PDA

View Full Version : 2005:Would you take Lindsay's and Maria's year over Serena's?


tennnisfannn
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:02 AM
Lindsay and Maria started the year in a brilliant fashion and look to have the goods over all other players for the season. Unfortunately, they accomplished very little in terms of their aspirations and what they could have done. maria made the no.1 though, lindsay picked up 3 titles none above a tier 2.
Serena's year cvould not have had a better start with a slam win at the AO but she has not done very much since. She has coped alot of slack this season for her performance, (despite an injury related loss of form).
But as fans, whose year would you rather have?

crazyroberto6767
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:07 AM
I would definitely take Serena's year. IMO, 2 weeks of brilliance culminating in a slam is better than 52 (or whatever) consistent weeks.

RenaSlam.
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:09 AM
Slam>No Slam

slydevil6142
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:14 AM
In 5 years no one will remember that Davneport and Maria had a consistent year however it will always be written down that Serena won the Aus 05' .... period.

R&J
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:17 AM
Serena's 1 GS win

selking
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:17 AM
linds opr marias. I like to win alot so being in serenas shoes would piss me off as im sure its pissing her off

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:21 AM
If I were Lindsay than I'd pick Serena's year, 100%, no doubt. Who cares about all the injuries (she'll retire soon anyway) if only she could get a slam.

If I were Serena I'd pick Serena's year. She cares almost exclusively about slams. She might have had some small doubts about chosing Serena's year as staying healthy would be nice, too.

If I were Maria I'd pick Maria's year. She needed to get #1 and she got it. Now she is already guaranteed to go down in history as someone who accomplished more than Mary Pierce despite her 2 slams. She would have had the most doubts as a slam is always nice but I would still pick Maria's year if I were her.

peanuts
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:34 AM
I'd definitely take Serena. Years from now most people especially the casual fans would only remember the Grand Slam wins over the non-Grand Slam tournament wins.

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:45 AM
I'd definitely take Serena. Years from now most people especially the casual fans would only remember the Grand Slam wins over the non-Grand Slam tournament wins.

You mean, like everyone remembers that Korda won AO 1998, and nobody remembers that Rios became #1 that year?

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:46 AM
People will remember slam winners and those who were #1, even if for a short time. Serena and Lindsay had #1 before so they are only interested in slams. Maria was interested in both #1 and slams before the start of the season. She has a slam already so #1 was the first priority.

Sir Stefwhit
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:55 AM
If I were Lindsay than I'd pick Serena's year, 100%, no doubt. Who cares about all the injuries (she'll retire soon anyway) if only she could get a slam.

If I were Serena I'd pick Serena's year. She cares almost exclusively about slams. She might have had some small doubts about chosing Serena's year as staying healthy would be nice, too.

If I were Maria I'd pick Maria's year. She needed to get #1 and she got it. Now she is already guaranteed to go down in history as someone who accomplished more than Mary Pierce despite her 2 slams. She would have had the most doubts as a slam is always nice but I would still pick Maria's year if I were her.
Great answer! If I were the players you listed I probably would go the same route as you suggested. If I'm Maria I feel more flexible as well. Maria's in a young place in her career, so young that she can end up taking the most positives out of all three scenarios. Whereas, had Serena not won a slam, and ended up being in Maria's shoes, I think she would have felt disapointed with her year. I'm not implying she is exactly "thrilled" with what she ended up with. I'm just thinking of all three listed choices, that's the one she'd pick for herself- no doubt! Lindsay's choice is pretty obvious- we all know what she's playing for.

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:05 AM
Winning a slam matters more to posterity.

kabuki
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:07 AM
In ten years, we'll only remember the slams. Period.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:28 AM
In 30 years new fans we'll only remember #1's. Period.
At least the list of those will be short enough to remember.

Most slam winners of 1977, 3 out of 5 (there were 5 slam winners that year, believe it or not) are now remembered mostly by their fans.

~|Naomi|~
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:35 AM
Winning slams is what it is about, so I'd take Serena's year.

I don't get this bit you wrote


Lindsay and Maria started the year in a brilliant fashion and look to have the goods over all other players for the season.


How exactly do they have the goods over Kim? And she started her year later than they did.

Maria - three titles - one tier I, One tier II, one tier III
Lindsay - four titles - three tier II, one tier III
Kim - seven titles - one slam, three tier I, three tier II.
Justine - Four titles - one slam, two tier I, one tier II.

Edited to add Justine, she deserves to be there to

selking
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:44 AM
i'd take kims btw

VeeReeDavJCap81
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:28 AM
Sorry, but a slam is a slam. In 30 years people won't remember that Lindsay was in 2 slam finals losing to each sister, or that Sharapova made 3 slam semis.

skanky~skanketta
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:35 AM
serena's without a doubt. lindsay's or maria's? that's a toss up.

Stamp Paid
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:04 AM
Great answer! If I were the players you listed I probably would go the same route as you suggested. If I'm Maria I feel more flexible as well. Maria's in a young place in her career, so young that she can end up taking the most positives out of all three scenarios. Whereas, had Serena not won a slam, and ended up being in Maria's shoes, I think she would have felt disapointed with her year. I'm not implying she is exactly "thrilled" with what she ended up with. I'm just thinking of all three listed choices, that's the one she'd pick for herself- no doubt! Lindsay's choice is pretty obvious- we all know what she's playing for.

I agree 100%

tennisIlove09
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:05 AM
in the end majors count. Serena

~|Naomi|~
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:39 AM
If I were Maria I'd pick Maria's year. She needed to get #1 and she got it. Now she is already guaranteed to go down in history as someone who accomplished more than Mary Pierce despite her 2 slams. She would have had the most doubts as a slam is always nice but I would still pick Maria's year if I were her.

Maria rates slams ahead of being number 1, she rates last year above this year

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/20/mashasharapova.shtml

“It’s been a good year so far. I reached number one in the world at 18,” Sharapova told reporters ahead of this week’s China Open.

“But my most successful year was last year because I won my first grand slam at Wimbledon.”

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:40 AM
I think this is Kimothee's year...

Portobello
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:40 AM
If I were Lindsay than I'd pick Serena's year, 100%, no doubt. Who cares about all the injuries (she'll retire soon anyway) if only she could get a slam.

If I were Serena I'd pick Serena's year. She cares almost exclusively about slams. She might have had some small doubts about chosing Serena's year as staying healthy would be nice, too.

If I were Maria I'd pick Maria's year. She needed to get #1 and she got it. Now she is already guaranteed to go down in history as someone who accomplished more than Mary Pierce despite her 2 slams. She would have had the most doubts as a slam is always nice but I would still pick Maria's year if I were her.

agreed :yeah:

Junex
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:43 AM
If I were Lindsay than I'd pick Serena's year, 100%, no doubt. Who cares about all the injuries (she'll retire soon anyway) if only she could get a slam.

If I were Serena I'd pick Serena's year. She cares almost exclusively about slams. She might have had some small doubts about chosing Serena's year as staying healthy would be nice, too.

If I were Maria I'd pick Maria's year. She needed to get #1 and she got it. Now she is already guaranteed to go down in history as someone who accomplished more than Mary Pierce despite her 2 slams. She would have had the most doubts as a slam is always nice but I would still pick Maria's year if I were her.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

what most fail to realized is that Maria was in a very different position of that from Lindsay or Serena.

Lindsay have been #1, she also has 3 slams under her belt. She was even #1 without a slam for a period since last year.

Serena on the other hand could not care less of being ranked #1 anymore, as she said she always felt #1 and when she is 100%, she could very well dominate. In fact, even at 70% she can still amnage to win a Slam.
Thats how great a player Serena is, She's been #1 before..winning 7 slams the last being the AO this year.

Both have already proven their worth being a GS champion and being a great and consistent player thus becoming #1 player in the world!
What lindsay & serena 's priority right now is to boost their stocks, and not only financially, but self satisfaction! And the best way to do that in tennis is to win in a GS feild of 128!
not many player have that oppurtunity....

We had so many GS champions who are feeling a void in themselves for being not able to attain the #1 stature. The same could be said of Amelie, who despite being ranked #1, still has 0 GS title.

Maria on the other hand is in a different situation, She has already a Slam Title, in fact the most prestigious rosewater dish! She produce titles, the YEC above others, and yet her achievment was always been looked at to as something mediocre. This year she proved she is more than a Wimbledon Champion..She can also be as consistent a contender by becoming #1 for the first time. Of course, some may argue its because other player are hounded by injuries, but the fact that she is a recepient of injuries herself, yet she sustained a 52 week grueling battle on the courts says a lot of her achievements!

For Maria, becoming #1 this year without a slam might be a disappointment, but the bigger picture is that this year could very well be the best year of her career since when all is said and done and all the players are healthy, her chances at having as shot to the top will be slimmer....

This year is the year that Maria has proven her worth and from here on she'll have the choice to go on and push to belong with the legends or be just one of the greats.

Sir Stefwhit
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Maria rates slams ahead of being number 1, she rates last year above this year

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/20/mashasharapova.shtml

“It’s been a good year so far. I reached number one in the world at 18,” Sharapova told reporters ahead of this week’s China Open.

“But my most successful year was last year because I won my first grand slam at Wimbledon.”
We go into these interesting theories as to why one player would prefer 'X' over 'Z', but at the end of the day, the best way to know is by hearing them speak on it.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Maria rates slams ahead of being number 1, she rates last year above this year

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/20/mashasharapova.shtml

“It’s been a good year so far. I reached number one in the world at 18,” Sharapova told reporters ahead of this week’s China Open.

“But my most successful year was last year because I won my first grand slam at Wimbledon.”

She didn't say that she would prefer to win a slam this year and not be #1 than get #1 and not win a slam.

What she said is that the FIRST slam means more to her than getting #1. She didn't say that a SECOND slam would also mean more to her than getting #1 for the first time.

Now that she has gotten #1 for a few weeks, SECOND slam will probably be a higher priority than keeping #1 or getting it back when she loses it.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:24 AM
[/size]
We go into these interesting theories as to why one player would prefer 'X' over 'Z', but at the end of the day, the best way to know is by hearing them speak on it.

See my reply above.

~|Naomi|~
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:30 AM
What she said is that the FIRST slam means more to her than getting #1 for the first time. She didn't say that a SECOND slam would also mean more to her than getting #1.


You said it she rates her first slam above being number one for the first time. We are working on first achievements here not second achievements. So as her first slam was more important to her than being number one for the first time, that means slams are more important to her. From that quote you can infer that if she had to choose between her first slam and first time as 1 she'd take the slam, now that would tell you she sees slams as more important.

I didn't say she would put a second slam above getting to number one for the first time, just that she rates her first slam above her first stint at number one. Nobody knows what she would prefer between a second slam and first time at number 1, only Maria knows that.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:49 AM
We are discussing year 2005 of Maria, Serena and Lindsay, not 2004.

Maria's first slam was already behind her at the start of the year. So for her, we should compare FIRST time #1 with SECOND slam. There is NO indication that she would prefer the latter option.

In many early interviews Maria said that her main goal in tennis is to become #1. I am sure this remained as her main goal for 2005. She achieved it.

Stamp Paid
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:59 AM
We are discussing year 2005 of Maria, Serena and Lindsay, not 2004.

Maria's first slam was already behind her at the start of the year. So for her, we should compare FIRST time #1 with SECOND slam. There is NO indication that she would prefer the latter option.

In many early interviews Maria said that her main goal in tennis is to become #1. I am sure this remained as her main goal for 2005. She achieved it.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/20/mashasharapova.shtml

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 08:01 AM
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/20/mashasharapova.shtml

Read my replies above.

She said nothing that would say that she would prefer SECOND slam to getting #1 for the FIRST time.

Zippy
Sep 27th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Kim's season over all 3 combined! :p

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 08:18 AM
If Slams are everything, why nobody remembers Majoli anymore? Certainly not casual fans.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 08:24 AM
Yeah, and just to remind, 1977 GS winners are:

Kerry Reid (AO, Jan)
Mima Jausovec (RG)
Virginia Wade (W)
Chris Evert (USO)
Evonne Goolagong Cawley (AO, Dec)

A casual fan living in 2005 might say "Who? :confused: " to four of these names out of five. (I would when I was a casual fan).

Jakeev
Sep 27th, 2005, 09:39 AM
I'm sure Lindsay and Maria would have loved to say they won a Slam in 2005. But I'm just not sure either would say they would have wanted a year like Serena has had either, despite the fact Williams won the Australian Open.

Someone said that people probably would not remember Lindsay's year say in five years.

I disagree with that. Her classic Wimbledon loss I think would alone still be talked about in years to come.

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 10:42 AM
I'm sure Lindsay and Maria would have loved to say they won a Slam in 2005. But I'm just not sure either would say they would have wanted a year like Serena has had either, despite the fact Williams won the Australian Open.

Someone said that people probably would not remember Lindsay's year say in five years.


If Serena's AO win is remembered in the future, it's only because she is Serena and already multiple Slam-winner and former #1. Had someone like say, Shinobu Asagoe had similar year, people would have forgot her by AO 2006.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 10:46 AM
Great point.

-Sonic-
Sep 27th, 2005, 11:29 AM
If Slams are everything, why nobody remembers Majoli anymore? Certainly not casual fans.

Thats a point, but on the flipside, how many casual fans remember players from 1990 who won a couple of tier 2's and got to a couple of slam semis?

----------

With the 3 options, I would take serena's year - - - however, it wouldn't take too much for me to be persuaded to take Lindsays. If Lindsay had wiped the floor in a couple more tier 2's in the summer as she has done before, or got a IW or Miami title, I could be inclined to change.

History/fans remembers slams, but for my own career, I think I would just want titles comin out of my ears.

new-york
Sep 27th, 2005, 11:51 AM
on that one, i think it's fair to take Maria and Lindsay. Serena didn't play enough (even if winning a slam) and Maria has been really consistent in the slams (3 sf/ one quarter)
and Lindsay too (2 finals, 2 quarters). one slam is cool and that's a great honor but just that for one year, is fantastic considering that she didn't play that much but Maria and Lindsay had a whole good year.

d i e t e r
Sep 27th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Hell no! No way Serena should trade her slam for those few weeks at no.1!Kimmy is going to take the no1 ranking anyway :devil:

Maryamator
Sep 27th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Slam>No Slam
yeah!

MLF
Sep 27th, 2005, 01:32 PM
The top players play for the slams, so therefore this year all 3 of these players would take one slam at the expense of all other performances. Lindsay would probably trade her last few seasons for that 1 slam Serena took this year.

Andy.
Sep 27th, 2005, 01:40 PM
In he future people will remember slams not consistency

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 01:46 PM
If Slams are everything, why nobody remembers Majoli anymore? Certainly not casual fans.
Martina Hingis remembers Iva Majoli, for the beatdown she gave her. Steamrolled her w/out facing a break point. Hingis was on pace to break Steffi's record for most consecutive wins to start a season, not to mention the loss kept her from winning THE GRAND SLAM, something only the greatest of the greats have ever accomplished. :wavey:

~|Naomi|~
Sep 27th, 2005, 01:47 PM
We are discussing year 2005 of Maria, Serena and Lindsay, not 2004.

Maria's first slam was already behind her at the start of the year. So for her, we should compare FIRST time #1 with SECOND slam. There is NO indication that she would prefer the latter option.

In many early interviews Maria said that her main goal in tennis is to become #1. I am sure this remained as her main goal for 2005. She achieved it.

So if her main goal in tennis was to be number 1 why did she say she preferred her year 2004 in which she won a slam to this season in which she reached number 1? Lack of consistency there considering she chooses a slam season over a number 1 season.

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:08 PM
Martina Hingis remembers Iva Majoli, for the beatdown she gave her. Steamrolled her w/out facing a break point. Hingis was on pace to break Steffi's record for most consecutive wins to start a season, not to mention the loss kept her from winning THE GRAND SLAM, something only the greatest of the greats have ever accomplished. :wavey:

That was second Slam of the year, so it prevented The Grand Slam only in retrospect. We cannot know what would have happened had Hingis won that final (which she played injured btw).

Only shallow people think that Slams are everything. Nobody remembers 1-Slam wonders, if they didn't have otherwise remarkable career. Former #1's are certainly remembered better, even if they didn't won any Slams to achieve that ranking.

Robbie.
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:10 PM
In 30 years new fans we'll only remember #1's. Period.
At least the list of those will be short enough to remember.

This is absolutely the truth. The people who claim that slam winners are always remembered...well that is just nonsense. There are many slam winners, many listed here, who have faded into obscurity. Ask a pretty knowledgeable fan to list off all the slam winners since 1975 and they'll struggle, ask the same fan to list off all the number ones and they'll do it with ease.

The fact is that mostly the number one ranking is obtained by only the very best slam winners. The only two people to get to number one and not win a GS - Rios and Mauresmo - will be remembered long after their contemporaries who won slams such as Korda, Johansson, Costa, Gaudio, Myskina, Kuznetsova and Majoli. These names will fade just like Edmondson, Reid, Jausovec before them.

And those who say that consistency is not remembered - wrong again. It's simple logic. A player who consistently presents themselves at semis and finals stages of GS tournaments - as any player who gets to number one must do, atleast for 52 weeks - over a number of years - as every number one player so far has done - is going to be exposed to more people and remembered by more people than those who spring up and win one GS tournament but don't get past the quarters at any other time. This is why if you asked your casual observer many more people would know who Mauresmo was than Myskina, Majoli or Kuznetsova.

But anyway I think this whole 'remembered' thing in judging whose achievements are greater, is, well, stupid. It seems to suggest that someone who was really interested in finding out who the best players at any given stage were would be incapable of looking up a database and seeing the complete results for the year and making their minds up from that. Apparently dodgy human memories are the criterion for greatness now? And a complete lack of diligence in historical inquiry is not only to be assumed but the result derived from such a poor enquiry to be accepted as history's verdict? It baffles me. If slams are really the criterion for greatness it is not because people 'remember' them or because someone 20 years in the future won't be dilligent enough to look past a list of them as an exhaustive account of the best players of the era.

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:15 PM
The fact is that mostly the number one ranking is obtained by only the very best slam winners. The only two people to get to number one and not win a GS - Rios and Mauresmo - will be remembered long after their contemporaries who won slams such as Korda, Johansson, Costa, Gaudio, Myskina, Kuznetsova and Majoli. These names will fade just like Edmondson, Reid, Jausovec before them.


Hah, I would have mentioned Gaudio as an example but I had already forgotten that he won a Slam :devil:

Btw, Myskina will rise above that crowd!

Robbie.
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:18 PM
Hah, I would have mentioned Gaudio as an example but I had already forgotten that he won a Slam :devil:

:lol:

Btw, Myskina will rise above that crowd!

Quite possibly, she will. Sveta may also. But as of now they are good examples.

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:19 PM
That was second Slam of the year, so it prevented The Grand Slam only in retrospect. We cannot know what would have happened had Hingis won that final (which she played injured btw).

Only shallow people think that Slams are everything. Nobody remembers 1-Slam wonders, if they didn't have otherwise remarkable career. Former #1's are certainly remembered better, even if they didn't won any Slams to achieve that ranking.

Hingis was in now way injured. That's why people remember slams because revisionist like yourself try and paint a diff. picture. Hingis had comeback from injury she wasn't injured. She caught a beat down because she took Majoli, lightly and paid a high price career wise. She quit the tour still coveting the title she was always denied. The French Open.

Andy T
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:19 PM
I'd take Serena's year BUT I'd rather be Lindsay or Maria going into 2006.

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:20 PM
Hah, I would have mentioned Gaudio as an example but I had already forgotten that he won a Slam :devil:

Btw, Myskina will rise above that crowd!


yes if they don't win slams and people look back at the former #1's those players will be looked upon as a blemish in the ranks of #1s.

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:23 PM
Hingis was in now way injured. That's why people remember slams because revisionist like yourself try and paint a diff. picture. Hingis had comeback from injury she wasn't injured. She caught a beat down because she took Majoli, lightly and paid a high price career wise. She quit the tour still coveting the title she was always denied. The French Open.

Yeah, whatever :rolleyes: I guess Venus also took Barbara Schwartz lightly, then. Now, she is still coveting the title she will always be denied, or something...

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:26 PM
Yeah, whatever :rolleyes: I guess Venus also took Barbara Schwartz lightly, then. Now, she is still coveting the title she will always be denied, or something...
That and Schwartz kicked her ass, but no Venus always coveted the Wimbledon title...she now has three. :wavey:

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:28 PM
yes if they don't win slams and people look back at the former #1's those players will be looked upon as a blemish in the ranks of #1s.

Only by Slam-obsessed people, who are bitter that their favourite player is not #1...how many people cared that Rios did not win any Slams to make it to #1?

By the way, when Sampras first achieved #1 ranking, he had 0 Slams to Courier's 2 Slams. Guess how many people remember that piece of trivia anymore?

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:39 PM
Only by Slam-obsessed people, who are bitter that their favourite player is not #1...how many people cared that Rios did not win any Slams to make it to #1?

By the way, when Sampras first achieved #1 ranking, he had 0 Slams to Courier's 2 Slams. Guess how many people remember that piece of trivia anymore?
If you remembered i'm sure the number is infinite.

Why would slam obseesed people be bitter about the #1 ranking, if thier only obsession is slams.. take a break buddy give yourself time to regroup.

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 02:41 PM
So if her main goal in tennis was to be number 1 why did she say she preferred her year 2004 in which she won a slam to this season in which she reached number 1? Lack of consistency there considering she chooses a slam season over a number 1 season.

Why? Most likely because last year she exceeded her own expectations and experienced high emotions as a result. This year her expectations were very high, probably, #1 and a slam. She underachieved by her own measure.

However, from any objective point of view her 2005 results were much better than those in 2004. She matched 2004 or went further in every tournament of 2005 with the only exception of Wimbledon.

~|Naomi|~
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:07 PM
No she preferred 2004 cause she got a slam, she said so. Like you said her goal this year was probably 1 and a slam, she didn't get the slam so she likes last year with the slam better.

hingis-seles
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Hingis was in now way injured. That's why people remember slams because revisionist like yourself try and paint a diff. picture. Hingis had comeback from injury she wasn't injured. She caught a beat down because she took Majoli, lightly and paid a high price career wise. She quit the tour still coveting the title she was always denied. The French Open.

"I need oxygen to live. I don't need the French Open."

- Martina Hingis. :)

hingis-seles
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Martina Hingis remembers Iva Majoli, for the beatdown she gave her. Steamrolled her w/out facing a break point. Hingis was on pace to break Steffi's record for most consecutive wins to start a season, not to mention the loss kept her from winning THE GRAND SLAM, something only the greatest of the greats have ever accomplished. :wavey:

Somebody's really bitter today. Your rabid and obsessive behavior with the "Can't Miss Swiss" is really :scared:

hingis-seles
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:22 PM
If you remembered i'm sure the number is infinite.

Why would slam obseesed people be bitter about the #1 ranking, if thier only obsession is slams.. take a break buddy give yourself time to regroup.

Isn't she gorgeous? :hearts::hearts:

http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/5d/images.art.com/images/-/Martina-Hingis--C10102794.jpeg

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Isn't she gorgeous? :hearts::hearts:

http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/5d/images.art.com/images/-/Martina-Hingis--C10102794.jpeg


I think so and she had game too... What's your point?

densuprun
Sep 27th, 2005, 03:41 PM
No she preferred 2004 cause she got a slam, she said so. Like you said her goal this year was probably 1 and a slam, she didn't get the slam so she likes last year with the slam better.

Of course, she likes last year: she overachieved her expectations.

This year she is dissappointed: she underachieved this year but not in comparison to the last year. She underachieved in comparison to her expectations. Emotionally this year may seem like a downer, in reality it's a better year. Good foundation for the future.

Doc
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Basically I think if maria was offered the choice between winning a slam at the start of the year and then plummeting in performance and the rankings for the rest... or having a consistent improvement in her tennis and ranking to the No1 position but no slams - I think, after some thought, she'd take the second option. :D

!<blocparty>!
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:37 PM
This thread seems far too boring.

If i was a multipul slam champ, dominated the game in the past and knew I could get back there, I would take Lindsay's year OVER Serena's. She almost won Wimbledon, won a few titles and stayed no.1 for months. I wouldn't want to be seen out of shape losing to the world number 129, or losing on court 2 at my bestest tournament to Jill fucking Craybas. I'd just look to next year, wana forget about this one, regardless of the slam, which was only the Aus.

IMO :angel:

Blonde_Ambition7
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:42 PM
i would take serena's slam. just because i think being so close in the slams like maria and lindsay would be heartbreaking for me to just keep losing after being almost there.

i think lindsay's and maria's year has been better, but i'd still take the slam.

hingis-seles
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:58 PM
I think so and she had game too... What's your point?

When someone's as beautiful and talented as Martina Hingis, there doesn't need to be a point. So shut up, and enjoy.

lauryn
Sep 27th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Easy choise, I would definitely pick Serena's. She won a slam this year, Maria and Lindsay didn't.

Knizzle
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:05 PM
Yeah, whatever :rolleyes: I guess Venus also took Barbara Schwartz lightly, then. Now, she is still coveting the title she will always be denied, or something...

Ummmm....Venus is still playing so she can easily win the FO in the coming years.

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Ummmm....Venus is still playing so she can easily win the FO in the coming years.

Easily? :)

Knizzle
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Easily? :)

That's what I said.

tenn_ace
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:18 PM
I don't understand how people could vote for Linds & Maria. At the end of the day, Slams are what really counts in tennis. Nobody will remember Linds being in 2 finals, Maria making to #1 (unless she'll make a record staying number #1), but people will talk about Serena winning so many slams including AO-05 coming back off an injury.

That's my honest opinion.

Infiniti2001
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:23 PM
I don't understand how people could vote for Linds & Maria. At the end of the day, Slams are what really counts in tennis. Nobody will remember Linds being in 2 finals, Maria making to #1 (unless she'll make a record staying number #1), but people will talk about Serena winning so many slams including AO-05 coming back off an injury.

That's my honest opinion.


:::faints::: :eek: Kidding :p

Infiniti2001
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:32 PM
If Slams are everything, why nobody remembers Majoli anymore? Certainly not casual fans.

Oh I'll always remember Majoli(one slam wonder) stealing Hingis thunder at RG 1997 :tape:

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:41 PM
That's what I said.

If it's so easy, one wonders why she hasn't done it by now...despite having more attempts than eg. Hingis...

Veenut
Sep 27th, 2005, 05:44 PM
There is no question that great champions are defined by winning majors. The players who want to be recognized as great champions know this fact and that is why the play annually in order to attain this. Adding to your major total is always a priority over ranking, at least to great champions.

For those who are trying to justify #1 over major wins, need to reassess your thinking. In sports, the goal of a Champion is always to win Championships. As a fan, this is how I view it and I'm glad that's the way my faves see it too.

IMO the players who have had the better year so far are Kim, Justin, Venus and Serena. God forbid that my faves should only win one title per year and it is a major, I'll be well satisfied with that because in the larger scheme of things majors are weighted far more than the # of weeks at #1.

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:05 PM
When someone's as beautiful and talented as Martina Hingis, there doesn't need to be a point. So shut up, and enjoy.
as i thought you didn't have one

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:15 PM
There is no question that great champions are defined by winning majors. The players who want to be recognized as great champions know this fact and that is why the play annually in order to attain this. Adding to your major total is always a priority over ranking, at least to great champions.

For those who are trying to justify #1 over major wins, need to reassess your thinking. In sports, the goal of a Champion is always to win Championships. As a fan, this is how I view it and I'm glad that's the way my faves see it too.


Goal of the top athletes is to be the best - and the most obvious proof of that is to be ranked #1 in the world. By contrast, winning just one title - even if it's a major - is easily recognized as a fluke. Examples aplenty. Now, in Serena's case it's obviously not a fluke since she is the best player of the current decade but nevertheless, I can't imagine she could be happy with her year, even if some of her more rabid fans are.

In Serena's case, it's not "Wow! She won a Slam, what a great year!" but rather "Well, at least she won a Slam, so it was not a total disaster."

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:18 PM
Goal of the top athletes is to be the best - and the most obvious proof of that is to be ranked #1 in the world. By contrast, winning just one title - even if it's a major - is easily recognized as a fluke. Examples aplenty. Now, in Serena's case it's obviously not a fluke since she is the best player of the current decade but nevertheless, I can't imagine she could be happy with her year, even if some of her more rabid fans are.

In Serena's case, it's not "Wow! She won a Slam, what a great year!" but rather "Well, at least she won a Slam, so it was not a total disaster."



Unfortunately that hasn't been the case since....2000 w/the exception of Serena Williams, Jennifer (briefly) and Justine Henin, and it's certainly not the case at the moment.

meyerpl
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:18 PM
It's a no-brainer. I'd take Lindsay's year in a heartbeat. She got to kiss Elena Dementieva.

Knizzle
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:25 PM
If it's so easy, one wonders why she hasn't done it by now...despite having more attempts than eg. Hingis...

I didn't say she would win easy, I said she could easily win.

Veenut
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:44 PM
[QUOTE]Goal of the top athletes is to be the best - and the most obvious proof of that is to be ranked #1 in the world. By contrast, winning just one title - even if it's a major - is easily recognized as a fluke.

Any well reasoned person cannot by any stretch of the imagination equates Maria's #1 status to being the best after she has been defeated by all the major Champions this year. :lol: Even the tennis establishment have to recognize this for what it's worth. She is a "paper" champion and you can spin it as much as you want but rational people aren't going for it.

The most recent talking point, is that the #1 position is for consistency, not quality, and Maria results reflect that, therefore forget about it displaying the best player for now. When I witness the best palyer becoming #1 then I'll believe your above statement.

BTW recognizing the win of a multi champion as a fluke is just plain juvenile and immature. Think of better reasoned arguments.

Stamp Paid
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Lindsay hasnt had a won a big title all year, lost the #1 ranking, and has suffered too many heartbreaking defeats this year (in 2 finals of 2 majors). Especially with Kim (& maybe Justine - is she better yet?) back, her slam chances are getting morer and more far fetched. Plus all she is playing for is 1 more slam. She could have retired right there and started her family had she won Australia or Wimbledon. So in her position, I wopuld have preferred Serena's year and then retired at #1 after winning Australia.

Maria is a young buck, so in her position I would prefer her year (ACTUAL consistency, World #1) than Serena's.

SvetaPleaseWin.
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:51 PM
although dav and maria have been more consistent i would rather have the slam

DA FOREHAND
Sep 27th, 2005, 06:52 PM
[QUOTE=Timariot]

Any well reasoned person cannot by any stretch of the imagination equates Maria's #1 status to being the best after she has been defeated by all the major Champions this year. :lol: Even the tennis establishment have to recognize this for what it's worth. She is a "paper" champion and you can spin it as much as you want but rational people aren't going for it.

The most recent talking point, is that the #1 position is for consistency, not quality, and Maria results reflect that, therefore forget about it displaying the best player for now. When I witness the best palyer becoming #1 then I'll believe your above statement.

BTW recognizing the win of a multi champion as a fluke is just plain juvenile and immature. Think of better reasoned arguments.


Me thinks he's confusing Serena w/what his boys call him Flunky.

Fluke = an accidental advantage:stroke of good luck :wavey:

flunky= a servile follower;toady :tape:

Timariot
Sep 27th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Any well reasoned person cannot by any stretch of the imagination equates Maria's #1 status to being the best after she has been defeated by all the major Champions this year. :lol: Even the tennis establishment have to recognize this for what it's worth. She is a "paper" champion and you can spin it as much as you want but rational people aren't going for it.


10 years from now, nobody - and I do mean nobody - cares what kind of Slam record Sharapova had during her #1 reign. See my Sampras example.


The most recent talking point, is that the #1 position is for consistency, not quality, and Maria results reflect that, therefore forget about it displaying the best player for now. When I witness the best palyer becoming #1 then I'll believe your above statement.


Right, it's always the "wrong" player as #1 :rolleyes:


BTW recognizing the win of a multi champion as a fluke is just plain juvenile and immature. Think of better reasoned arguments.

And on top of that, you can't even read. Let me repeat what I wrote, 30 minutes ago:
"Now, in Serena's case it's obviously not a fluke since she is the best player of the current decade..."