinion. You're entitled, just as I am. :shrug:

Oh, you're saying Serena is greater than Justine? Wow, I'm surprised you say that. I didn't say you had a vendetta against the WS, that would be pretty harsh. All I said was that you have something personal against them, just as you obviously have something personal against Andre and Steffi.

Anyway, when I say Andre at 30 plus is still in top five, obviously I didn't mean this year because he isn't, but being 30 plus years old in the past couple of years he's been in the top five, he won a title last year and a slam the year before. There have only been two majors played this year and he made the quarters in the first one and has been consistently making the quarters and semis in the Masters series, which is still alot better than some of his younger counter parts. He may not have won a title yet this year, but the season is still young.

Oh BTW, when was the last time you spoke with Monica or do you just use a crystal ball?

:wavey:

Denise4925
Jun 8th, 2005, 05:55 PM
well if the only reason andre is better (with 6 fewer slams) than pete is because his game translated better to clay, then i think it's odd that sampras has beaten andre twice, rather easily on the dirt.

here goes

Pete Sampras (USA) leads 20:14
Hard: Pete Sampras (USA) leads 11:9
Clay: Andre Agassi (USA) leads 3:2
Grass: Pete Sampras (USA) leads 2:0
Indoor: Pete Sampras (USA) leads 7:4

so you wanted to talk about game? sampras had so much of it that he could succeed over the person we're comparing him to 2/5 times they played over their long career.
Again, it's not about a H2H comparison, it's about the better overall tennis player. Obviously Justine is a better clay courter than Venus and Serena, but each of them have beaten her on clay more than once. Venus and Serena have a better H2H against Justine, but right now, people are touting Justine as the better player. All I'm saying is by your logic, you'd have to argue that Venus and Serena are superior players than Justine. But, I know you won't.

It's about who has a better overall game that translates to all court surfaces in order to beat 7 people in a slam. I think players who can succeed and win slams on all surfaces are better players than those who can only win slams on one or two. But, that's my opinion.

ys
Jun 8th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Justine vs Williams sisters? Currently both Williams sisters have better careers. But I would project chances of Henin having complete better career than Venus at about 80%, and better career than Serena at about 40%.

SilK
Jun 8th, 2005, 09:44 PM
umm err...was this a wntp thread? :o :scratch:

psst... keep quiet...

Denise is beating someone down! :armed:

Just watch and learn... :worship:

Denise4925
Jun 8th, 2005, 09:47 PM
psst... keep quiet...

Denise is beating someone down! :armed:

Just watch and learn... :worship:
:lol:

Dana Marcy
Jun 8th, 2005, 10:33 PM
umm err...was this a wntp thread? :o :scratch:

:haha: I'm laughing because I can picture a comedian saying your post like a punchline. :yeah:

faboozadoo15
Jun 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM
Again, it's not about a H2H comparison, it's about the better overall tennis player. Obviously Justine is a better clay courter than Venus and Serena, but each of them have beaten her on clay more than once. Venus and Serena have a better H2H against Justine, but right now, people are touting Justine as the better player. All I'm saying is by your logic, you'd have to argue that Venus and Serena are superior players than Justine. But, I know you won't.

It's about who has a better overall game that translates to all court surfaces in order to beat 7 people in a slam. I think players who can succeed and win slams on all surfaces are better players than those who can only win slams on one or two. But, that's my opinion.

you decide who is a better player by playing, and pete won the majority of the time. they both were great players at the same time, and pete ended 6 straight years as the #1 player in the world. he's the superior player in the matchup (head 2 head), overall titles, majors, and overall weapons he could use on court. what else is there? that andre has more tms titles? good for him. oh, and the fact that he has ONE title at roland garros.

you can't compare the head 2 head of andre/pete to justine/venus/serena. pete and andre played THIRTY FOUR TIMES spread out over big careers. pete played andre at his best, and andre played pete at his best. serena leads henin hardenne 5-3, with justine winning 2 of the last three, and venus leads justine 7-1, last one coming at the australian open in 2003.

justine hasn't played venus since she has won a major. and i believe that justine has only played serena once since she won a major (03 wimbledon). justine has won 2 titles at roland garros and 2 other majors since she has played venus, and three majors since she has played serena.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Jun 9th, 2005, 03:41 AM
Good cause it's the only one she'll end up winning more than once :rolleyes:

controlfreak
Jun 9th, 2005, 04:32 PM
What Maria hasn't told you is that she aims to beat Martina's record of 58 Grand Slam titles by only winning Wimbledon singles titles.

That will take her until.... wait a minute.... NOOOOOO!!!! It's Navratilova Mk.II!! :bolt:

It's only a matter of time before she cuts off all her hair and starts wearing biker clothes off court. :tape:

Leo_DFP
Jun 9th, 2005, 06:02 PM
A lot of posters in here might not think that Wimbledon is the best GS in the world, (particularly as most of the planet appears to be so anti British atm! :lol: ), but from what I've heard when players are interviewed, most of them indeed seem to think that Wimbledon IS the best GS tournament and the one they most want to win.

Maybe it's all the nice green decor they like, that matches the grass! :lol:

True, but there are still many players who want to win other tournaments more than Wimbledon.

tennisrox
Jun 9th, 2005, 06:27 PM
What Maria hasn't told you is that she aims to beat Martina's record of 58 Grand Slam titles by only winning Wimbledon singles titles.

That will take her until.... wait a minute.... NOOOOOO!!!! It's Navratilova Mk.II!! :bolt:

It's only a matter of time before she cuts off all her hair and starts wearing biker clothes off court. :tape:

:lol:

Denise4925
Jun 9th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Good cause it's the only one she'll end up winning more than once :rolleyes:
If she's lucky. :D

Denise4925
Jun 9th, 2005, 07:28 PM
What Maria hasn't told you is that she aims to beat Martina's record of 58 Grand Slam titles by only winning Wimbledon singles titles.

That will take her until.... wait a minute.... NOOOOOO!!!! It's Navratilova Mk.II!! :bolt:

It's only a matter of time before she cuts off all her hair and starts wearing biker clothes off court. :tape:
:lol:

.ivy.
Jun 28th, 2005, 09:35 PM
yeah, isn't she like copying Roger :scratch:

Doesn't she copy everyone?