PDA

View Full Version : Ok stat hounds, who has had the best Slam record so far in 05?


Jakeev
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Now that three Slams are in the book in 05, I was wondering who has had the best records in all the events up til now?

Lindsay Davenport is 16-3 and Maria Sharapova, 14-3; but of course, neither won a Slam.

Meanwhile, Slam winners, Serena Williams is 9-1, Venus Williams, 12-2 and Justine Henin-Hardenne, 7-1.

So technically has performed the best in Slams so far in 2005?

furrykitten
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:36 AM
Its hard to say who has the best record as their is 3 different winners but Maria Sharapova is the most consistant player over the season, reaching Quarter Final or better in every tournament entered.

rottweily
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:37 AM
You answered it already:
1. Serena Williams, 9-1
2. Justine Henin-Hardenne, 7-1
3. Venus Williams, 12-2
4. Lindsay Davenport, 16-3
5. Maria Sharapova, 14-3

rightous
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:46 AM
Its hard to say who has the best record as their is 3 different winners but Maria Sharapova is the most consistant player over the season, reaching Quarter Final or better in every tournament entered.

Surely Davenport is more consistent than Sharapova

Taz Warrior
Jul 5th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Its hard to say who has the best record as their is 3 different winners but Maria Sharapova is the most consistant player over the season, reaching Quarter Final or better in every tournament entered.

Both Davenport (9 tournaments) and Sharapova (10) have made the quarter final in every tournament entered in 2005, with Davenport making 6 finals winning 2 and sharapova making 4 finals and winning 3.

In the Slams, Lindsay has to be the most consistent with 2 finals and a quarter final, compared to Sharapova with 2 SF's and a QF.

SJW
Jul 5th, 2005, 11:30 AM
Serena. you answered ur own q ;)

justine&coria
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:02 PM
You answered it already:
1. Serena Williams, 9-1
2. Justine Henin-Hardenne, 7-1
3. Venus Williams, 12-2
4. Lindsay Davenport, 16-3
5. Maria Sharapova, 14-3
Of course, if we look at the stats, it'd be that.
But, the third round loss of Serena at Wimbledon make me disagree with this ranking. Same with the first round loss of Justine at Wimby, though she was injured.
And it's quite clear that with her 7-6 6-1 loss against Schiavone, Serena wouldn't have gone far at RG (but this is just a supposition)

Mine would be :

1. Sharapova, though I don't really like her. In each GS, she lost to the winner, and had less luck than Davenport in the draws (Justine in the quarters at FO). She always fight on every point (just watch the 2 setpoints she saved against Venus). She was a bit more impressive than :
2. Davenport, very close to Sharapova though, but chokes a bit too much for someone who is supposed to be the best. She reached the finals of AO and Wimbledon, but left both tournies with a bad impression.
3. Justine : that first round loss at Wimby as a/the favourite was :eek: . But it might be explained by her injury.
4. Venus : outstanding Wimbledon, but in the other GSlams, she was really shaky.
5. Serena : I'm very disappointed by her. Even the level she displayed at AO wasn't that great (at least not as Justine or Venus' when they won their GS).
6.7. Pierce/Kusnetsova

SJW
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:03 PM
you know, i would prefer to win a slam and lose first round at the other two :)

Lady
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:08 PM
Of course, if we look at the stats, it'd be that.
But, the third round loss of Serena at Wimbledon make me disagree with this ranking. Same with the first round loss of Justine at Wimby, though she was injured.
And it's quite clear that with her 7-6 6-1 loss against Schiavone, Serena wouldn't have gone far at RG (but this is just a supposition)

Mine would be :

1. Sharapova, though I don't really like her. In each GS, she lost to the winner, and had less luck than Davenport in the draws (Justine in the quarters at FO). She always fight on every point (just watch the 2 setpoints she saved against Venus). She was a bit more impressive than :
2. Davenport, very close to Sharapova though, but chokes a bit too much for someone who is supposed to be the best. She reached the finals of AO and Wimbledon, but left both tournies with a bad impression.
3. Justine : that first round loss at Wimby as a/the favourite was :eek: . But it might be explained by her injury.
4. Venus : outstanding Wimbledon, but in the other GSlams, she was really shaky.
5. Serena : I'm very disappointed by her. Even the level she displayed at AO wasn't that great (at least not as Justine or Venus' when they won their GS).
6.7. Pierce/Kusnetsova


Look at the draws, please, Maria had much easier ones then Lindsay in both RG and Wimby.

Maria didn't ger Justine, she got Svetlana, who actually was very close to being there.
Lindsay on the other hand had Kim even earlier, in the 4th round.
The fact that Lindsay was able to beat tough competion, and Maria not, doesn't make Maria better, just because you like her more.

Justine in the QF is not a bad draw, that's normal. Sharapova had Llagostera Vives and Dechy in 4th rounds, compare them to Kim Clijsters.


In the last 4 slams:
Lindsay - SF, F, QF, F
Maria - 3rd round, SF, QF, SF

Only a biased person can say that Maria's results have been better!

Lady
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:10 PM
you know, i would prefer to win a slam and lose first round at the other two :)

Exactly!!

For players like Venus, Justine, Serena even finals doesn't count! ;) (Unless they're just coming back from victory)

xan
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Look at the draws, please, Maria had much easier ones then Lindsay in both RG and Wimby.

What? Maria got Justine, red-hot favourite on clay - in the QF!

Maria didn't ger Justine, she got Svetlana, who actually was very close to being there.
Your memory modules must be sparking out. Maria certainly got Justine. While Davy got a choking Kim and Sveta.

Justine in the QF is not a bad draw, that's normal.
No. Not for 2nd seed to meet the red-hot favourite in the Quarters. If seeded correctly they shouldn't meet before the Semis.


In the last 4 slams:
Lindsay - SF, F, QF, F
Maria - 3rd round, SF, QF, SF
Yes but Maria has won a slam recently, and beaten Lindsay doing it.

Maria has gone out to the eventual winner in all slams this year. Davenport is ahead of Maria in consistency, but han't won for half a decade.

xan
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:32 PM
You answered it already:
1. Serena Williams, 9-1
2. Justine Henin-Hardenne, 7-1
3. Venus Williams, 12-2
4. Lindsay Davenport, 16-3
5. Maria Sharapova, 14-3

Ah statistics. It depends what treatment you give the figures.

Dealing with them another way. which takes into account the number of matches actually played...

1. Lindsay davenport 13 (16-3)
2. Maria Sharapova 11 (14-3)
3 Venus Williams 10 (12-2)
4 Serena Williams 8 (9-1)
5 Justine Henin-Hardenne 6 (7-1)

lindsayno1
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:48 PM
lindsays been the most consistent this year...

2 quarter finals, finalist or better in every tourney

Lady
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Ah statistics. It depends what treatment you give the figures.

Dealing with them another way. which takes into account the number of matches actually played...

1. Lindsay davenport 13 (16-3)
2. Maria Sharapova 11 (14-3)
3 Venus Williams 10 (12-2)
4 Serena Williams 8 (9-1)
5 Justine Henin-Hardenne 6 (7-1)

Ehh? :scratch:

Lady
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:59 PM
What? Maria got Justine, red-hot favourite on clay - in the QF!


Your memory modules must be sparking out. Maria certainly got Justine. While Davy got a choking Kim and Sveta.


No. Not for 2nd seed to meet the red-hot favourite in the Quarters. If seeded correctly they shouldn't meet before the Semis.



Yes but Maria has won a slam recently, and beaten Lindsay doing it.

Maria has gone out to the eventual winner in all slams this year. Davenport is ahead of Maria in consistency, but han't won for half a decade.

Maria got Svetlana in the QF, Justine just happenned to beat her, check the draw. The draw as done normally. There's no way Justine should have been in the Top 4 for RG over the girls who played whole year and also deserved their ranking, so no, not necessarily they had to play in the semis. Masha can't be Always lucky like in Wimbledon.

Had Maria become #1 during clay season when her Wimbledon mattered, she'd be a deserved #1 hands down. And she did have the best results in slams prior to Wimbledon. You won't find me doubting that.

But right now Lindsay's results are better.

Kart
Jul 5th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Lindsay and Maria have been the only consistent performers at the slams this year. I vote them the best records. They've both also provided the most entertainment.

How you define the 'best' record depends on how much importance you attach to winning.

The way I look at it, winning is great but you need an opponent to defeat - and the better the opponent the greater the victory. Lindsay has contributed a lot in that regard, I think it's sad if she is discounted just because she didn't actually win either of her slam finals.

ys
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Venus. She won what others wanted most.

SJW
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:02 PM
Venus. She won what others wanted most.

well when you put it like that...

Kart
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Venus. She won what others wanted most.

Good point.

Volcana
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Now that three Slams are in the book in 05, I was wondering who has had the best records in all the events up til now?Obviously, winning is the ultimate issue, but I'm going to put that aside, and consider 'performance' as a seperate matter. i.e. winning is simply a round better than making the final. Viewed that way, the answer to your question is

FR QF FR - Davenport
SF QF SF - Sharapova
4r 3r CH - Williams, V
CH xx 3r - Williams, S
xx CH 1r - Henin-Hardenne

None of the slams winners had even made a QF at a slam even other than the one they won.

sartrista7
Jul 5th, 2005, 01:20 PM
How you define the 'best' record depends on how much importance you attach to winning.

This is the crux of the debate, isn't it?It's an odd one to have - the answer seems so obvious. Tennis is a SPORT. Winning is what ultimately matters. No matter which way you spin 'consistency'...the fact is, Davenport and Sharapova have left each of the Slams this year gutted. Venus, Justine and Serena have already validated their years. Maybe Davenport and Sharapova have entertained us...but in 50 years time, it's the other three who'll be remembered. They may have had bad losses, but no one will remember them for that - they'll remember their amazing Slam victories. Who cares about Seles losing to Linda Ferrando in the US Open '90 now? Or Steffi losing to Lori McNeil? This is why it's better to be an Iva Majoli than a Helena Sukova or Mary Joe Fernandez, and why Anastasia Myskina has had a better career than Kim Clijsters so far.

If we look at the records of all reigning Slam champions, Sveta is way in front :eek:

Kart
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:13 PM
It seems an odd debate to me for almost the opposite.

If you asked any of the players what was most important to them in terms of tennis, you would hope the answer would be winning.

However, if you ask a person in the crowd the same question, it's to see a good quality, competitive match (or at least you'd hope that was the reason.)

Undoubtedly Maria and Lindsay would have left the slams so far disappointed but the people who watch them and will remember them probably haven't.

History is not just composed of quantitative fact and figures - it's also qualitative reports and memories.

How much weight an individual attributes to each is the debate I suppose. One I suspect you and I aren't going to agree on ;).

spartanfan
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:18 PM
At the end of the year, the only thing that truly matters is who won the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Open. And we allready know who the first three are.

Andrew..
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:33 PM
Lindsay has only lost before the finals of a tournament once this year, excluding her retirement in the QF of Charleston.

tennisIlove09
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:37 PM
I'd say Davenport. Yes Serena is only 1 loss, but she's only 9 wins to Davenport's 16.

victory1
Jul 5th, 2005, 02:38 PM
At the end of the year, the only thing that truly matters is who won the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Open. And we allready know who the first three are.

True. Only thing that matters once the season is over is who won the slams. Serena, Justine, and Venus will always be remmembered for winning slams this year. That's why the US Open will be so good, all the top players will be gunning for it, especially the ones who havent won a slam this year, for they know that's the real prize.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Now that three Slams are in the book in 05, I was wondering who has had the best records in all the events up til now?

Lindsay Davenport is 16-3 and Maria Sharapova, 14-3; but of course, neither won a Slam.

Meanwhile, Slam winners, Serena Williams is 9-1, Venus Williams, 12-2 and Justine Henin-Hardenne, 7-1.

So technically has performed the best in Slams so far in 2005?

Slam Results

Lindsay lost 2 Finals (Australian and Wimbledon) and QF of French.
Maria was in semis of Australian and Wimbledon and was in QF of French.
Serena won Australian, but didn't participate in French and was knocked out in 3rd Round of Wimbledon.
Justine did not play Australian, but won French, only to lose Wimbledon at 1st Round
Venus lost in Australian and French Opens (can't remember which rounds) but won Wimbledon.
Head to Head Records in Slams (this year)

Australian Open - Serena defeats Maria and Lindsay
French Open - Justine defeats Maria
Wimbledon - Venus defeats Maria and Lindsay.
Therefore I concluded:-

Venus Williams :eek:
Serena Williams ;)
Justine Henin-Hardenne :lol:
Lindsay Davenport :)
Maria Sharapova :rolleyes:

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:35 PM
I would rather win one slam and lose in the first round of the other three, than to play the finals of all four and not win any. The bottom line is that each of these players plays to win slams and anything short of winning, is lossing at a slam- and everyone with the sole exception of the person holding the trophy on the last day came up short. A win is always bigger than no win, no matter how consistent you otherwise were.

Knizzle
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Ah statistics. It depends what treatment you give the figures.

Dealing with them another way. which takes into account the number of matches actually played...

1. Lindsay davenport 13 (16-3)
2. Maria Sharapova 11 (14-3)
3 Venus Williams 10 (12-2)
4 Serena Williams 8 (9-1)
5 Justine Henin-Hardenne 6 (7-1)

I guess the logical way would to do it by percentage then right??

1. Serena 9-1 .900
2. Justine 7-1 .875
3. Venus 12-2 .857
4. Lindsay 16-3 .842
5. Maria 14-3 .823

Hey this way works out so that the 3 slam champs are at the top then the 2x finalist and a 2x semifinalist.

victory1
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:45 PM
I would rather win one slam and lose in the first round of the other three, than to play the finals of all four and not win any. The bottom line is that each of these players plays to win slams and anything short of winning, is lossing at a slam- and everyone with the sole exception of the person holding the trophy on the last day came up short. A win is always bigger than no win, no matter how consistent you otherwise were.

So true. See how people use to talk down Venus and she also made it to 4 straight slam finals, but Serena won all of them and had the Serena slam. It did not really matter that Venus made it to 5 slam finals post her 2001 slams, the only thing that stood out she had not win a slam since US Open 2001 (Every commentator emphasized that fact)! 2004 they made Serena sound like a failure and she just came back from a 8 months lay-off, Won a Tier1, Won a Tier 2, made it to the Finals of Wimbledon & WTA Championships, made it to the Quarters of French & US Open, but because she did not win a slam, she was written off.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:47 PM
Ah statistics. It depends what treatment you give the figures.

Dealing with them another way. which takes into account the number of matches actually played...

1. Lindsay davenport 13 (16-3)
2. Maria Sharapova 11 (14-3)
3 Venus Williams 10 (12-2)
4 Serena Williams 8 (9-1)
5 Justine Henin-Hardenne 6 (7-1)

Serena
Justine
Venus

Slam winners....how many finals has Maria made in the last twelve months ? 0

rottweily
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Of course, if we look at the stats, it'd be that.
But, the third round loss of Serena at Wimbledon make me disagree with this ranking. Same with the first round loss of Justine at Wimby, though she was injured.
And it's quite clear that with her 7-6 6-1 loss against Schiavone, Serena wouldn't have gone far at RG (but this is just a supposition)

Mine would be :

1. Sharapova, though I don't really like her. In each GS, she lost to the winner, and had less luck than Davenport in the draws (Justine in the quarters at FO). She always fight on every point (just watch the 2 setpoints she saved against Venus). She was a bit more impressive than :
2. Davenport, very close to Sharapova though, but chokes a bit too much for someone who is supposed to be the best. She reached the finals of AO and Wimbledon, but left both tournies with a bad impression.
3. Justine : that first round loss at Wimby as a/the favourite was :eek: . But it might be explained by her injury.
4. Venus : outstanding Wimbledon, but in the other GSlams, she was really shaky.
5. Serena : I'm very disappointed by her. Even the level she displayed at AO wasn't that great (at least not as Justine or Venus' when they won their GS).
6.7. Pierce/Kusnetsova

Sorry but putting 2 slamless women at the top is incorrect, at least davenport should be 1 if you go for consistency.
And consistency gives you nothing.

rottweily
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:53 PM
Exactly!!

For players like Venus, Justine, Serena even finals doesn't count! ;) (Unless they're just coming back from victory)

Exactly my opinion, consistency means nothing when you can't back it up wit GS wins.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:54 PM
So true. See how people use to talk down Venus and she also made it to 4 straight slam finals, but Serena won all of them and had the Serena slam. It did not really matter that Venus made it to 5 slam finals post her 2001 slams, the only thing that stood out she had not win a slam since US Open 2001 (Every commentator emphasized that fact)! 2004 they made Serena sound like a failure and she just came back from a 8 months lay-off, Won a Tier1, Won a Tier 2, made it to the Finals of Wimbledon & WTA Championships, made it to the Quarters of French & US Open, but because she did not win a slam, she was written off.
EXACTLY!!!

It's all about WINNING slams, and if you're not winning then you're lossing- that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will continue to be. All these other ways of trying to reward consistency are just different ways to make people feel good about the players they like failing to win a slam this past year- but we still have one to go, so there's still a chance...

That's the best thing about winning the Australian Open- all year long you can say with pride, at least I won a slam this year- and all the consistency in the world can't touch that!

Doc
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:55 PM
Since we're talking about overall performance

Poor Consistency in Slams (this year)

Australian Open - Justine does not Participate, Venus exits 4th round.
French Open - Serena does not participate. Venus exits 3rd Round.
Wimbledon - Serena exits 3rd round.. Justine exits 1st Round.
Therefore the most consistent good performers are :-

Lindsay Davenport
Maria Sharapova
Venus Williams
Serena Williams
Justine Henin-Hardenne

rottweily
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Ah statistics. It depends what treatment you give the figures.

Dealing with them another way. which takes into account the number of matches actually played...

1. Lindsay davenport 13 (16-3)
2. Maria Sharapova 11 (14-3)
3 Venus Williams 10 (12-2)
4 Serena Williams 8 (9-1)
5 Justine Henin-Hardenne 6 (7-1)

Well that's the most stupid statistic I've ever seen :D

20 (300-280) :D

Doc
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:58 PM
Well that's the most stupid statistic I've ever seen :D

20 (300-280) :D

How is that any more stupid than yours?

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 5th, 2005, 03:59 PM
My final conclusion for this thread:

winning a slam > not winning a slam
winning one slam > reaching the finals of four slams and not winning

winning > lossing

...everthing else is pure fluff!!

rottweily
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:02 PM
How is that any more stupid than yours?

Think!

Doc
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:04 PM
Think!

why don't you think for a change, instead of posting crap?

Knizzle
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:10 PM
How is that any more stupid than yours?

Doc you have to admit that xan's take was off the wall. If he wanted to say most wins then fine, but obviously "better" records take in account percentages. Best results overall would be better in taking account slam points.

Doc
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Doc you have to admit that xan's take was off the wall. If he wanted to say most wins then fine, but obviously "better" records take in account percentages. Best results overall would be better in taking account slam points.

But percentages, don't tell much of the story if people have not participated in all the slams.

If Justine for example is 7-1, and you discount the slam she didn't enter. that fails to take consiostency into account. Which is what the thread is about.
That's a very different score than if we do count the slam she didn't enter as a loss. Since she didn't win any matches.
That would make it 7-2. Half the percentage.

Both ways of analysing the figures are flawed.

Geisha
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:25 PM
why don't you think for a change, instead of posting crap?

IMO, rottweilly is right.

Knizzle
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:34 PM
But percentages, don't tell much of the story if people have not participated in all the slams.

If Justine for example is 7-1, and you discount the slam she didn't enter. that fails to take consiostency into account. Which is what the thread is about.
That's a very different score than if we do count the slam she didn't enter as a loss. Since she didn't win any matches.
That would make it 7-2. Half the percentage.

Both ways of analysing the figures are flawed.

You are stating an untruth. Nowhere in Jakeev's opening post did he say anything about consistency.

tennisjunky
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:34 PM
EXACTLY!!!

It's all about WINNING slams, and if you're not winning then you're lossing- that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will continue to be. All these other ways of trying to reward consistency are just different ways to make people feel good about the players they like failing to win a slam this past year- but we still have one to go, so there's still a chance...
good point, but reaching the semis is not equal to lossing in the first round either. but i agree the real winners are the slam champions.

let's go by points awarded by the slams.
650 pts winner
456 pts Final
292 pts SF
162 pts QF
90 pts Rd 16
56 pts Rd 32
32 pts Rd 68
2 Rd 128

1.Lindsay 1074 pts
2.Venus 796 pts
3.Maria 746 pts
4.Serena 706 pts
5.Justine 652pts

serena and justine are real close to maria even though they only played two slams.

Anna F'd Enrique
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:39 PM
lindsays been the most consistent this year...

2 quarter finals, finalist or better in every tourney


yes i agree

Jakeev
Jul 5th, 2005, 04:53 PM
You are stating an untruth. Nowhere in Jakeev's opening post did he say anything about consistency.

You are right, I simply asked who technically has had the best results.

I began this thread because of a debate I had with a friend when Venus won Wimbledon.

She just flat out said that Venus has been the most successful player in the Grand Slams while I immediately refuted that and said no Lindsay has.

Point is, she chose Venus because she won a Slam and I chose Lindsay because she had the best record.

So thanks for the responses and different perspectives.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:00 PM
You are right, I simply asked who techinally has had the best results.

I began this thread because of a debate I had with a friend when Venus won Wimbledon.

She just flat out said that Venus has been the most successful player in the Grand Slams while I immediately refuted that and said no Lindsay has.

Point is, she chose Venus because she won a Slam and I chose Lindsay because she had the best record.

So thanks for the responses and different perspectives.

I think if you were to ask Lindsay who's pverall record she would rather have at the slams this year- No doubt about it she would pick between Venus, Serena, and Justine... all of whom have been overall less consistent, but when it counted most, one time this season they were the most consistent. Maria (as well as all of her fans,) would trade for Serena's slam results this year in a hearbeat, as would 99.99 of all the players on tour.

sartrista7
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:10 PM
It seems an odd debate to me for almost the opposite.

If you asked any of the players what was most important to them in terms of tennis, you would hope the answer would be winning.

However, if you ask a person in the crowd the same question, it's to see a good quality, competitive match (or at least you'd hope that was the reason.)

Undoubtedly Maria and Lindsay would have left the slams so far disappointed but the people who watch them and will remember them probably haven't.

History is not just composed of quantitative fact and figures - it's also qualitative reports and memories.

How much weight an individual attributes to each is the debate I suppose. One I suspect you and I aren't going to agree on ;).

I agree, inasmuch as those are the reasons why I'm a fan of the sport. But you have to put on different hats - when I'm in front of the TV yelling and screaming, I'm not in a position to analyse overall results. That comes afterwards, but when I do want to analyse results I can't let non-quantitative factors come into play, because it isn't fair to all the players. Justine played outstandingly at RG to get the crown - why should Davenport pull ahead of her just because she had the fortune to play opponents who could match her? It's not Justine's fault that Nadia and Mary collapsed in the last two rounds.

I agree with Stefwhit throughout. Gotta be harsh here - only one player can be the champion at the end of the tournament, and that player deserves ALL the kudos.

One thing I can't decide - between Venus and Serena, who has the best record? Venus has accumulated more Grand Slam points, but also lost one more time. I'm leaning towards Venus. If we had hypothetical Slam records of W, SF, SF, SF and W, - , - , - the former would be better, and this is a logical extension.

SJW
Jul 5th, 2005, 05:16 PM
good point, but reaching the semis is not equal to lossing in the first round either. but i agree the real winners are the slam champions.

let's go by points awarded by the slams.
650 pts winner
456 pts Final
292 pts SF
162 pts QF
90 pts Rd 16
56 pts Rd 32
32 pts Rd 68
2 Rd 128

1.Lindsay 1074 pts
2.Venus 796 pts
3.Maria 746 pts
4.Serena 706 pts
5.Justine 652pts

serena and justine are real close to maria even though they only played two slams.

LOL@ the winner getting less than 200pts more than the finalist.

Jakeev
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:34 AM
I think if you were to ask Lindsay who's pverall record she would rather have at the slams this year- No doubt about it she would pick between Venus, Serena, and Justine... all of whom have been overall less consistent, but when it counted most, one time this season they were the most consistent. Maria (as well as all of her fans,) would trade for Serena's slam results this year in a hearbeat, as would 99.99 of all the players on tour.

I totally agree with that. Lindsay wants a Slam bad and despite having the best record so far, she probably would have rathered lost in the first round of two of the three events, if she could have won the other.

She was so close.......

densuprun
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Maria (as well as all of her fans,) would trade for Serena's slam results this year in a hearbeat, as would 99.99 of all the players on tour.

I wouldn't. Maria already has one slam. Now I want her to get to number 1. Her 2005 record brings her closer to this goal than Serena's record would so I wouldn't trade. I do want Maria to win more slams but since she hasn't been number 1 yet, I want this achievemwnt more than slams.