PDA

View Full Version : Are Slams Overrated?


thrust
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:13 PM
Even though Lindsay has not won a Slam in quite a long time, the fact is that she has been the most consistant WINNER on the tour since Justine fell ill. While winning Slams is most desirable, one has to win many other matches in order to be ranked #1. Lindsay is to be complimented for her ranking especially considering her age and various injuries. Interestingly Maria was twice within a win to pass Lindsay this year, but was stopped by Justine in Berlin and Paris. Graf should be very proud of her achievement last night. She, a mother of two who has bee off the tour for many years played very well against a very good player. I was not a fan of hers while she was playing but truly do respect her achievements and her personality. She is a great champion with class and grace.

kiwifan
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:34 PM
no, slams are what really matters.

the rest of that stuff is just revenue for sports bureaucrats and thankfully the players.

the rankings really only exist to force players to participate in the rest of that stuff.

YECs are stupid, half the players wouldn't show if they weren't forced to be there.

Of course the good thing about "the rest of that stuff" is that fans get to see the players more often and usually in a more convenient setting.

:smoke:

Infiniti2001
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:38 PM
Well, no one will be remembered for consistency, but for their slams. Luckily Lindsay has 3 under her belt :p

jamatthews
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:39 PM
Should the Red Clay slam be moved to Russia?

:p :angel:

tennisIlove09
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:40 PM
when you're measured by your degree of greatness by majors, they cant be overrated. lol. that would be like saying "is the superbowl over rated". that's what you play for. lol

DragonFlame
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:43 PM
Should the Red Clay slam be moved to Russia?

no to belgium :lol: ;)

auntie janie
Jul 13th, 2005, 11:58 PM
No, Slams are NOT overrated. In the end, it's Slam titles alone that players are remembered for.

For a totally different angle on things, though, it's always fun to check out the WTA site's Career Earnings list -- Lindsay's numbers are eye-popping!! :eek: And it's fun to see how well some players known mostly for their doubles prowess have done. (Of course to earn a lot in doubles, you have to do very well in those Slams!)

Kart
Jul 14th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Slams are not overrated.

I do feel that players should be remembered for more than just the slams they won but I concede I'm in the minority on that issue around here.

ys
Jul 14th, 2005, 12:17 AM
If anything, they are underrated. For serious majority of time in this decade the rankings were lead by a player holding no Slams, i.e., by #1 players not capable of proving their supremacy when it really mattered, when wins would have counted for their historical legacy. #1 player in the world must be a favourite against any player she would have to face. It was not true for Hingis, Clijsters, Davenport. They just enjoyed playing into ranking system while other players were building their legacy. Result? In 10 years Davenport and Hingis will be what Jim Courier is now for men's tennis - i.e. one of the best players of certain generation, but nowhere close to all time greats. Williams sisters will be at least in the third Tier of all time greats. So will probably be Henin.

Black Mamba.
Jul 14th, 2005, 12:45 AM
Slams are like the equivalent to championships in other sports. For example no matter how great certain athletes in other sports were like a Dan Marino or a Karl Malone people will remember their great acomplishments to a certain extent, but they will forever be known as greats that never won a championship.

Volcana
Jul 14th, 2005, 01:13 AM
Players value them more than regular WTA events. Are they over-rated in terms of measuring a players ability? Probably. But unless you take the time to examine the draw of each individual event, the slams are when you can count on the competition being the toughest available.

irishgirl
Jul 14th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Slams are not over but I think the importance of winning a Slam has been slightly diminished because (A) no one has completely come through a Slam for ages and been brilliant i.e not losing a set, I mean the last three Slam winners faced down Match Points at some stage and (B) the last few Slam winners have not been consistent after winning- Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Serena, Henin Hardenne have all fallen away a bit after winning a Slam. Tennis is going through a period where winning a Slam does not automatically render you a fantastic or special player saying all that it is of course still very special.

Fingon
Jul 14th, 2005, 02:33 AM
slams are not overrated, they are what counts.

Yes, there are other achievements but they pale compared to the slams.

Personally, I prefer my favourites to win GSs than to be # 1, for example, if Justine had won 20 GSs and had never been # 1, I would prefer her to win GS # 21 than reaching the # 1, it's that simple.

fammmmedspin
Jul 14th, 2005, 02:49 AM
Slams are over rated in tour points terms to the extent that one good week can get you enough points to make your ranking for the year.

With an increasingly injured and inconsistent top 10 who won this year's GS tells you very little about who the top players are likely to be - ask Justine, Serena, Venus or Billie Jean.

Of course GS are not all that gets you remembered, Venus will be remembered for a period of total dominance. Lindsay will be remembered for being a top player and number 1 on and off for 6 years, ASV will be remembered as second best to Graf in the period between Seles and Hingis. Hingis will be remembered as the girl who was number 1 for 4 years and won GS young. Few will know if they had 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 GS titles. They may know Graf had 22 and navratilova and Evert had 18 but thats about it.

DragonFlame
Jul 14th, 2005, 02:50 AM
:) slams are not overrated, they are what counts.

Yes, there are other achievements but they pale compared to the slams.

Personally, I prefer my favourites to win GSs than to be # 1, for example, if Justine had won 20 GSs and had never been # 1, I would prefer her to win GS # 21 than reaching the # 1, it's that simple.

if someone would have won 20 grandslams without getting to the #1 ranking she must have really screwed things up during the season :confused:
but i think grandslams are what counts, i see people that won grandslams higher then the ones without. But its wierd, i have an exeption to that rule, isee the people with more then 1 grandslams the highest. Justine, lindsay, venus and serena are the highest for me. but i dont see myskina and kuznetsova higher then dementieva, mauresmo and clijsters its wierd but i still have the feeling 1time grandslamchampoins could have gotten lucky. I dont see myskina winning another grandslam but we will see :)
sorry for this wierd explanation, but this is how i feel it :) :p

ys
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:01 AM
but i dont see myskina and kuznetsova higher then dementieva, mauresmo and clijsters its wierd but i still have the feeling 1time grandslamchampoins could have gotten lucky. I dont see myskina winning another grandslam but we will see :)


Still, careers of players with a single Slam will be considered as crucially different from careers of those winning no Slams. 1 Slam wonder is still a tennis champion whose name is written into tennis history.

DragonFlame
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:06 AM
Still, careers of players with a single Slam will be considered as crucially different from careers of those winning no Slams. 1 Slam wonder is still a tennis champion whose name is written into tennis history.

yeah off course you are right :wavey: , but you dont have to win a grandslam to be written into tennis history, mauresmo and clijsters have proven that by reaching number 1 :)
But then theres still the discussion if somebody without a grandslam is a tennischampion or just a great tennisplayer... so we can go on and on about this discussion i think. pretty interesting :)

Robbie.
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:28 AM
GS's are not overrated, but the winning of them definitely is.

A lot of the argument for the superiority of GS is what 'history' remembers.

This may have been true in the past but these days we have an organised tour with tiers of tournaments and a ranking system. Anyone in the future who wants to find out about today's players will have full access to a player's entire career record, including their GS record, head to heads, a ranking history etc. There will be no excuse for reducing the complexities of a player's career down to a rudimentary number of slams won.

This is of course if you are really interested in finding out who the better player was and not going off into some flight of fancy that any given GS win doesn't involve a measure of circumstantial good fortune that is often in equal parts to a player's superior ability.

There is no doubt in my mind that Clijsters' record in GS tournaments demonstrates a superior level of exposed ability in comparsion to one-slammers like Myskina, Kuznetsova, Majoli (bless her heart) and even Sharapova at this stage. I mean the girl has reached four GS finals. Those players have only reached 4 GS finals between them- one each. Clijsters has reached 7 GS semis, they have reached 6 between them - Sharapova has reached 3 of those, the others never more the one.

When you are looking at who the better player is - you look at the whole GS record, not just the wins. If a player wins a GS but never gets passed the quarters apart from that they obviously are not as good as a player who has consistently shown the ability to get passed the quarters.

When you then look outside the GS record you will see that the player who consistently does better in GS will normally have the greater accomplishments; tournament wins, rankings, head to heads etc. Clijsters' extra-GS record humiliates the likes of Myskina, Kuznetsova and Majoli.

This a much more comprehensive and fair analysis of a player's worth than relying on one stat which is inconsistent with all the others and running with it.

This is why Lindsay Davenport has clearly been the best player in the world over the last year. She has two GS finals, a semi and a quarter on her record. None of the current GS holders has reached more than one semi and between them they have 7 losses before the quarterfinal stage in GS tournaments.

DragonFlame
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:41 AM
GS's are not overrated, but the winning of them definitely is.

A lot of the argument for the superiority of GS is what 'history' remembers.

This may have been true in the past but these days we have an organised tour with tiers of tournaments and a ranking system. Anyone in the future who wants to find out about today's players will have full access to a player's entire career record, including their GS record, head to heads, a ranking history etc. There will be no excuse for reducing the complexities of a player's career down to a rudimentary number of slams won.

This is of course if you are really interested in finding out who the better player was and not going off into some flight of fancy that any given GS win doesn't involve a measure of circumstantial good fortune that is often in equal parts to a player's superior ability.

There is no doubt in my mind that Clijsters' record in GS tournaments demonstrates a superior level of exposed ability in comparsion to one-slammers like Myskina, Kuznetsova, Majoli (bless her heart) and even Sharapova at this stage. I mean the girl has reached four GS finals. Those players have only reached 4 GS finals between them- one each. Clijsters has reached 7 GS semis, they have reached 6 between them - Sharapova has reached 3 of those, the others never more the one.

When you are looking at who the better player is - you look at the whole GS record, not just the wins. If a player wins a GS but never gets passed the quarters apart from that they obviously are not as good as a player who has consistently shown the ability to get passed the quarters.

When you then look outside the GS record you will see that the player who consistently does better in GS will normally have the greater accomplishments; tournament wins, rankings, head to heads etc. Clijsters' extra-GS record humiliates the likes of Myskina, Kuznetsova and Majoli.

This a much more comprehensive and fair analysis of a player's worth than relying on one stat which is inconsistent with all the others and running with it.

This is why Lindsay Davenport has clearly been the best player in the world over the last year. She has two GS finals, a semi and a quarter on her record. None of the current GS holders has reached more than one semi and between them they have 7 losses before the quarterfinal stage in GS tournaments.

really interesting post, you've proven my point in the right words :) Great work, this discussion really needs this :wavey: :)
only with the last part i disagree a bit because you cant compare it complete with justine and serena playing 2 of the 3 grandslams this year. so that stat isnt fully usefull

Jakeev
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:47 AM
Even though Lindsay has not won a Slam in quite a long time, the fact is that she has been the most consistant WINNER on the tour since Justine fell ill. While winning Slams is most desirable, one has to win many other matches in order to be ranked #1. Lindsay is to be complimented for her ranking especially considering her age and various injuries. Interestingly Maria was twice within a win to pass Lindsay this year, but was stopped by Justine in Berlin and Paris. Graf should be very proud of her achievement last night. She, a mother of two who has bee off the tour for many years played very well against a very good player. I was not a fan of hers while she was playing but truly do respect her achievements and her personality. She is a great champion with class and grace.

What the hell does the topic of the thread have absolutely anything to do with Steffi Graf playing a WTT match?

Talking about making no sense.

selyoink
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:53 AM
They are not overrated because those are the tournaments you play to win. I know if I was a tennis player on the tour I would much rather win a grand slam then be the #1 ranked player in the world. Winning slams would be why I played. My ranking would not be that important. If I finished my career having never won a slam but having been #1 in the world I would consider my career a dissapointment.

In my opinion the grand slams are the only tournaments that ultimately matter. The others are for preparation and to improve your game.

TF Chipmunk
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:01 AM
Slams will always have a certain prestige to them...and everyone fights that extra bit more to win a match at the slams, so no, it's not overrated.

ys
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:16 AM
If a player wins a GS but never gets passed the quarters apart from that they obviously are not as good as a player who has consistently shown the ability to get passed the quarters.

Still, you are a tennis champion, while that player is not. All that matters. Not who is better or worse. Trust me, Kim Clisters would happily trade all her finals, semifinals, quartefinals and weeks at #1 for one little GS victory of Nastya Myskina.

And Myskina is now one Grand Slam away from Hall of fame, which she may well win, and Kim is not on Grand Slam tennis map at all.

tennisvideos
Jul 14th, 2005, 05:02 AM
I think that the regular tournaments are devalued in comparison the Slams. Most players egos want them to win and beat their opponents all the time, not just at Slam time. So generally speaking players are trying to win all the time in most cases. So why shouldn't normal tournament wins be a factor in the overall summation of a player's career.

I know in my own tennis world, we have 2 "Majors" a year that we compete in. And yes, they are the most prestigious and we all want to win them. But as players we are all also very competitive and trying to win the other events and tournaments we play in during the rest of the year. And I base my years results on all my tournaments, not just those 2 "Majors". And when I try to compare myself to others, I base that on my overall head to head and tournament results overall, not just how we both went in the two big ones - because we try to beat each other all the time.

Another example, just because I might have lost 1st round in one my majors and only made the semis of the other a few years ago, I still considered myself one of the top couple of players as I either won or was runner-up in many of the smaller ones. And my high seeding was a result of the overall tournaments.

faboozadoo15
Jul 14th, 2005, 05:06 AM
no, slams are underrated and davenport being number one just echoes that.
im not saying there's a better candidate for #1, just that it's ridiculous that she's held the position for a LONG time now without winning any of the FOUR big ones.

faboozadoo15
Jul 14th, 2005, 05:07 AM
YECs are stupid, half the players wouldn't show if they weren't forced to be there.

bullshit... what are you smoking?

sartrista7
Jul 14th, 2005, 06:10 AM
Still, you are a tennis champion, while that player is not. All that matters. Not who is better or worse. Trust me, Kim Clisters would happily trade all her finals, semifinals, quartefinals and weeks at #1 for one little GS victory of Nastya Myskina.

And Myskina is now one Grand Slam away from Hall of fame, which she may well win, and Kim is not on Grand Slam tennis map at all.

Exactly.

And it's not JUST about what history remembers, either.

To demonstrate that you can play like a champion...having the talent isn't enough. You have to have the ability to play your best when it really matters. Grand Slam matches are the most important of a player's career, the ones that they work and train for. It doesn't matter if they win all their other matches...if they can't show their talent on the biggest stage, then that has to be counted against them.

Iva Majoli, it turned out, would only have one chance to win a Slam - only one Slam final. In that match, she played stunning tennis against the world No 1, seized her opportunity, and entered the history books as a champion. Not a one Slam wonder, a champion.

Kim Clijsters has had four chances so far, and has failed to take any of them. Yeah, objectively speaking she's a better player than Majoli. But so far she lacks that quality which enabled Majoli to play her best in the biggest match of her life, and until she finds it Majoli's career will always trump hers.

backhanddtl4
Jul 14th, 2005, 06:15 AM
They aren't overrated, in a sense, they measure one's greatness, but that isn't the only thing. Winning a slam is an incredible feat, no matter what, however. Idk how Nav, Steffi, and Evert did it so many times.

Robbie.
Jul 14th, 2005, 06:21 AM
Still, you are a tennis champion, while that player is not. All that matters. Not who is better or worse. Trust me, Kim Clisters would happily trade all her finals, semifinals, quartefinals and weeks at #1 for one little GS victory of Nastya Myskina.

And Myskina is now one Grand Slam away from Hall of fame, which she may well win, and Kim is not on Grand Slam tennis map at all.

I don't know what Kim Clijsters would trade and I don't really care what Kim Clijsters would trade.

Dementieva said that the silver medal at 2000 Olympics would be a greater achievement than any GS wins she may have.

You don't take what player's subjectively value as the be all and end all.

Ultimately when we evaluate tennis accomplishments we are trying to find out who is the better player, by the objective measure of what they have achieved. This should have something to do with what a player is consistently able to produce. Take out Kim's best GS tournament ever and you have 3 finals, 3 semis, numerous quarters, 2 YEC's, 20 + tournaments, world number one ranking. Take out Natsya's and you have 4 quarterfinals, a couple of tier ones, under 10 tournament wins, number two ranking. It's not even in the same ball park. It's not even up to scatch with Huber, Coetzer, Manuela Maleeva type careers.

Yes of course Myskina would be Hall of Fame with one more GS win. Another GS would radically alter Myskina's career, though. At the moment none of her results suggest she is capable of winning a GS except the fact that she did win one. This is why she will get labelled with 'fluke' until such a time as she wins another GS or atleast starts going deep into draws. With another win that stigma would be gone forever. With Clijsters it's a completely different situation. All of her results suggests she is capable of winning a GS, except that fact she hasn't won one. One GS would put Clijsters in the Hall of Fame also, but it wouldn't radically alter her career, it would merely be the fulfillment of a standard she has already set for herself.

Robbie.
Jul 14th, 2005, 06:32 AM
Exactly.

And it's not JUST about what history remembers, either.

To demonstrate that you can play like a champion...having the talent isn't enough. You have to have the ability to play your best when it really matters. Grand Slam matches are the most important of a player's career, the ones that they work and train for. It doesn't matter if they win all their other matches...if they can't show their talent on the biggest stage, then that has to be counted against them.

Iva Majoli, it turned out, would only have one chance to win a Slam - only one Slam final. In that match, she played stunning tennis against the world No 1, seized her opportunity, and entered the history books as a champion. Not a one Slam wonder, a champion.

Kim Clijsters has had four chances so far, and has failed to take any of them. Yeah, objectively speaking she's a better player than Majoli. But so far she lacks that quality which enabled Majoli to play her best in the biggest match of her life, and until she finds it Majoli's career will always trump hers.

I understand fully what you are saying but I find the tension between Clijsters 'objectively being a better player' and Majoli's (who was, by the way, one of my favourite players) career 'trumping hers' irreconcilable.

I do agree, no player's career can be truly great without a, and preferably multiple, GS victories. But then, the inverse is true also, IMO you aren't a great player because you win one GS. And once you start comparing players both with a GS or more than one GS victory, the count becomes less and less relevant as opposed to their overall records.

As I said before we can tend to romanticize and go into flights of fancy about the significance of GS victories. When it all comes down to it, they are just tennis tournaments, and circumstances and good fortune do play a part in any GS victory. Hell, 4 of the last 6 Grand Slam Champions were one shot clipping the tape away from oblivion. If that doesn't highlight how tenuous basing a whole claim for greatness on one tournament is, I don't know what does. Kim Clijsters has reached 4 GS finals and happened to play multiple GS champions in each one. Her 3-time conqueror will probably be an all time great. You can't help but think it would have been different if she had have met Dementieva, Kuznetsova or Myskina in those finals.

Fingon
Jul 14th, 2005, 06:56 AM
Still, you are a tennis champion, while that player is not. All that matters. Not who is better or worse. Trust me, Kim Clisters would happily trade all her finals, semifinals, quartefinals and weeks at #1 for one little GS victory of Nastya Myskina.

And Myskina is now one Grand Slam away from Hall of fame, which she may well win, and Kim is not on Grand Slam tennis map at all.

that's exactly the point.

It's the same as in other sports, in the NBA for example, the Suns were the best team during the regular season, they won more games than anybody, but the Spurs won the Championship, that's what matters, nobody would argue that. Nobody cares for what the Suns did, everyone will remember what the Spurs did.

Same here, you need to win where it counts. It's the ultimate reward for a tennis player, and those players that say othewise are lying (maybe to themselves).

Robbie.
Jul 14th, 2005, 07:08 AM
It's the same as in other sports, in the NBA for example, the Suns were the best team during the regular season, they won more games than anybody, but the Spurs won the Championship, that's what matters, nobody would argue that. Nobody cares for what the Suns did, everyone will remember what the Spurs did.

It's not really the same at all. In basketball/football there is only ONE thing to aim at - the championship. All season is aimed at that one thing and every match you win goes towards your goal. There are no prizes for anything else. In tennis we have tournaments every week of varying importance with a CHAMPION and four major tournaments year of equal importance where we have a CHAMPION and a distinct ranking with #1 seperate from the GS tournaments and that GS results can't override.

The only sport that is really comparable to tennis in its structure is golf. In that sport majors are the most important, but they are not so that it completely blows the other indicators as to who is the better player out of the water. No one would say that Hillary Lunke was a better player than Rosie Jones.

Same here, you need to win where it counts. It's the ultimate reward for a tennis player, and those players that say othewise are lying (maybe to themselves).

Of course it's the ultimate reward. It doesn't mean your career is worthless however if you don't win one, nor does it make you a great just by winning one.

Fingon
Jul 14th, 2005, 08:36 AM
It's not really the same at all. In basketball/football there is only ONE thing to aim at - the championship. All season is aimed at that one thing and every match you win goes towards your goal. There are no prizes for anything else. In tennis we have tournaments every week of varying importance with a CHAMPION and four major tournaments year of equal importance where we have a CHAMPION and a distinct ranking with #1 seperate from the GS tournaments and that GS results can't override.

The only sport that is really comparable to tennis in its structure is golf. In that sport majors are the most important, but they are not so that it completely blows the other indicators as to who is the better player out of the water. No one would say that Hillary Lunke was a better player than Rosie Jones.



Of course it's the ultimate reward. It doesn't mean your career is worthless however if you don't win one, nor does it make you a great just by winning one.

I agree, but the same way that in the NBA any team want to win the championship, in tennis every player wants to win a slam, the example was to show the all the rest seems irrelevant in both sports.

Of course your career isn't worthless if you don't win a slam, and one slam doesn't make you great, but to be great, a player needs to win GSs, might not be # 1. Take Mauresmo or Clijsters, unless they win slams, nobody will consider them among the great time great even though they have been # 1 in the world.

If for example Sharapova, or Kuznetsova who haven't been # 1 never reach that position, but win 3/4 more slams each, they will be certainly more qualified to be great.

In other words, winning GSs alone doesn't make a player great (unless they win multiple slams), but without GSs, a player cannot be considered great.

Take Steffi Graf, what's more talked about? her 379 weeks as # 1? or her 22 slams?, what's more talked about Martina Navratilova? her 9 Wimbledon titles, Sampras? 7 Wimbledon titles and 14 GSs
when Martina Hingis won 3 GS in 1997, many considered her a future great, when she stopped winning GSs, despite the fact she was winning a lot of titles and stayed as # 1 for a long time, nobody considered her a great one.

In terms of greatness, the GSs are everything.

sartrista7
Jul 14th, 2005, 08:40 AM
I understand fully what you are saying but I find the tension between Clijsters 'objectively being a better player' and Majoli's (who was, by the way, one of my favourite players) career 'trumping hers' irreconcilable.

Well, I think Clijsters is more talented, in terms of physical game and a few intangibles like work ethic. And in run-of-the-mill tournaments, this showed. But the 'better' player doesn't always have the better career...

I do agree, no player's career can be truly great without a, and preferably multiple, GS victories. But then, the inverse is true also, IMO you aren't a great player because you win one GS. And once you start comparing players both with a GS or more than one GS victory, the count becomes less and less relevant as opposed to their overall records.

Well, it depends how you define 'great'. There are definite tiers of greatness, but in terms of historic greatness I think anyone who's a Slam singles champion, even just the once, qualifies for one of them. Obviously Majoli's no Graf or even a Mandlikova, but her name's on the RG trophy forever.

As I said before we can tend to romanticize and go into flights of fancy about the significance of GS victories. When it all comes down to it, they are just tennis tournaments, and circumstances and good fortune do play a part in any GS victory.

On one level I agree with you. I often look at certain Tier II draws (Filderstadt!) and think how much harder on paper they are to win than Slams (which should be easier for top players as there's a week to play yourself in!).

But ultimately they're NOT the same as the rest, because they're universally acknowledged as the pinnacle of the sport. Being the Indian Wells or Filderstadt champion is great, but all the players know how much more attention there is on the Slams, and how much more importance is attached to them - by the media, the public, and by history, if not by themselves. All of this means that it's much harder to play your best at a Slam - it's a question of rising to the occasion. Players like Clijsters and Mauresmo actually prove this point: with their talent and record at other tournaments, it's logical to assume that they should be Slam contenders. But they aren't yet, because while they have the game, they don't have the crucial ability to rise to the occasion under the pressure of a Slam - and despite their lesser record, players like Majoli DID have this ability.

Hell, 4 of the last 6 Grand Slam Champions were one shot clipping the tape away from oblivion. If that doesn't highlight how tenuous basing a whole claim for greatness on one tournament is, I don't know what does.

Luck is too difficult to measure. If you applied that to all matches ever, we might have ended up with very different Slam contenders. If Kournikova had won that Miami title, maybe she wouldn't have given up on her talent as easily as she did. But she didn't, so we can't analyse her like that. What if Hingis had been knocked out before she got to the 1997 RG final and Majoli had still won? She certainly struggled a bit. People would have called Majoli a fluke (even more than they do now), and said that if she'd had to play Hingis in the final, things would be very different...just as they call Myskina's RG win a fluke these days. But Majoli DID beat Hingis, despite the eventual lop-sided head-to-head and wildly disparate careers, and who's to say Myskina wouldn't have triumphed with a full field? (Even though Clijsters was really the only top player missing from RG 04.)

Kim Clijsters has reached 4 GS finals and happened to play multiple GS champions in each one. Her 3-time conqueror will probably be an all time great. You can't help but think it would have been different if she had have met Dementieva, Kuznetsova or Myskina in those finals.

Not really. Despite her lesser talent, she had the upper hand over Henin-Hardenne going into all three of their Slam finals, and still collapsed. Kuznetsova and Myskina have both beaten or pushed her close before, and unlike her have proved that they can hold it together against opponents they weren't clearly favoured over.

oddkayla
Jul 14th, 2005, 08:59 AM
I don't know what Kim Clijsters would trade and I don't really care what Kim Clijsters would trade.

Dementieva said that the silver medal at 2000 Olympics would be a greater achievement than any GS wins she may have.

That is because she has not won a slam! You think she is going to say Oh coming second best at the olympics is rated behind an achievement she does not have? Yeah Right!

Prizeidiot
Jul 14th, 2005, 10:08 AM
I reckon they aren't. Slams are the only tournaments that all the players show up for. When you win a slam, you know, that for 2 weeks, you were the best player in the world, even if only because some were injured and weren't fit enough to compete.

ceiling_fan
Jul 14th, 2005, 10:15 AM
i can't speak for players, but i reckon they would prob prefer winnign a slam than having the #1 spot for a short time

Robbie.
Jul 14th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Luck is too difficult to measure.

I agree, and I don't propose to measure it exactly. The thing is, I don't like anomalies. I'm a firm believer in the idea that 'lightning doesn't strike twice'. When I assess players I like to get to their true ability. If a player has one inexplicable result in their record that is not consistent with their other results, then, naturally, I will suspect it as the result of a set of circumstances that conspired to give her that result beyond her true worth.

The bottom line is that if Myskina's true ability is up to Grand Slam winning level, then why is it that she has played 21 other GS tournaments and never been able to make the last 4? If Myskina was a consistent GS semifinalist and sometime finalist like Sabatini, Novotna and Martinez then I would have no argument. But, to this point atleast, she has not even looked like being such a player. If Myskina's win was more the result of her own superior ability than a favourable set of circumstances she should be able to back it up with similar results. I see no unfairness in expecting this.

To use a school analogy, Myskina has been a consistent B student over a range of subjects and a range of assignments who found one assignment especially fitted to her talents and got an A+.

Clijsters has been a consistent A student over a range of subjects and assignments who just hasn't been able to crack it for an A +. Even if she never gets the A +, she still gets the nod from me for being the superior student.

Not really. Despite her lesser talent, she had the upper hand over Henin-Hardenne going into all three of their Slam finals, and still collapsed. Kuznetsova and Myskina have both beaten or pushed her close before, and unlike her have proved that they can hold it together against opponents they weren't clearly favoured over.

I think you might be stretching it a bit.

Maybe she had the upper hand at Roland Garros just simply by the fact that she had such a dominant record over Justine to that point, but Justine was always considered a better clay player and had beaten her in Berlin.

At the US Open she was only the favourite because Justine was coming off THAT semifinal - Justine had beaten her the last three times including on hard courts.

By the Australian Open she definitely wasn't the favourite, especially with the ankle injury dogging her all tournament and she didn't 'collapse' during that final.

For me, RG was perhaps an 'occasion' choke, the other two were just plain losing to a better player.

I really think Clijsters' 'choking' is something that is blown out of all proportion, mainly to discredit Henin. The legend has grown but really she is not anywhere near the Novotna league in terms of choking mid match or Mauresmo in terms of occasion choking. Even Justine was more of a choker at one stage than Clijsters has ever been.

Speaking of Novotna you don't think it made any difference that in her fourth GS final she played Tauziat as opposed to her other three against Seles, Graf and Hingis? I'm sure it did.

Robbie.
Jul 14th, 2005, 10:29 AM
I agree, but the same way that in the NBA any team want to win the championship, in tennis every player wants to win a slam, the example was to show the all the rest seems irrelevant in both sports.

Of course your career isn't worthless if you don't win a slam, and one slam doesn't make you great, but to be great, a player needs to win GSs, might not be # 1. Take Mauresmo or Clijsters, unless they win slams, nobody will consider them among the great time great even though they have been # 1 in the world.

If for example Sharapova, or Kuznetsova who haven't been # 1 never reach that position, but win 3/4 more slams each, they will be certainly more qualified to be great.

In other words, winning GSs alone doesn't make a player great (unless they win multiple slams), but without GSs, a player cannot be considered great.

Take Steffi Graf, what's more talked about? her 379 weeks as # 1? or her 22 slams?, what's more talked about Martina Navratilova? her 9 Wimbledon titles, Sampras? 7 Wimbledon titles and 14 GSs
when Martina Hingis won 3 GS in 1997, many considered her a future great, when she stopped winning GSs, despite the fact she was winning a lot of titles and stayed as # 1 for a long time, nobody considered her a great one.

In terms of greatness, the GSs are everything.

I can't really argue with any of this. Someone like Mandlikova is obviously a greater player than Clijsters or Mauresmo; #1 is not decisive. When you get into the all time greats they are all going to have multiple Grand Slams.

On the other hand, when you are comparing a group of players like one slammers Kuznetsova, Majoli, Myskina and serial bridesmaids like Clijsters, Mauresmo and Fernandez, a simple look at slam totals doesn't even go close to explaining the whole story. For a start the first three probably wouldn't even be considered in the same league as the second three if not for a GS victory. To then use that one GS victory, which to the statistically minded screams 'aberration', as a means to elevate them to a whole new level above other more accomplished players just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

sartrista7
Jul 14th, 2005, 11:30 AM
I agree, and I don't propose to measure it exactly. The thing is, I don't like anomalies. I'm a firm believer in the idea that 'lightning doesn't strike twice'. When I assess players I like to get to their true ability. If a player has one inexplicable result in their record that is not consistent with their other results, then, naturally, I will suspect it as the result of a set of circumstances that conspired to give her that result beyond her true worth.

This is where you and I differ, then. I definitely believe in anomalies, because I've found that much of life is composed of them. I do think that a player's best form isn't necessarily what she brings week in week out, and that she may only hit that peak form a few times in her career. Mary Pierce and Patty Schnyder are superb examples of this, and Myskina's record to date suggests that she will follow a similar path.

The bottom line is that if Myskina's true ability is up to Grand Slam winning level, then why is it that she has played 21 other GS tournaments and never been able to make the last 4?

You're not looking at the trend of her career closely enough. She was on a very definite upwards curve prior to her RG victory, hitting the top 5 for the first time earlier that year and beating more and more top players rather than merely pushing them close. At the start of 2003, she'd never reached the second week of a Slam - by RG 2004, she had three quarter-finals to her name. RG fit into this pattern, maybe a little earlier than it should have been but not totally out of the blue. Since then, I don't think there's enough data to substantiate your theory that winning RG was a result beyond her ability. At each of the Slams (until Wimbledon), it's pretty clear that she was playing well below her ability, even if you take that level as her pre-RG level. And there were valid reasons for all of those early exits: she arrived in Wimbledon mentally exhausted and physically unprepared, having gone through her first major round of media attention and extra promo activities in the fortnight beforehand. The US Open came hot on the heels of the most devastating loss of her career. And we know why she's been struggling this year; extrapolating any conclusions from her 2005 form would be tasteless.

To use a school analogy, Myskina has been a consistent B student over a range of subjects and a range of assignments who found one assignment especially fitted to her talents and got an A+.

Clijsters has been a consistent A student over a range of subjects and assignments who just hasn't been able to crack it for an A +. Even if she never gets the A +, she still gets the nod from me for being the superior student.

A good analogy. And I still favour the student who gets that one A+, even if only in one subject. Excelling in one area and flunking others is definitely preferable to consistent marks across the board.

Re: Clijsters - I definitely think she was the favourite heading into RG (head-to-head) and the US Open (Justine's health). And her collapse at the US Open in the second set definitely had elements of the choke about it. But at the same time I do think Henin-Hardenne would have won all their matches anyway, due to being the superior player, and I did predict a JHH victory each time...

Speaking of Novotna you don't think it made any difference that in her fourth GS final she played Tauziat as opposed to her other three against Seles, Graf and Hingis? I'm sure it did.

Oh yes. Novotna was my first favourite player, but facing Tauziat was just what she needed. She was incredibly nervous throughout that final, and it was just as well that Tauziat was also nervous, and not good enough to take advantage of Jana's nerves.

auntie janie
Jul 14th, 2005, 11:58 AM
Tennis history records two things that count:
WINNING SLAMS, and
ENDING THE YEAR at #1.

Players who reach Slam semis or finals but never take the title, and players who reach number one for a period of time but don't end the year there, will find their names fading from memory. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

Sam's Slave
Jul 14th, 2005, 12:47 PM
yes slams are totally overrated

tennnisfannn
Jul 14th, 2005, 02:40 PM
is this entire thread an attempt to defend Lindsay? If so it is indeeed a sorry thread. Players gear upo for the slams, they have to win 7 matches for the title and atleast beat 4 top 12 players for it, no easy task.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2005, 02:59 PM
The rankings are overrated but the slams are most certainly not, if anything they're underrated in my book. Asking if the slams are underrated is like asking if the Superbowl, or NBA Championships, or the World Series, or the Masters in golf are underrated- and who dare ask such a silly question? With regards to tennis players that's all that really matters, the biggest single thing a player can do is win a slam and that's what it's all about.

jamatthews
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:01 PM
The rankings are overrated but the slams are most certainly not, if anything they're underrated in my book. Asking if the slams are underrated is like asking if the Superbowl, or NBA Championships, or the World Series, or the Masters in golf are underrated- and who dare ask such a silly question? With regards to tennis players that's all that really matters, the biggest single thing a player can do is win a slam and that's what it's all about.

The Superbowl definitely is overrated... :angel:

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:08 PM
The Superbowl definitely is overrated... :angel:
Depends on where you're sitting, I'm sure the people that have played and won a superbowl (ring) would beg to differ. And in terms of the ultimate achievement, the pinnacle happening in the sport of football is to win a Superbowl...

jamatthews
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:10 PM
Depends on where you're sitting, I'm sure the people that have played and won a superbowl (ring) would beg to differ. And in terms of the ultimate achievement, the pinnacle happening in the sport of football is to win a Superbowl...

The pinnacle of football is the World Cup... ;) :p

I'm sure American Football is a nice little plaything for you lot though... :lol:

ys
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Re: Clijsters - I definitely think she was the favourite heading into RG (head-to-head) and the US Open (Justine's health). And her collapse at the US Open in the second set definitely had elements of the choke about it. But at the same time I do think Henin-Hardenne would have won all their matches anyway, due to being the superior player, and I did predict a JHH victory each time...

This, about USO 2003 final, I am not sure. US summer hardcourts have never been Henin's speciality. She was clearly outplayed by Capriati in semis, but Capriati just didn't have the guts to win that match. Clisjters , on the other hand, demolished Davenport in her semis. She was playing better, she was physically fresher than Henin. What happened was similar to what happened to Elena D. at RG 2004 finals. She played the worst match of her career because of nerves.

Experimentee
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:21 PM
No they are not overrated. They are the benchmark for measuring a player's career, and in determining greatness I would weigh Slams very highly. If a player cant take that step in winning a Slam, but are otherwise a good player, it shows that they lack the mentality to become a champion, and that would be strongly to their detriment when assessing greatness.
Because of the importance of Slams historically, they are what all players want to win, so winning a Slam goes a long way to showing mental strength and determination, qualities of champions.

K-Dog
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:33 PM
The WTA tour is going through a stage likw the PGA tour went through in 2003. The major's winners simply got hot that week and they had enough talent to win a big title. The WTA tour has that problem now with two of their slam holders: Venus and Serena. Neither has played dominating tennis since all year. In my heart, I believe that Venus will now be more of a force because her title at Wimbledon was more convincing than Serena's at Oz. Venus basically dominated the field until Lindsay, but Lindsay is no.1 and the match they played was breath-taking. Serena's win was less convincing because it seemed like the only times she played well against the top players (Maria and Lindsay) was when she was a set-down and seemingly of of the match. Serena benefited from some good shots in those situations and her opponent choking. I had my doubts about Serena and reclaiming her glory of 2002-2003 after Oz (even though it is overlooked that she has been injured most of the year since Oz). I think that right now, slams are a little bit overrated has far as the champions that come out of the them. So far none of the winners have dominated the tour except Justine before her Roland Garros win. Slams are still the highest accomplishment in tennis and will always will be. That's what you are remembered for. Let's also not forget that the Williams sisters have a Tiger Woods mentality about winning. They don't care about the other tour events as much as winning slams. Don't expect the sisters to over-exert themselves in other tour matches. Expect that in the slams.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:02 PM
The WTA tour is going through a stage likw the PGA tour went through in 2003. The major's winners simply got hot that week and they had enough talent to win a big title. The WTA tour has that problem now with two of their slam holders: Venus and Serena. Neither has played dominating tennis since all year. In my heart, I believe that Venus will now be more of a force because her title at Wimbledon was more convincing than Serena's at Oz. Venus basically dominated the field until Lindsay, but Lindsay is no.1 and the match they played was breath-taking. Serena's win was less convincing because it seemed like the only times she played well against the top players (Maria and Lindsay) was when she was a set-down and seemingly of of the match. Serena benefited from some good shots in those situations and her opponent choking. I had my doubts about Serena and reclaiming her glory of 2002-2003 after Oz (even though it is overlooked that she has been injured most of the year since Oz). I think that right now, slams are a little bit overrated has far as the champions that come out of the them. So far none of the winners have dominated the tour except Justine before her Roland Garros win. Slams are still the highest accomplishment in tennis and will always will be. That's what you are remembered for. Let's also not forget that the Williams sisters have a Tiger Woods mentality about winning. They don't care about the other tour events as much as winning slams. Don't expect the sisters to over-exert themselves in other tour matches. Expect that in the slams.
What's with this fascination "we" seemingly have with dominating. I think it has to do with the way things were, the days of Evert, Navritlova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, etc... but those days were also the days when the field wasn't nearly as deep. Now of days you have anywhere from 3-6 players that have a legitimate shot at winning a major, and more often than not you're finding that the experienced player who has proven herself in the past is the one most likely to come through when it's all said and done. All the "other" events on tour serve as training ground to prepare ones-self to do well at the majors. For years MoMo has been able to do quite well in the bigger events outside of the slams but come up short when it counts most- at the slams. And rightfully so, she won't truly be considered worthy of any kind of higher status until she performs at the slams- and that's the way it should be. Last year when we had four different slam winners and no one really dominating the tour, no one criticized any of the slam winners for not performing as well outside of the slams (although Sharapova did get a little heat for that). It's about winning slams and that's what it's always been about. Serena has added to her total making her a seven time slam champ- that's powerful with regards to significance in the sports history. Justine is now a four time slam champ and Vee a 5 time slam champ- all making their impressive resumes that much more impressive. These are the kinds of feats that should be celebrated, not used against them- "well she hasn't won anything else"... so, she's won one the most important tournaments you can possibly win and that has to count for something. In this new day where we celebrate the depth in the game, we can't criticize any player for not dominating.

From where I'm sitting it seems that people want to discredit Serena's win and sum it up to luck, forgetting that she's done this (win slams) more than any other player currently on tour- sounds a little more than simple luck in my eyes. Just to recap Serena's win for those who don't think it was a "deserved" win:

In the first three rounds she routinely beat Camille Pin and Sania Mirza, baggeled Randriantefy, then upset the number two seed MoMo (6-2,6-2)... then went on to fight off two match points and beat Sharapova, then bagel the number one seed in the finals. ...but I guess that's not convincing enough for some people.

When 2005 is nothing but a memory there will only be a few things we remember about the year:
Who won the Australian Open
Who won Roland Garros
Who won Wimbledon
Who won the US Open
Who ended the year number one

(and maybe who won the YEC's)...

rjd1111
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Slams are not over but I think the importance of winning a Slam has been slightly diminished because (A) no one has completely come through a Slam for ages and been brilliant i.e not losing a set, I mean the last three Slam winners faced down Match Points at some stage and (B) the last few Slam winners have not been consistent after winning- Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Serena, Henin Hardenne have all fallen away a bit after winning a Slam. Tennis is going through a period where winning a Slam does not automatically render you a fantastic or special player saying all that it is of course still very special.


The Reason is Parody. Back in the old there wasn't as much Competition
so 1 or 2 players could Dominate. Too many good players now.

K-Dog
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:18 PM
What's with this fascination "we" seemingly have with dominating. I think it has to do with the way things were, the days of Evert, Navritlova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, etc... but those days were also the days when the field wasn't nearly as deep. Now of days you have anywhere from 3-6 players that have a legitimate shot at winning a major, and more often than not you're finding that the experienced player who has proven herself in the past is the one most likely to come through when it's all said and done. All the "other" events on tour serve as training ground to prepare ones-self to do well at the majors. For years MoMo has been able to do quite well in the bigger events outside of the slams but come up short when it counts most- at the slams. And rightfully so, she won't truly be considered worthy of any kind of higher status until she performs at the slams- and that's the way it should be. Last year when we had four different slam winners and no one really dominating the tour, no one criticized any of the slam winners for not performing as well outside of the slams (although Sharapova did get a little heat for that). It's about winning slams and that's what it's always been about. Serena has added to her total making her a seven time slam champ- that's powerful with regards to significance in the sports history. Justine is now a four time slam champ and Vee a 5 time slam champ- all making their impressive resumes that much more impressive. These are the kinds of feats that should be celebrated, not used against them- "well she hasn't won anything else"... so, she's won one the most important tournaments you can possibly win and that has to count for something. In this new day where we celebrate the depth in the game, we can't criticize any player for not dominating.

From where I'm sitting it seems that people want to discredit Serena's win and sum it up to luck, forgetting that she's done this (win slams) more than any other player currently on tour- sounds a little more than simple luck in my eyes. Just to recap Serena's win for those who don't think it was a "deserved" win:

In the first three rounds she routinely beat Camille Pin and Sania Mirza, baggeled Randriantefy, then upset the number two seed MoMo (6-2,6-2)... then went on to fight off two match points and beat Sharapova, then bagel the number one seed in the finals. ...but I guess that's not convincing enough for some people.

When 2005 is nothing but a memory there will only be a few things we remember about the year:
Who won the Australian Open
Who won Roland Garros
Who won Wimbledon
Who won the US Open
Who ended the year number one

(and maybe who won the YEC's)...

I'm not quite sure about your post. Are you disagreeing with me or not? What does your first line mean? "we?"

I'm not saying that Serena's win was luck, but as far as overall quality, it wasn't very convincing for the rest of the year. I totally agree that nobody will remember whow won tour events, just the 4 majors and YEC. That's all the Williams sisters care about.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:28 PM
I'm not quite sure about your post. Are you disagreeing with me or not? What does your first line mean? "we?"

I'm not saying that Serena's win was luck, but as far as overall quality, it wasn't very convincing for the rest of the year. I totally agree that nobody will remember whow won tour events, just the 4 majors and YEC. That's all the Williams sisters care about.
Check your reps... I good repped you and said nice post, I wasn't disagreeing with you- I agree with the heart of everything you wrote. I don't agree with Serena's win not being convincing but that's just a matter of opinion. I think most people mistakenly assumed that Serena would go onto to do great things after that win, which puts more emphasises some peoples disapointment with the rest of her season.

The "we" I speak of is the tennis cummunity as a whole- commentators, fans, and haters alike...

K-Dog
Jul 14th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Check your reps... I good repped you and said nice post, I wasn't disagreeing with you- I agree with the heart of everything you wrote. I don't agree with Serena's win not being convincing but that's just a matter of opinion. I think most people mistakenly assumed that Serena would go onto to do great things after that win, which puts more emphasises some peoples disapointment with the rest of her season.

The "we" I speak of is the tennis cummunity as a whole- commentators, fans, and haters alike...

Oh! Thanks!! I don't look at my reps too often!! I guess the reason I see the win as non-convincing was how she won the big matches. Her forehand was awful technically. She isn't hitting the forehand with the same technique as 2001-2003. She was lucky to get away with it at times. The forehand was great down match points and break points though!! Her serve was techniccaly sometimes correct and other times she would hit it differently than she normally does. She did win it and that says something, but it was convincing enough for the whole rest of the year being full of titles.

ys
Jul 14th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Who ended the year number one

(and maybe who won the YEC's)...

No one cares about these two. In 10 years time most of people who follow tennis will still be able to tell you who won Slams. Like I easily remember all Slam winners back for as long as I've been following tennis. 15 years, that is. But to tell you who won YEC in particular year is no different than who won Miami or Fed Cup. And year end #1 is not really remembered. In many cases the answer is obvious, as it is dictated by Slam success. But if not.. Who was year end #1 in 2001.. Without looking it up I can't say already now, forget about it remembering that in 10 years. Was it Capriati because she won two Slams? Or was it Williams who also won two? Or was it Hingis or Davenport who were more consistent players? I remember it even worse than who won some memorable tune-up tournament , such as Miami, for instance..

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2005, 05:49 PM
No one cares about these two. In 10 years time most of people who follow tennis will still be able to tell you who won Slams. Like I easily remember all Slam winners back for as long as I've been following tennis. 15 years, that is. But to tell you who won YEC in particular year is no different than who won Miami or Fed Cup. And year end #1 is not really remembered. In many cases the answer is obvious, as it is dictated by Slam success. But if not.. Who was year end #1 in 2001.. Without looking it up I can't say already now, forget about it remembering that in 10 years. Was it Capriati because she won two Slams? Or was it Williams who also won two? Or was it Hingis or Davenport who were more consistent players? I remember it even worse than who won some memorable tune-up tournament , such as Miami, for instance..
Good point... When first reading your question I thought for a second and thought JCap, Lindsay, or Hingis- but honestly without looking it up, I really have no idea. I do know with certainty that Lindsay and Hingis have ended the year number one and that Venus has never been the year-end number one- not sure about JCap though. As for who won the slams, I immediately remember Venus won the last two, and I think JCap won the first two (but maybe it was 2000 where JCap won the first two- it's kinda fuzzy). What's crystal clear is that JCap has won 3 slams (2 Oz, 1 French)- I guess when it's all said and done that the strongest memory. As for who won the YEC that year, don't haver a clue... (I would guess Lindsay, but not sure) so again, you make a good point.

K-Dog
Jul 14th, 2005, 06:42 PM
Good point... When first reading your question I thought for a second and thought JCap, Lindsay, or Hingis- but honestly without looking it up, I really have no idea. I do know with certainty that Lindsay and Hingis have ended the year number one and that Venus has never been the year-end number one- not sure about JCap though. As for who won the slams, I immediately remember Venus won the last two, and I think JCap won the first two (but maybe it was 2000 where JCap won the first two- it's kinda fuzzy). What's crystal clear is that JCap has won 3 slams (2 Oz, 1 French)- I guess when it's all said and done that the strongest memory. As for who won the YEC that year, don't haver a clue... (I would guess Lindsay, but not sure) so again, you make a good point.

I'm kind of a nut, so I'll answer your questions. Lindsay finished year-end no.1 in 2001. Jennifer was no.2 with the Oz and RO. Venus won Wimbledon and US Open. Serena won the YEC because Lindsay defaulted. Although it isn't the point of this thread, there are you answers!

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2005, 07:20 PM
I'm kind of a nut, so I'll answer your questions. Lindsay finished year-end no.1 in 2001. Jennifer was no.2 with the Oz and RO. Venus won Wimbledon and US Open. Serena won the YEC because Lindsay defaulted. Although it isn't the point of this thread, there are you answers!
Actually this is kind of the point, it's about what's remembered and what's forgotten, what's important and what's not. All things obviously are not equal- while some things are forever etched in our memories, others are forgotten within weeks...

After reading your answers they jogged my memories and it's all coming back to me as clear as day. Lindsay developed some sort of injury in the previous round and didn't play the final so Serena won- I think they played that Championships in Germany so Monica didn't go, out of protest. You're right, Lindsay did finish number one and I remember it being the closest race between number #1 and #2 of all time. Funny how Vee and JCap win the majors and Lindsay, with no major, ends the year #1 ...dejavu.

Interesting how I remember all of these happenings, but I don't necessarily associate them with 2001. So In my case I do remember who won the majors, the YEC's, and who ended the year number one, but I don't really remember the years that they happened. I wonder if that's typical to most fans or if that's just how my memory works...

K-Dog
Jul 14th, 2005, 08:15 PM
Actually this is kind of the point, it's about what's remembered and what's forgotten, what's important and what's not. All things obviously are not equal- while some things are forever etched in our memories, others are forgotten within weeks...

After reading your answers they jogged my memories and it's all coming back to me as clear as day. Lindsay developed some sort of injury in the previous round and didn't play the final so Serena won- I think they played that Championships in Germany so Monica didn't go, out of protest. You're right, Lindsay did finish number one and I remember it being the closest race between number #1 and #2 of all time. Funny how Vee and JCap win the majors and Lindsay, with no major, ends the year #1 ...dejavu.

Interesting how I remember all of these happenings, but I don't necessarily associate them with 2001. So In my case I do remember who won the majors, the YEC's, and who ended the year number one, but I don't really remember the years that they happened. I wonder if that's typical to most fans or if that's just how my memory works...


It depends on how many years you have followed tennis. If you have followed tennis for 10 or more years, then things become more jumbled although you remember the matches themselves. For me, I began intensely following tennis during Wimbledon 2001. I had watched the 2000 Wimbledon final (women's and men's), and the French final of 2001, but never followed tennis that closely. For some reason I began watching Wimbledon on TNT and never stopped. Venus and Serena were the players I knew a lot about and for some reason they became my favorite players. I have an excellent memory, so I can remember things very easily. I haven't been too crammed with info yet, only because this is only my 4th full year watching. I have tried to catch up on the 90's and 80's by watching matches on ESPN classic or on monicaselessite.com. I bet in a few more years I'll forget the exact times or places matches happened, but I'll remember only the results. I'm speaking for me here. I'm sure Calimero can remember the time, place, and result of about every one of Steffi's matches though!! (lol)

sartrista7
Jul 15th, 2005, 01:35 AM
Now of days you have anywhere from 3-6 players that have a legitimate shot at winning a major, and more often than not you're finding that the experienced player who has proven herself in the past is the one most likely to come through when it's all said and done.

Isn't the catalyst for this thread that sometimes, especially last year, it's the unfancied and unheralded players who come through? Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova.

ys makes a good point about memory. I'm a pretty hardcore tennis fan, I follow the whole tour including Challengers and have been doing so for nearly ten years, and I have a fantastic memory - and even I don't remember who won, say, the YEC from a few years ago offhand. And from further back, it's just the Slams that are etched into my memory.

In 10, 20 years time...it won't matter if Myskina and Kuznetsova never win another Slam. They'll be remembered as the 2004 RG and US Open champions. Their results elsewhere won't matter - people remember wins, not losses. If Clijsters and Mauresmo don't step up and win one, though...they'll only be remembered by the people who remember the Huber, Coetzer and Fernandez types.

Robbie.
Jul 15th, 2005, 02:44 AM
I do think that a player's best form isn't necessarily what she brings week in week out, and that she may only hit that peak form a few times in her career. Mary Pierce and Patty Schnyder are superb examples of this, and Myskina's record to date suggests that she will follow a similar path.

These really arent similar situations to Myskina.

Yes, Mary is very erratic, but she's proven her level numerous times. 5 GS finals says it all really. You can't doubt that she's up to GS winning standard when her body, mind and game are syncronised. If you take away 4 of her GS performances and you're left with a whole bunch of quarterfinals and one win, like with Myskina, then I would suspect it.

With Patty, again, there's nothing really that stands out as an anomaly in her record. She is consistent 4R player at GS and occasional quarter and semifinalist. She can beat 1, 2 or 3 top players, at GS or but eventually she'll find someone who overpowers her. That's been the pattern of her career pretty much.

You're not looking at the trend of her career closely enough. She was on a very definite upwards curve prior to her RG victory, hitting the top 5 for the first time earlier that year and beating more and more top players rather than merely pushing them close. At the start of 2003, she'd never reached the second week of a Slam - by RG 2004, she had three quarter-finals to her name. RG fit into this pattern, maybe a little earlier than it should have been but not totally out of the blue.

Yes, she was on upwards cruve, but I don't believe that that upwards curve inexorably led to GS victory. In the 12 months before Roland Garros '04 she had only 5 wins over top 10 players, and one of them was a retirement. She had 10 losses.

When you consider that at RG she beat 4 of the top 11 in two weeks and what a huge jump it is from quarterfinals to winning a GS tournament, yes, I would still say that winning a GS was completely out of the pattern of her usual results at that stage.

But...

Since then, I don't think there's enough data to substantiate your theory that winning RG was a result beyond her ability. At each of the Slams (until Wimbledon), it's pretty clear that she was playing well below her ability, even if you take that level as her pre-RG level. And there were valid reasons for all of those early exits: she arrived in Wimbledon mentally exhausted and physically unprepared, having gone through her first major round of media attention and extra promo activities in the fortnight beforehand. The US Open came hot on the heels of the most devastating loss of her career. And we know why she's been struggling this year; extrapolating any conclusions from her 2005 form would be tasteless.

I agree with this. We'll see what she can do from here on in. But the fact is that to this stage she has never had a result similar to what. Until such a time as she does, it is an anomaly to me.

Personally, I think Kuznetsova is a much better chance of going on with it.

ys makes a good point about memory. I'm a pretty hardcore tennis fan, I follow the whole tour including Challengers and have been doing so for nearly ten years, and I have a fantastic memory - and even I don't remember who won, say, the YEC from a few years ago offhand. And from further back, it's just the Slams that are etched into my memory.

In 10, 20 years time...it won't matter if Myskina and Kuznetsova never win another Slam. They'll be remembered as the 2004 RG and US Open champions. Their results elsewhere won't matter - people remember wins, not losses. If Clijsters and Mauresmo don't step up and win one, though...they'll only be remembered by the people who remember the Huber, Coetzer and Fernandez types.

Since when did dodgy human memories become good history?
Since when did fame become the barometer of greatness?

Of all the arguments about the importance of Grand Slams, the argument that non grand slam winners will be easily forgotten is by far the least convincing.

Even if its true (I'd be willing to make a decent bet that if you did a world wide straw poll of the general populace more people would know Clijsters than Myskina or Kuznetsova) that people only remember GS winners then what does it prove other than that human beings have pretty poor and selective memories based on our biases as to what we consider important?

The idea that anybody who is serious in 10, 20, 30 years time about finding out who the best players of this era were wouldnt go beyond looking at a GS winners list is ludicrous. Anybody who did such a thing would simply not be conducting a serious inquiry and if they were to consult any other piece of evidence would quickly discover how Clijsters puts Myskina to shame by every other barometer of who the better player was.

The idea that #1 players are easily forgotten, again, I think in time this will be debunked too. Obviously on the WTA tour we haven't had a slamless number one until 2003 and those two players are still on tour, so it's hard to know what the number one ranking will do for their legacy in the long term. However the ATP did have one in 1998 in Marcelo Rios. People still talk about him today and his record wasn't nearly as imposing as that of Clijsters. I would be surprised if Thomas Johansson or Gaston Gaudio get a higher place in history. As I said, its not difficult for anyone serious about finding out who the great players of this era were, to get a hold of a history of the number one ranking. I agree that GSs are definitely a more important achievement, but there are only 14 women on the list of # 1's so far, its an exclusive club and an achievement of note nevertheless.

sartrista7
Jul 15th, 2005, 01:41 PM
These really arent similar situations to Myskina.

Yes, Mary is very erratic, but she's proven her level numerous times. 5 GS finals says it all really. You can't doubt that she's up to GS winning standard when her body, mind and game are syncronised. If you take away 4 of her GS performances and you're left with a whole bunch of quarterfinals and one win, like with Myskina, then I would suspect it.

Pierce has often been compared to players like Martinez, Novotna and Sabatini, and it's generally been agreed that the latter three have had much more consistent careers, and been members of the top flight for more extended periods of time than Pierce. Yet Pierce is the one with more success at the Slams. Comparing Pierce and Martinez is like a magnified version of comparing Myskina and Mauresmo - one of them is consistently excellent and has been a top 5 player for a very long period of time, whereas the other is streaky, has spent more time as a non-contender than people intuitively think an elite player should, but has ultimately scored the better results at the biggest events.

With Patty, again, there's nothing really that stands out as an anomaly in her record. She is consistent 4R player at GS and occasional quarter and semifinalist. She can beat 1, 2 or 3 top players, at GS or but eventually she'll find someone who overpowers her. That's been the pattern of her career pretty much.

I think every so often Patty definitely has an anomalous tournament where she gets her head and her talent together and beats everyone in her path - Zurich 2002, say, or Charleston 2001. There's not really any reason game-wise why she couldn't have done that at a Slam - imagine if she'd played RG 2002 like she played Charleston that year, minus the final loss - and then the anomalous nature of the tournament would be emphasised.

Yes, she was on upwards cruve, but I don't believe that that upwards curve inexorably led to GS victory. In the 12 months before Roland Garros '04 she had only 5 wins over top 10 players, and one of them was a retirement. She had 10 losses.

Which is better than Sharapova's record going into Wimbledon last year, and yet few people seem to think that she's a fluke. I also looked up ASV's record over top players prior to her first Slam win, and it wasn't at all impressive! I don't think she'd actually beaten any of the then-elite EVER before beating Novotna, Fernandez and Graf back-to-back to win RG. I can definitely imagine people calling her a fluke back then, especially as she didn't win another Slam for half a decade, but at the end of the day ASV will go down as a multi-Slam winning great.

Sure, Myskina's record wasn't a surefire indication that she'd be a Slam champion, but neither was it bad enough to rule that out entirely. And players have gone on to greatness from far less inspiring foundations.

Personally, I think Kuznetsova is a much better chance of going on with it.

I think Kuznetsova is one of the few players around with a solid shot at the Career Slam.

Since when did dodgy human memories become good history?
Since when did fame become the barometer of greatness?

Of all the arguments about the importance of Grand Slams, the argument that non grand slam winners will be easily forgotten is by far the least convincing.

Even if its true (I'd be willing to make a decent bet that if you did a world wide straw poll of the general populace more people would know Clijsters than Myskina or Kuznetsova) that people only remember GS winners then what does it prove other than that human beings have pretty poor and selective memories based on our biases as to what we consider important?

The idea that anybody who is serious in 10, 20, 30 years time about finding out who the best players of this era were wouldnt go beyond looking at a GS winners list is ludicrous. Anybody who did such a thing would simply not be conducting a serious inquiry and if they were to consult any other piece of evidence would quickly discover how Clijsters puts Myskina to shame by every other barometer of who the better player was.

But like it or not, the majority of tennis fans are more casual than that. Not only are they not going to know who won Indian Wells 2005 in 30 years' time, most probably won't care. They won't see it as important. They probably won't remember all the Slam winners, but if they feel like knowing anything at all about 00s tennis, that's what they'll look up. And yes, there will be people who dig deeper, but they'll be the minority. To everyone else, it won't matter whether Clijsters was the better player (if she never wins a Slam), because she never proved it in the only field it'll ultimately matter.

And you may dismiss casual fans who don't research as painstakingly as they perhaps should, but they're the ones in whose memories tennis history is archived. The Grand Slams are what non-tennis fans will pay attention to as well as the hardcore followers like us, and it's the resulting collective memory which determines how a player is perceived in years to come.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 15th, 2005, 03:14 PM
...Tennis is about Slams. There is no possible debate... If someone doesn't get it, after 20 pages of discussion, he still won't get it. WTA tournaments have zero, zero value (you just get a nice little check and trophee, that's all) and no one care anymore about the ranking (except obscessed tennis fans). Historically, unless they win a Slam, players like Clijsters and Mauresmo will be remembered as losers and chokers.
Everyone in their hearts already knows this, is just that a lot of peoples favorite playes have only made it to the SFs and Finals of a slam and in an effort to (defend) inflate their favorites performance suddenly the thing that matters most (this season) is consistency and not slam wins. As a Serena Williams fan I find it interesting that commentators this year are asking the question, 'can Serena come back?'- there is more emphasis on her lackluster results after her slam win then her winning her 7th major. So therein lies the question, it's a matter of year round consistency vs. a great slam performance. Honest fans of tennis know which they'd prefer for their favorites as well as which their favorites prefer, but I guess it's fun to pretend otherwise- especially for those insecure about their favorites coming up a little short when it counts most. At the same time no one takes for grantide what it takes to have a consistent year- that's a feat definitely worthy of praise, but consistency will always be weighed more at the slams than anywhere else.

DemWilliamsGulls
Jul 15th, 2005, 03:16 PM
I'll say it once and I'll say it again...I think all of em except Wimbledon because of its history and the U.S. Open because of the crowd and excitement....you cant go wrong under the lights at Auther Ashe Stadium..thats like the Superbowl of tennis! They definately save the best for last.

RenaSlam.
Jul 15th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Of course not.

Slams are what matter-period.

controlfreak
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:24 PM
I think there are several retired Slamless players who are remembered longer and considered greater than certain Slam-winning players.

Fingon
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:28 PM
I think there are several retired Slamless players who are remembered longer and considered greater than certain Slam-winning players.

like ...

ys
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:29 PM
like ...

Shriver :lol: Kournikova..

goldenlox
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:40 PM
There are plenty of slam winners I've never heard of, when I look at the list.
But I've heard of Ann White because she wore a body suit at Wimbledon.
Anyone who follows tennis at all in this era will know the name Mauresmo.
Then ask them who Majoli is.

Fingon
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Shriver :lol: Kournikova..

good point, only that Anna is remembered by her looks ans Shriver by her tongue

victory1
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:57 PM
Slams are all that mattered! Even golf who has the same basic structure as tennis, when Tiger was in a slump and had not win a master event, it was all that was talked about. Tiger was winning other events, but was not able to win the big ones for over a year. When he won his 1st major this year in almost 2 years, you could not pick up a newspaper or turn to a TV news or sport channel without the mention of Tiger Woods drought ending in the majors.

Why was that? Because if you're consider one of the best, you must be able to win the big ones!!:p

Marie Waggedorn
Jul 15th, 2005, 06:59 PM
No they aren’t overrated. If they were, then you’d have a lot more different Slam winners. Ask Tamarine Tanasugarn or Jill Craybas or any other player who hasn’t won a Slam if they are underrated.

vwfan
Jul 15th, 2005, 07:41 PM
only fans of players who don't have any think that the slams don't matter. :devil:
they matter in tennis and their equivalent in other sports matter as well.

victory1
Jul 15th, 2005, 07:47 PM
only fans of players who don't have any think that the slams don't matter. :devil:
they matter in tennis and their equivalent in other sports matter as well.

I know!! They should go to a golf messageboard and write that winning 1 of the 4 majors is overrated and see how many people think they completely lost their mind!!:lol: :lol:

Robbie.
Jul 16th, 2005, 02:21 AM
Tennis is about Slams. There is no possible debate... If someone doesn't get it, after 20 pages of discussion, he still won't get it. WTA tournaments have zero, zero value (you just get a nice little check and trophee, that's all) and no one care anymore about the ranking (except obscessed tennis fans). Historically, unless they win a Slam, players like Clijsters and Mauresmo will be remembered as losers and chokers.

Everyone in their hearts already knows this, is just that a lot of peoples favorite playes have only made it to the SFs and Finals of a slam and in an effort to (defend) inflate their favorites performance suddenly the thing that matters most (this season) is consistency and not slam wins. As a Serena Williams fan I find it interesting that commentators this year are asking the question, 'can Serena come back?'- there is more emphasis on her lackluster results after her slam win then her winning her 7th major. So therein lies the question, it's a matter of year round consistency vs. a great slam performance. Honest fans of tennis know which they'd prefer for their favorites as well as which their favorites prefer, but I guess it's fun to pretend otherwise- especially for those insecure about their favorites coming up a little short when it counts most. At the same time no one takes for grantide what it takes to have a consistent year- that's a feat definitely worthy of praise, but consistency will always be weighed more at the slams than anywhere else.

Let's dial back the condescension, there really is no need for it and it smacks of a deficiency of logic that one can't entertain any views other their own on a particular subject.

I'm not insecure about my favourites, the only two players I really care about on tour at the moment are Lindsay and Jenn and they both have three grand slams.

Furthermore, if you read more closely, I'm not saying that Grand Slams are overrated per se. They are obviously the greatest tournaments in tennis, winning them is a prerequisite for a great career and an assessment of anyone's career will be made first and foremost on their GS record. Stupid me just thought that an historical inquiry should be about finding out who objectively the better player was based on their accomplishments and not on pursuing some dogmatic conviction that what is by all measures a statistical anomaly can sustain a claim to superiority just because it happened to occur at a GS.

Basically what I am saying is that GS results should be assessed objectively. A player who reaches several semis and finals has performed at a higher level and is a more accomplished player than one who wins one tournament and for no good reason can't get beyond the quarterfinals at a GS for the rest of their career. In the second situation it is impossible to escape the inference that circumstances played a much bigger role in the win than superior ability. And no one deserves to be remembered as great just because circumstances fell into place for them. If your really up to slam winning standard, you're other results should suggest that too.


I know!! They should go to a golf messageboard and write that winning 1 of the 4 majors is overrated and see how many people think they completely lost their mind!!:lol: :lol:

And try telling them that Birdie Kim and Hilary Lunke are greater players than Rosie Jones and see what they say :lol::lol:

Majors are majors and flukes are flukes. In tennis or golf.


Pierce has often been compared to players like Martinez, Novotna and Sabatini, and it's generally been agreed that the latter three have had much more consistent careers, and been members of the top flight for more extended periods of time than Pierce. Yet Pierce is the one with more success at the Slams. Comparing Pierce and Martinez is like a magnified version of comparing Myskina and Mauresmo - one of them is consistently excellent and has been a top 5 player for a very long period of time, whereas the other is streaky, has spent more time as a non-contender than people intuitively think an elite player should, but has ultimately scored the better results at the biggest events.

I'm not going to get into comparing other people's careers. As I said, I'm more interested in a player proving their level. So far Myskina has one result that is far removed from anything else she has ever done in her career in terms of significance. Until she atleast does something in the same ballpark, I'm not going to worship at her altar just because she is a GS winner.

Pierce has reached 5 major finals. Yes, she was streaky, but you don't get a fortunate set of circumstances 5 times over the course of 10 years, you have to be one of the best players of your generation and there's no argument about that.

Which is better than Sharapova's record going into Wimbledon last year, and yet few people seem to think that she's a fluke. I also looked up ASV's record over top players prior to her first Slam win, and it wasn't at all impressive! I don't think she'd actually beaten any of the then-elite EVER before beating Novotna, Fernandez and Graf back-to-back to win RG. I can definitely imagine people calling her a fluke back then, especially as she didn't win another Slam for half a decade, but at the end of the day ASV will go down as a multi-Slam winning great.

Sure, Myskina's record wasn't a surefire indication that she'd be a Slam champion, but neither was it bad enough to rule that out entirely. And players have gone on to greatness from far less inspiring foundations.

Of course, but this probably isn't really relevant.
As for ASV and Sharapova, well they were 17 and playing their seventh slams, so people probably give them the benefit of the doubt. Also Maria's GS record is already better than Myskina's, backing her win up with 2 semis in the next 5 GS. Plus she's won the YEC. It adds credibility to her case for being a long term top fiver.
And yes I know that Myskina has had an interrupted development, but the fact still remains that her RG victory sticks out like a sore thumb among everything else she has ever done. She was never a contender for GS before that tournament and hasnt been since. We'll see what she does from here and this will shape my view of her.


But like it or not, the majority of tennis fans are more casual than that. Not only are they not going to know who won Indian Wells 2005 in 30 years' time, most probably won't care. They won't see it as important. They probably won't remember all the Slam winners, but if they feel like knowing anything at all about 00s tennis, that's what they'll look up. And yes, there will be people who dig deeper, but they'll be the minority. To everyone else, it won't matter whether Clijsters was the better player (if she never wins a Slam), because she never proved it in the only field it'll ultimately matter.

And you may dismiss casual fans who don't research as painstakingly as they perhaps should, but they're the ones in whose memories tennis history is archived. The Grand Slams are what non-tennis fans will pay attention to as well as the hardcore followers like us, and it's the resulting collective memory which determines how a player is perceived in years to come.

So ignorance is accepted and even encouraged?

What you say here may be an accurate reflection of events, though I have my doubts, but it doesn't make it right. Most events in history, and I'm not talking just sports history but history in general, are probably remembered in the public consciousness differently than they way they actually went down. It doesn't mean that the majority have it right and the historians have it wrong.

As I said before I doubt that players who have occupied the number one ranking will be quickly forgotten. If we are talking about a 'collective memory' then players who get to number one have probably appeared in semifinals and finals of the majors - which less face it is where casuals tune in - consistently over a space of a decade. Naturally these women are going to be far more exposed to more people than a woman who wins one major but never gets passed the quarterfinals in other tournaments.

I can see where you are coming from with the primacy of GS wins, but like all rules IMO it doesn't work in some situations. A question mark always hangs over a player who doesn't win a GS, but winning a GS doesn't erase all questions as to a player's greatness. Far from it. If they are unable to go close to their performance again, then the rest of their career is probably a better indication of how good they really were. If someone asks me in twenty years time who the greater player was out of Myskina or Clijsters, I would say Clijsters without any hesitation. You would say Myskina. Time to move on.

Jem
Jul 16th, 2005, 03:30 AM
Exactly.

And it's not JUST about what history remembers, either.

To demonstrate that you can play like a champion...having the talent isn't enough. You have to have the ability to play your best when it really matters. Grand Slam matches are the most important of a player's career, the ones that they work and train for. It doesn't matter if they win all their other matches...if they can't show their talent on the biggest stage, then that has to be counted against them.

Iva Majoli, it turned out, would only have one chance to win a Slam - only one Slam final. In that match, she played stunning tennis against the world No 1, seized her opportunity, and entered the history books as a champion. Not a one Slam wonder, a champion.

Kim Clijsters has had four chances so far, and has failed to take any of them. Yeah, objectively speaking she's a better player than Majoli. But so far she lacks that quality which enabled Majoli to play her best in the biggest match of her life, and until she finds it Majoli's career will always trump hers.

Interesting, but Majoli is not a slam winner to brag about. Yes, she's a French Open winner, but most will consider her a loser for squandering her talent. I think Clijsters career trumps Majoli's by a mile. Majoli was fortunate to play a Slam final where she was a clear underdog, even though she had always been a threat to Hingis. I always picked Majoli to win that day in Paris. I was surprised that she disappeared after that.

I guarantee you that the average Joe (non-tennis fan) has far more a sense of who Clijsters is than Iva Majoli. Majoli became a blip; Clijsters has been a constant star.

Grand Slam matches are important, and if you compare Clijsters' grand slam record to Majoli's, well, there's no comparison. Clijsters is far better, even if she doesn't have a championship trophy.

I love the Grand Slams, and they certainly have risen in stature through the years. Clearly, in the 1970s, Wimbledon was far and above the others, and the U.S. Open was a clear No. 2. They are far more equal today, but the average sporting fan still sees Wimbledon as the greatest tournament in the world.

kiwifan
Jul 16th, 2005, 03:41 AM
The pinnacle of football is the World Cup... ;) :p

I'm sure American Football is a nice little plaything for you lot though... :lol:

Then its a shame that the USA is probably going to win the World Cup before you Brits ever get another one (what was it 40 years ago and you invented the sport...looooooooooosers :hehehe: )

...and its such a minor sport here :devil: :devil: :devil:

Havok
Jul 16th, 2005, 04:37 AM
no, slams are underrated and davenport being number one just echoes that.
im not saying there's a better candidate for #1, just that it's ridiculous that she's held the position for a LONG time now without winning any of the FOUR big ones.
I agree with what you just wrote, but I mean just take a look at the current GS holders.

Serena: Won the AO, what in the world has she done apart from this? She still has that title during the 4th quarter swing of 04 under her ranking points as well as a finals at the YEC, but thats about it.

Justine: owned the clay court events, and would be #1 but she has minimal tournament events on the computer. The only thing that's holding her back imo.

Venus: Won Wimbledon, and just about nothing else is to her name. A blah tier III win on clay, and a decent run in 04 hardcourts that she still has on the computer

Svetlana: CHOKER. Don't even have to list all the times this girl has choked. Won the USO, then won another two titles after that, granted the field was weak as hell and they don't hold much weight.

There's your reason as to why Lindsay is #1. Not so much how underrated the slams are, but nobody can either sustain the level and continue winning, or have minimal events played (Henin's case).

manu32
Jul 16th, 2005, 08:26 PM
slams are not overrated ......but others tournaments (even tier II) with one or two top players are.very..overrated......only GS winners are knowed .look at the hall of fame......

goldenlox
Jul 16th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Since Wimbledon 2000 - more than 5 years ago, 7 players have won majors.
So 99% of the tour doesn't win majors.