PDA

View Full Version : Odds are, SOMEONE will win two slams next year


Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 03:55 AM
It's been 37 years of open era tennis. In 29 of the 37, someone has won at least two same. That's 78% of the time, which is wildly disproportionate. Injuries really seem the reason we've had so many GS champs the last two years. One would hope that the agents, if not the players, realize that the sheer physicality of today's game demands some changes in training regimen. Like more rest.

If any of last year's GS champs stay healthy, thery're certainly capable of winning two slams next year. Of course, if they ALL stay healthy.....

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:23 AM
yeh kim wil win 3

No Name Face
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:23 AM
Dementieva and Serena...2 a piece :bowdown:

Brooks.
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:24 AM
Serena- 4

LoveFifteen
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:43 AM
I'm shocked a certain someone hasn't yet written ...

:bigclap: Peng - 4 :bigclap:

fammmmedspin
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:48 AM
Thats because there used to be people who won 24, 22 or 18 GS or ones that won 9 or 5 very quickly.

The current top players are greater in number and more equal in ability and more of them are unable to play well often.

The people who might win a lot of GS are hardly troubled by lack of rest. Serena and Venus are effectively part time, Kim lost her first 2 2005 GS after months of enforcd rest and Justine's problem is being able to play enough not playing too much.

vogus
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:54 AM
flawed 'Volcana logic' at play here.

What happened 30 years ago is irrelevant to 2006 probability. The same factors are likely to be in play in '06 as the previous 2 years - mainly there is a lot of parity among the group of the 8-10 top women. If anything the return of Hingis and Capriati could create even MORE parity, while nobody of importance is leaving the stage next year. So it's a strong chance again of having four different GS winners.

Stamp Paid
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:13 AM
Dementieva and Serena...2 a piece :bowdown:

:drool:

sunset
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:19 AM
Serena- 4

http://www.gotennis.com/Photos/2005-12-11T013342Z_01_RJO104D_RTRIDSP_2_SPORT-TENNIS.jpg :bounce: :bounce:

LH2HBH
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:19 AM
Lindsay, Mary, Venus, Maria - in that order

Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 06:02 AM
flawed 'Volcana logic' at play here.

What happened 30 years ago is irrelevant to 2006 probability. The same factors are likely to be in play in '06 as the previous 2 years - mainly there is a lot of parity among the group of the 8-10 top women. If anything the return of Hingis and Capriati could create even MORE parity, while nobody of importance is leaving the stage next year. So it's a strong chance again of having four different GS winners.There isn't parity among the group of 8-10 women. MAYBE four, maximum. What created apparent 'parity' the last two years was injury. And if the best players are injured as much as they were in 2005, we could see four different slam winners again. But if the Williams sisters and the Belgians are all healthy for three quarters of the year, one of them will win two slams, probably Serena. Davenport, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Schnyder et al really are NOT as good as those four. Further, Henin-Hardenne obviously has something to prove where Venus is concerned. Venus has won the last seven times they played.

Perhaps the 'flawed logic' lies in the assumption that 'there is a lot of parity among the group of the 8-10 top women'. There isn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

faboozadoo15
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:04 AM
:banana: sharapova!

bellascarlett
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:06 AM
:banana: sharapova!

was gonna say...:lol: :bigclap:

vogus
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:39 AM
There isn't parity among the group of 8-10 women. MAYBE four, maximum. What created apparent 'parity' the last two years was injury. And if the best players are injured as much as they were in 2005, we could see four different slam winners again. But if the Williams sisters and the Belgians are all healthy for three quarters of the year, one of them will win two slams, probably Serena. Davenport, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Schnyder et al really are NOT as good as those four. Further, Henin-Hardenne obviously has something to prove where Venus is concerned. Venus has won the last seven times they played.
.


Bullshit. Your reasoning is behind the times. You're trying to mask the decline of the Williams sisters by blaming it on injury. And maybe injury WAS the culprit, but who cares, the result is the DECLINE of the Williams from their period of dominance, and PARITY among, yes, 8 or 10 women, not four.

The ugly fact for you is that Mauresmo, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and Sharapova are ALL capable of beating either Williams sister at any time, on any surface, including in a Slam.

The wildcards are Henin and Serena, because they are the two players capable of lifting their levels a cut above the rest of the pack. But i don't expect either of them to actually do it in the coming year.

hwanmig
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:12 AM
It's been 37 years of open era tennis. In 29 of the 37, someone has won at least two same. That's 78% of the time, which is wildly disproportionate. Injuries really seem the reason we've had so many GS champs the last two years. One would hope that the agents, if not the players, realize that the sheer physicality of today's game demands some changes in training regimen. Like more rest.

If any of last year's GS champs stay healthy, thery're certainly capable of winning two slams next year. Of course, if they ALL stay healthy.....

I see that your the monopolist type. Frankly i like the tour just the way it is now. More people who win slams more happy people. Sania Mirza winning one or Peng Shuai wouldnt be bad since it would provide 2 billion people happiness.
____________________

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:26 AM
lets look at the last 10 years of grandslams and see:
1996 - Seles, Graf, Graf, Graf
1997 - Hingis, Majoli, Hingis, Hingis
1998 - Hingis, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Davenport
1999 - Hingis, Graf, Davenport, Serena
2000 - Davenport, Pierce, Venus, Venus
2001 - Capriati, Capriati, Venus, Venus
2002 - Capriati, Serena, Serena, Serena
2003 - Serena, Henin, Serena, Henin
2004 - Henin, Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova
2005 - Serena, Henin, Venus, Clijsters

4 out of 10 years there was a different grandslam champion at all 4 slams and the last 7 slams have all had different winners

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:27 AM
http://www.gotennis.com/Photos/2005-12-11T013342Z_01_RJO104D_RTRIDSP_2_SPORT-TENNIS.jpg :bounce: :bounce:

pmsl :haha:

Mafia_Sharapova
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Sharapova :bounce:

tennisrox
Dec 17th, 2005, 12:34 PM
Statistics are irrelevant here.What really matters is fitness levels.That is something that is impossible to predict.In the current climate,the famed Volcana logic is illogical.

Illumination
Dec 17th, 2005, 01:00 PM
it is just the matter that the quality of women's tennis is so high right now.. its just the matter of who is the fittest and who is the most ready to win a slam... or maybe slams.. we cant see anyone's in the top 10 are all healthy just like 6-7 yo before... so I think the odds for someone will win 2 slams are becoming much lower :)

hingis-seles
Dec 17th, 2005, 01:08 PM
It's been 37 years of open era tennis. In 29 of the 37, someone has won at least two same. That's 78% of the time, which is wildly disproportionate. Injuries really seem the reason we've had so many GS champs the last two years. One would hope that the agents, if not the players, realize that the sheer physicality of today's game demands some changes in training regimen. Like more rest.

If any of last year's GS champs stay healthy, thery're certainly capable of winning two slams next year. Of course, if they ALL stay healthy.....

If the last two years are any indication, that's a HUGE if.

saki
Dec 17th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Serena and Justine are, to me, quite obviously ahead of the rest when they're both fit and healthy. I wouldn't be suprised to see a repeat of 2003.

Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 01:55 PM
If the last two years are any indication, that's a HUGE if.True. But at least it's an accurate take on the situation. Pretending that Nadia Petrova or Elena Dementieva is a likely to win a slam in 2006 as Venus Williams is arrant nonsense. Not that YOU actually said that.
The ugly fact for you is that Mauresmo, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and Sharapova are ALL capable of beating either Williams sister at any time, on any surface, including in a Slam.
The ugly fact for YOU is that NONE of those players won slams last year, and both Williams sisters did. And Mauresmo, Sharapova and Davenport all got to play one or both of the Williams sisters in slams last year. How'd that work out?

Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 02:25 PM
there is a lot of parity among the group of the 8-10 top women. If anything the return of Hingis and Capriati could create even MORE parityBTW, would you mind naming these 8-10 players? We know you're not including Hingis or Capriati, because you added them seperately. Which means you're saying there's 'parity' between GS winners and somebody who's career accomplishments don't include even winning a Tier I. Maybe more than one of those somebodies. So please name names.

santhuruu
Dec 17th, 2005, 02:30 PM
Venus is going to win the first two slams of this year, so that she completes ''THE VENUS SLAM'', and Serena is going to win the other two.

fifiricci
Dec 17th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Serena and Justine are, to me, quite obviously ahead of the rest when they're both fit and healthy. I wouldn't be suprised to see a repeat of 2003.

This is certainly the stuff that Serena and Justine fans' dreams must be made of, but it is now outdated and passe methinks. We all know that Justine's level of "fitness" in 2003 is one that her body cannot sustain and we will not see again. Without that, she won't live with the big girls (with the possible exception of the red dirt).

Your argument also fails to give credit to the improvements that other players have made since 2003. Thankfully, non Serena/Justine fans don't have to live in the past.

I reckon 2006 is wide wide open and it wouldn't surprise me if there are no multiple GS winners. :)

hingis-seles
Dec 17th, 2005, 03:00 PM
True. But at least it's an accurate take on the situation. Pretending that Nadia Petrova or Elena Dementieva is a likely to win a slam in 2006 as Venus Williams is arrant nonsense. Not that YOU actually said that.

That's a fair assesment. I'd rate Venus/Serena/Kim/Justine's chances of snagging a major higher than any of the girls. Myskina hasn't reached a Slam semi since winning RG '04. Lindsay couldn't get past the Williams' at the Slams last year and stumbled badly against Mary and Elena. Maria seems the best bet to possibly win a Slam besides the other four, as she ran into the eventual champions in every GS, but one feels that she needs to implement a Plan B because her Plan A isn't good enough for the very elite of the WTA. Svetlana might surprise in Paris, but her form last year was woeful by the standards of a GS champ. Mary made some big strides, but again didn't score a win over Venus or Serena and came up short in the BIG finals. Amelie won the YEC, but I wonder if she'll be able to do something similar at a GS (remember, she didn't play a Williams or Davenport). Dementieva seemed to be playing very well at the US Open, but it's all so up in the air with her. I don't see the depth everyone talks about now. In 1998-1999 we had both Williamses, Graf, Hingis, Davenport, Seles, Novotna, Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario all as legitimate contenders for a GS title with wins going both ways. I don't see that today.

percy896
Dec 17th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Serena and Justine are, to me, quite obviously ahead of the rest when they're both fit and healthy. I wouldn't be suprised to see a repeat of 2003.

There is no way Dementieva will win 2 slams this year. People need to wake up, seriously. There is no way Serena will win all 4 this year. Be realistic people. The biggest reason there aren't dominating women in slams right now is because there is so much competition between the top players. It is nearly impossible to truly predict who will win a major right now, but if I had to...

Australian: Venus, Clijsters, Pierce, Davenport.
French: Clijsters, JHH, Pierce.
Wimbledon: Venus, Davenport, Serena (only if she gets healthy and focused).
U.S. Open: *This is way to far away to tell, just like all of these except the AO.*

No Name Face
Dec 17th, 2005, 03:54 PM
For all the Elena haters, she's made two GS finals and a GS semifinal in the past two years. It's not that farfetched. Think about it, she was one match away from being a 2x's grandslam champion. Don't hate. She's gonna come around.

améliemomo
Dec 17th, 2005, 04:03 PM
It would be Amélie dont search more.

vogus
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:05 PM
BTW, would you mind naming these 8-10 players? We know you're not including Hingis or Capriati, because you added them seperately. Which means you're saying there's 'parity' between GS winners and somebody who's career accomplishments don't include even winning a Tier I. Maybe more than one of those somebodies. So please name names.


I've already named NINE players, and that's not including Myskina, Petrova (i know, your pet peeve), Pierce, Schnyder, Hingis, or Capriati, any of whom could also factor into the Slam equations next year. So that's 15 players, with let's call it a FINITE shot at a Slam title in '06. You don't like the last six? Ok, then call it 9 players who are serious contenders. Nine players, four slams. You do the math.

You've got a personal vendetta against Dementieva, probably because she talked trash about the sisters years ago. Get over it. Great competitor, 2-time Slam finalist, one of the game's most entertaining players to watch, gonna be a factor at the Slams whether you like it or not.

The difference between you and me is that you are thinking about what happened in the past, and i am thinking about what is going to happen in the future. Several other posters in this thread have already refuted your pseudo-logic, so i don't feel like i need to do any more.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Tzarapovina!

vwfan
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:15 PM
The ugly fact for you is that Mauresmo, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and Sharapova are ALL capable of beating either Williams sister at any time, on any surface, including in a Slam.
Let's see.
Mauresmo has never beaten either Williams sister in a Grand Slam match.
Kutznetsova has never beaten either Williams sister in a Grand Slam match.
Dementieva has never beaten either Williams sister in a Grand Slam match.
Sharapova lost to both this year in the SF leading to their Grand Slam victories, in a year which by Williams standards was below their typical Grand Slam results.
and Davenport is fair game, but is nonetheless 1-4 to Serena in Grand Slam competition and Venus leads Davenport 5-4 in Grand Slam competition defeating her in three of those times to take the title.
Even if you add the two other players in the best position to beat them, Kim and Justine, you still got pretty impressive results for the Williams sisters.
Kim beat Venus for the first time playing in a Grand Slam at this year's U.S. Open, but her overall Grand Slam record against Venus and Serena is: 1-4.
Justine beat Serena in the controversial RG SF, but otherwise is 1-5 and has been bageled by both during Grand Slam competition.
If Venus and Serena are fit and ready to play, their Grand Slam success is completely within their hands. And that is not arrogant. That is just fact.

Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:34 PM
I've already named NINE players, and that's not including Myskina, Petrova (i know, your pet peeve), Pierce, Schnyder, Hingis, or Capriati,Really? Here are your two previous posts in this thread, in their entirety.flawed 'Volcana logic' at play here.

What happened 30 years ago is irrelevant to 2006 probability. The same factors are likely to be in play in '06 as the previous 2 years - mainly there is a lot of parity among the group of the 8-10 top women. If anything the return of Hingis and Capriati could create even MORE parity, while nobody of importance is leaving the stage next year. So it's a strong chance again of having four different GS winners.
Bullshit. Your reasoning is behind the times. You're trying to mask the decline of the Williams sisters by blaming it on injury. And maybe injury WAS the culprit, but who cares, the result is the DECLINE of the Williams from their period of dominance, and PARITY among, yes, 8 or 10 women, not four.

The ugly fact for you is that Mauresmo, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and Sharapova are ALL capable of beating either Williams sister at any time, on any surface, including in a Slam.

The wildcards are Henin and Serena, because they are the two players capable of lifting their levels a cut above the rest of the pack. But i don't expect either of them to actually do it in the coming year.You actually named Mauresmo, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and Sharapova and Henin-Hardenne.

I admit that the math skills you usually show, that might be nine, but to the rest of us it's six.

And while it might be nice (for you) to believe Kuznetsova or Dementieva can beat Serena, neither of them have ever actually done it, have they? And what's Mauresmo, 1-9 vs Serena. Venus has winning records over those three as well, though at least they all HAVE managed to beat her at least once.Several other posters in this thread have already refuted your pseudo-logic, so i don't feel like i need to do any more.It would be a good idea to focus on learning to count to nine.

vwfan
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:44 PM
So that's 15 players, with let's call it a FINITE shot at a Slam title in '06. You don't like the last six? Ok, then call it 9 players who are serious contenders. Nine players, four slams. You do the math.
I consider Grand Slam contenders those who have been in at least a final in the past five years. Among active players you've got and their results against the Williams in GS competition:
1.Serena
2. Venus
3. Justine (1-5 against the Williams sisters)
4. Davenport (5-7 against the Williams sisters)
5. Pierce (never defeated a Williams sister in GS competition)
6. Kim (1-4 against the Williams sisters)
7. Sharapova (1-2 against the Williams sisters)
8. Myskina (1-0 against the Williams sisters)
9. Kutznetsova (never defeated a Williams sister in GS competition)
10. Dementieva (never defeated a Williams sister in GS competition)
Based on prior results, the player with the best chance against them is Davenport and really that's just against Venus and not Serena. But Davenport has to also worry about Kim and Justine who in recent years had locked her out of SF Grand Slam competition.
Really, you've got the big four all of whom will be the players to beat on their preferred surface (Serena and Kim on hard courts, Justine on Clay and Venus on grass). Then you've got Davenport and Pierce and Sharapova: a total of five players not named Williams who might be really competitive.
Mauresmo, Dementieva, and Kutznetsova, have never beaten either Williams sister in a GS. Myskina did against Venus, who was recovering from an ankle injury during RG 2004 and should she get favorable circumstances again, she might be able to take advantage of them.
Otherwise, it is all Venus and Serena with Kim, Justine, Davenport and Pierce the likely bridesmaids. The Russians can stand in attendance.

jfk
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:49 PM
If Venus and Serena are fit and ready to play, their Grand Slam success is completely within their hands. And that is not arrogant. That is just fact.
I agree with that to an extent. At Wimbledon, this is obviously true. At the French, this is far from the case. It applies to JHH if anyone. On hardcourts, I firmly believe there is enough of an equalizer for a player like Clijsters to defeat Venus or Serena when they are fit and ready to play. "Fit and ready to play" is different from a player at their peak, who has a mental edge against anyone.

-VSR-
Dec 17th, 2005, 05:55 PM
vwfan, those are some awesome posts, I need to give you props for those ones! :D

CanadianBoy21
Dec 17th, 2005, 06:01 PM
Kim FO, US
Venus AO, Wimby

Hopefully

Would love if Serena takes one, but I don't know how dedicated she is. I believe in her, though!

saki
Dec 17th, 2005, 06:08 PM
There is no way Dementieva will win 2 slams this year. People need to wake up, seriously. There is no way Serena will win all 4 this year. Be realistic people. The biggest reason there aren't dominating women in slams right now is because there is so much competition between the top players. It is nearly impossible to truly predict who will win a major right now, but if I had to...

Australian: Venus, Clijsters, Pierce, Davenport.
French: Clijsters, JHH, Pierce.
Wimbledon: Venus, Davenport, Serena (only if she gets healthy and focused).
U.S. Open: *This is way to far away to tell, just like all of these except the AO.*

Why did you quote me? I don't think Dementieva will win two Slams next year either. Probably not even one. I predicted a possible rerun of 2003 - Justine and Serena taking two each.

I think the stats brought up by Williams' fans above are inflating Venus' Slam performance. In the last couple of years, when she's playing badly, she hasn't managed to get far enough into Slam draws to lose to other top 10 players, that's hardly their fault.

Essentially, what it boils down to for me is that, when all are fit and healthy, Serena and Justine are the tour's best attacking players and Venus and Kim are the tour's best defensive players. If all four are fit and healthy, I think Serena and Justine will split the slams. Of course the odds of that..

vogus
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:10 PM
It would be a good idea to focus on learning to count to nine.



Hello, anybody home? Six players, plus two Williams girls, equals 8 that i named. I didn't actually name Clisters but it's obvious she is included.

vwfan
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:12 PM
I think the stats brought up by Williams' fans above are inflating Venus' Slam performance. In the last couple of years, when she's playing badly, she hasn't managed to get far enough into Slam draws to lose to other top 10 players, that's hardly their fault. excuse me! :fiery:
Venus has the best slam performance of all active players with:
5 Grand Slam singles titles, 6 Doubles titles and 11 finals
followed by Serena with:
7 Grand Slam singles titles, 6 Doubles titles and 9 finals.
I don't have to hype her stats, they are there for anyone to see. Venus played no worse that the other slam winners in 2005; in fact, she played better than all at the slams. She is the only one to get to a QF in another slam other than the slam she won. Justine didn't. Kim didn't. and Serena didn't.
In 2004, she lost to Lisa Raymond, Myskina (the eventual champion), Sprem (don't make me go there), Davenport (then #1 in the world)
In 2005, she lost to Alicia Molik, Sesil (truly embarassing!), Kim (the eventual champion). The only performance that was not befitting her status as a Champion was the loss to Sesil and perhaps Lisa (who she owns, but it was her first tournament back after a 7 month + layoff).
But for some, if Venus isn't competing in every slam final then she's under-performing. She certainly has the talent to do so; I'm just hoping for the focus, but I don't ever count her out and neither my friend should you.

vwfan
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:15 PM
vwfan, those are some awesome posts, I need to give you props for those ones! :Dthanks!

Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Hello, anybody home? Six players, plus two Williams girls, equals 8 that i named. I didn't actually name Clisters but it's obvious she is included.Hello, anybody home? You said you named nine players. In your universe, is 'didn't actually name' the same as 'named'? Is this what's meant by 'faith-based reality'?

vwfan has done a nice job of detailing how those players have done against the Williams sisters in the fact-based universe, so I won't bother repeating it. However, when your definition of 'parity' at the top of the tour includes both a player with 7 GS singles titles, one in the current year, and a player with NO titles of any kind this year, and only four in her career, none better than a Tier II, the word 'parity' loses all meaning.

saki
Dec 17th, 2005, 07:54 PM
excuse me! :fiery:
Venus has the best slam performance of all active players with:
5 Grand Slam singles titles, 6 Doubles titles and 11 finals
followed by Serena with:
7 Grand Slam singles titles, 6 Doubles titles and 9 finals.
I don't have to hype her stats, they are there for anyone to see. Venus played no worse that the other slam winners in 2005; in fact, she played better than all at the slams. She is the only one to get to a QF in another slam other than the slam she won. Justine didn't. Kim didn't. and Serena didn't.
In 2004, she lost to Lisa Raymond, Myskina (the eventual champion), Sprem (don't make me go there), Davenport (then #1 in the world)
In 2005, she lost to Alicia Molik, Sesil (truly embarassing!), Kim (the eventual champion). The only performance that was not befitting her status as a Champion was the loss to Sesil and perhaps Lisa (who she owns, but it was her first tournament back after a 7 month + layoff).
But for some, if Venus isn't competing in every slam final then she's under-performing. She certainly has the talent to do so; I'm just hoping for the focus, but I don't ever count her out and neither my friend should you.

I don't count her out, I haven't said anywhere that I don't think she'll ever win a Slam again - she has an excellent active record but she's also older than Serena, Justine and Kim. But I think Serena is quite clearly the superior player and, since 2003, I'd say Justine was better too. T

he losses I'm talking about are the ones to Raymond, Sesik, Molik, Vera Z, Sprem. If she had been playing at the standard she was when she lost to them and had run into Serena, Justine or Kim she'd have almost certainly lost to them and they would have extra wins against her on their record. It's not their fault that she didn't make it far enough.

pigam
Dec 17th, 2005, 08:02 PM
This is certainly the stuff that Serena and Justine fans' dreams must be made of, but it is now outdated and passe methinks. We all know that Justine's level of "fitness" in 2003 is one that her body cannot sustain and we will not see again. Without that, she won't live with the big girls (with the possible exception of the red dirt).

Your argument also fails to give credit to the improvements that other players have made since 2003. Thankfully, non Serena/Justine fans don't have to live in the past.

I reckon 2006 is wide wide open and it wouldn't surprise me if there are no multiple GS winners. :)
it's "passé", as in blasé ;)

vwfan
Dec 17th, 2005, 08:39 PM
But I think Serena is quite clearly the superior player and, since 2003, I'd say Justine was better too. T Ok. That is what you think. But I don't think you can back it up. Venus got injured leading up to the 2003 RG, exacerbated her injury though still making it to the final of Wimbledon. Justine won her first Grand Slam then and followed up with a victory while both Venus and Serena were injured and out of the tournament.
Now, I agree that 2004 was a tough year for Venus, but I don't think Justine had a year to brag about either. She won a major, didn't defend her title at RG (second round exit, right?) and was injured for most of the rest of the year. Both had equally good results in the Slams in 2005, each winning on their preferred surface. All we have to go back in terms of their ability against each other is their h2hs and there Venus dominates with a lopsided 7-1 lead with a couple of those on clay. They haven't played since Venus trounced her at the Aus Open 6-3, 6-3, but because Justine has beaten Serena (all on clay) is no reason to assume that Justine is going to be able to compete against Venus on clay or certainly any other surface. Let's just wait and see; I am sure the matches will be more competitive, but I don't think you have the data to support your claim that Justine is somehow now better than Venus because she won slams and never had to play Venus to do so. We know Venus can win a slam beating Justine in the process. Why? Because she has!
Venus and Serena retain the best record in slam performances of any active player. That's it. :wavey:

jfk
Dec 17th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I don't have to hype her stats, they are there for anyone to see. Venus played no worse that the other slam winners in 2005; in fact, she played better than all at the slams. She is the only one to get to a QF in another slam other than the slam she won. Justine didn't. Kim didn't. and Serena didn't.
That is incorrect. Kim and Venus had the same win percentage at the slams. That is a better way to define "better at the slams" than 2nd best result IMO.

And Kim obviously had a better 2005 overall than the other three.

Stamp Paid
Dec 17th, 2005, 08:53 PM
http://www.gotennis.com/Photos/2005-12-11T013342Z_01_RJO104D_RTRIDSP_2_SPORT-TENNIS.jpg :bounce: :bounce:

Damn shes laughing mighty hard for someone who hasnt won much herself :p

vwfan
Dec 17th, 2005, 08:54 PM
he losses I'm talking about are the ones to Raymond, Sesik, Molik, Vera Z, Sprem Ok. Let's get real. I am not going to defend Venus' loss against Sesil. I can't. And I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that Venus has consistently played championship tennis since her ab injury in 2003. But let's go through each match and put it into perspective:
Raymond (holds a 4-1 h2h, never dropping a set in the four wins; Venus was just coming back from 7 month+ layoff and was injured)
Vera Z (Venus was injured in the preceding clay season, one in which many were touting her as a favorite prior to injury)
Molik (red-hot, newly confident Molik meets not so confident Venus; no shame as Molik went on to be a top ten player until she was injured)
Sprem (as I said, don't even let me go there; still Sprem was playing well then, even though her game is in the toilet now)
By Williams standards, she has underperformed and these losses were not expected and otherwise reveal Venus was in a slump. But she has also done this since 2003: won a major, won five titles, reached the final in several others. That is more than Davenport, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina, Pierce have done in the same period. The only players equal or doing better: Serena, Justine, Kim, and Maria. All of whom she spanked this year, except for Justine.

vogus
Dec 17th, 2005, 09:02 PM
apparently in 'Volcana logic', past performance = future performance. I hope you don't trade stocks for a living.

anyway, here's my money prediction for 2006:

Justine Henin will beat Venus Williams at a Grand Slam tournament in 2006, and it won't be Roland Garros. Venus has shown time and again over the last three years that she has gaping holes in her game. The best thing i can say about her right now is that in the current parity scheme, she's one of the 9 best players on the tour. Not better.

Stamp Paid
Dec 17th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Serena/Juju Slam! (give Serena Wimbledon please, Ju :o)

Volcana
Dec 17th, 2005, 09:28 PM
apparently in 'Volcana logic', past performance = future performance. I hope you don't trade stocks for a living.Past performance is a way better predictor of future performance than wishful thinkful. Even in stocks.

K-Dog
Dec 17th, 2005, 09:32 PM
apparently in 'Volcana logic', past performance = future performance. I hope you don't trade stocks for a living.

anyway, here's my money prediction for 2006:

Justine Henin will beat Venus Williams at a Grand Slam tournament in 2006, and it won't be Roland Garros. Venus has shown time and again over the last three years that she has gaping holes in her game. The best thing i can say about her right now is that in the current parity scheme, she's one of the 9 best players on the tour. Not better.

I really haven't seen any gaping holes in her game from Wimbledon on. Sure, from Oz 2004 to RG 2005, she played some of the worst tennis of her career. She is playing way more agrresive since coming back in 2004 now, is serving harder and better, moving well, and going forward regularly. She was 5 points away from the US Open semis this year and lost to the eventual champ. Quit hatin' on her, because Justine lost in the 4th round of the US Open in straight sets in a match that wasn't even close to Pierce. She has been injured a lot and her virus is always hanging over her head. At least Venus made the qtrs. and almost beat Kim. The only thing that hurt Venus was her surprising loss of conditioning, not her forehand and really not even her serve that much at all.

pigam
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:08 PM
how some people can be so confident about either Ju or Venus' GSfuture is beyond me :unsure:
I wish I was this confident :scared:
I guess it's something you're born with :shrug: :p

new-york
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:14 PM
how some people can be so confident about either Ju or Venus' GSfuture is beyond me :unsure:
I wish I was this confident :scared:
I guess it's something you're born with :shrug: :p

:lol:

Paneru
Dec 17th, 2005, 10:59 PM
I really haven't seen any gaping holes in her game from Wimbledon on. Sure, from Oz 2004 to RG 2005, she played some of the worst tennis of her career. She is playing way more agrresive since coming back in 2004 now, is serving harder and better, moving well, and going forward regularly. She was 5 points away from the US Open semis this year and lost to the eventual champ. Quit hatin' on her, because Justine lost in the 4th round of the US Open in straight sets in a match that wasn't even close to Pierce. She has been injured a lot and her virus is always hanging over her head. At least Venus made the qtrs. and almost beat Kim. The only thing that hurt Venus was her surprising loss of conditioning, not her forehand and really not even her serve that much at all.

Always gonna have the haters.
Still mad Venus made them eat it
saying she'd never win another Slam!

Now, they'll simply try and find something else
or rehash the past to dog her, screw 'em.

Because their hasn't been!

Her form and many parts of her game were coming
together this year early and everything gelled
for her at Wimbledon.

Since, Venus has been as consistent as she's been
since her big layoff from the ab strain in 03'.

It may have taken her some time to
get back but she is back.

Should her health keep up,
she's gonna win a few Slams in 06'.

Her motivation is there
and she's been putting in the hard work.

terjw
Dec 17th, 2005, 11:45 PM
Kimmie. :dance:

Robbie.
Dec 18th, 2005, 12:55 AM
There isn't parity among the group of 8-10 women. MAYBE four, maximum. What created apparent 'parity' the last two years was injury. And if the best players are injured as much as they were in 2005, we could see four different slam winners again. But if the Williams sisters and the Belgians are all healthy for three quarters of the year, one of them will win two slams, probably Serena. Davenport, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Schnyder et al really are NOT as good as those four. Further, Henin-Hardenne obviously has something to prove where Venus is concerned. Venus has won the last seven times they played.

Perhaps the 'flawed logic' lies in the assumption that 'there is a lot of parity among the group of the 8-10 top women'. There isn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

The belief that the Venus-Serena-Henin-Clijsters axis is head and shoulders above the field is a common one, but probably is too often informed by a view of history which draws a line in mid 2003 and forgets that tennis is cyclical, and that form peaks and troughs.

If you travel back another 4 years, 1999-2000-2001 was dominated - far more thoroughly might I add - by another big 4 - Hingis, Davenport, Serena and Venus Williams - with apologies to Capriati in 2001. Hingis and Davenport got injured at the end of 2001. Hingis retired at the end of 2002. Davenport returned in the second half of 2002 but clearly wasn't the same player she was previously either for the rest of that season or in 2003.

It was at about this time that Henin Hardenne and Clijsters made their move into the elite. They finished 2002 4th and 5th in the rankings and after the Australian Open in 2003 they moved to 3rd and 4th. Although they both reached the semifinals at the AO, atleast part of the ascension was due to the decline of Capriati - who was showing signs of burnout and beginning to struggle with injury. And with Davenport still well below par, struggling with confidence, her knee and a new problem - a neuroma in her foot - the three greatest non-Williams players of 1998-2003 by early 2003 were either gone or seemingly spent as forces. To say at that stage that it was a 'Big 4' would be incorrect - you yourself even started a thread to the effect 'Henin Hardenne - Fourth best or best of the rest?'. At Miami, Henin Hardenne was thumped by Rubin and there were real doubts that she would ever be real elite on Hard Courts.

When you consider that the Williams Sisters were on the sidelines for the rest of the year following Wimbledon '03, there really was a very short window between Miami and Wimbledon where anything like a 'big 4' could be said to exist. Even this period, Serena and Venus were barely playing. With some justification, one could argue that the big 4 as a 'head and shoulders above the rest quartet' existed only at two tournaments - Wimbledon and Roland Garros '03.

Since the beginning of '04 only Clijsters has approached anything that could be called 'dominance'. Despite winning slams Venus and Serena have been generally mediocre and Henin Hardenne, despite a stellar clay season, played 4 non-clay tournaments this year and failed to get the passed the quarters in 3 of them. The slam results may mask this fact, but considering the rest of the happenings of 2005 they may actually prove as misleading as predictors of future results as those of 2004.

Meanwhile Davenport, injury free for the first time in a half decade, has returned to something like her 1998-2001 form. Since the middle of 2004 she has won 2 of 3 encounters with Clijsters, 2 of 3 encounters with Serena and 4 of 5 encounters with Venus (and was a match point away from being 5/5) and while she hasnt completed a match against Hardenne she has generally been the benchmark player for the last 18 months. With respect, to say that she is simply not as good as the 'big 4' is, as vogus says, to live in the past. It's a similar if less straight forward story with Sharapova. Since mid '04 she has won 2 of 3 matches against Serena (and was a match point away from 3/3), 2 of 3 against Venus and while she has struggled with Clijsters who may be a hoodoo player for her, she won her only non-clay meeting with Henin-Hardenne.

While I do not deny that injury and lack of form as a result has played some part in the above mentioned results, don't they always? And at what point does injury induced lack of form become not the exception but the general state of play? As I have a demonstrated, the 'big 4' acting as a simultaneous road block to the rest of the tour's aspirations was apart from a period of a couple of months in 2003, a big ruse. The demise of Hingis and the decline of Davenport and Capriati had no small say in the allignment of the stars for that short period and I see no real reason for regarding that very short period as the norm. Since 2004 we have seen the resurgence of Davenport and Pierce, the arrival of Sharapova and a number of other, at this stage less credentialled, stars and in 2006 we will see the return of Hingis. Surely it is going to get tougher not easier for the 'big 4' in 2006. This is not to say that some or all of them will not win slams in 2006, but i would not say they are head and shoulders above another 3 or 4 players. As a quartet, they never really have been.

K-Dog
Dec 18th, 2005, 01:01 AM
Always gonna have the haters.
Still mad Venus made them eat it
saying she'd never win another Slam!

Now, they'll simply try and find something else
or rehash the past to dog her, screw 'em.

Because their hasn't been!

Her form and many parts of her game were coming
together this year early and everything gelled
for her at Wimbledon.

Since, Venus has been as consistent as she's been
since her big layoff from the ab strain in 03'.

It may have taken her some time to
get back but she is back.

Should her health keep up,
she's gonna win a few Slams in 06'.

Her motivation is there
and she's been putting in the hard work.

No kidding!! I bet that vogus was thinking the same thing in 1999 after Steffi had a bad 1998 due to injury and some spotty play. Venus was fine this year. I knew from the minute she made the finals of Antrewp that this year was going to be better for Venus than 2004. Her forehand is SO better more consistent now and way more technically sound. Heck I'd take this forehand over her forehand from the 2002 US Open until she changed it. She hits it heavier and misses not as big and by not as much. Her serve location can still be worked on, especially regaining her big flat serve. This serve has too much slice on it, and often that takes away aces and free points for her. She needs to start serving out wide on the ad court more to make the slice up the middle more effective. Her backhand seems to be her steady shot that sets up the easy forehand or volley. Her bh is still great and powerful and deadly accurate, but she seems to be using it differently in rallies now. Venus rallies so much better now than she used to, and her movement is still where it needs to be. Venus' volleys haven't been better and she transitions so well into the net. She is beginning to realize how good she is up at the net and how much she needs to be up there to win.

Oh well to the haters. Venus is in a great frame of mind now, in great shape, and playing as well as it takes to win majors and tour events on a consistent basis. She has a perspective on life that'll take her to the top time in and time out. vogus claims he knows so much about tennis, but anything he says I already know or are just ignorant/arrogant comments.

hablo
Dec 18th, 2005, 02:07 AM
never say never.
H2H records are made to be broken!
Allez Momo :devil:

fifiricci
Dec 18th, 2005, 11:05 AM
it's "passé", as in blasé ;)

You have the benefit of a french/european keyboard m'dear. We poor Brits don't have the benefit of an "e acute" key. I had no idea you were such a pedant :rolleyes: ;)

pigam
Dec 18th, 2005, 11:23 AM
You have the benefit of a french/european keyboard m'dear. We poor Brits don't have the benefit of an "e acute" key. I had no idea you were such a pedant :rolleyes: ;)
well arn't we glad we learnt something new today, my sweety ;)
besides go and check some of our recent 'discussions' who was correcting who(m????) back then :p :p
Not only am I a pedant, I'm a grudgeholder too ;)

saki
Dec 18th, 2005, 01:19 PM
Ok. Let's get real. I am not going to defend Venus' loss against Sesil. I can't. And I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that Venus has consistently played championship tennis since her ab injury in 2003. But let's go through each match and put it into perspective:
Raymond (holds a 4-1 h2h, never dropping a set in the four wins; Venus was just coming back from 7 month+ layoff and was injured)
Vera Z (Venus was injured in the preceding clay season, one in which many were touting her as a favorite prior to injury)
Molik (red-hot, newly confident Molik meets not so confident Venus; no shame as Molik went on to be a top ten player until she was injured)
Sprem (as I said, don't even let me go there; still Sprem was playing well then, even though her game is in the toilet now)
By Williams standards, she has underperformed and these losses were not expected and otherwise reveal Venus was in a slump. But she has also done this since 2003: won a major, won five titles, reached the final in several others. That is more than Davenport, Mauresmo, Dementieva, Myskina, Pierce have done in the same period. The only players equal or doing better: Serena, Justine, Kim, and Maria. All of whom she spanked this year, except for Justine.

I think you're overreacting to what I'm saying. I am not saying that Venus is a terrible player who has done awfully since 2003. My point was simply this: that you cannot use GS head to heads in the way that you have to prove Venus' dominance when the three players you're comparing her with have had very few chances to play her in Slams in the last couple of years. In the matches that she lost to the players I mentioned above, Serena/Justine/Kim would have beaten her and the head to heads that you like to quote would look very different. I particularly think the 7-1 Venus-Justine one is a daft one to quote given that they haven't played in years now. That's not to say that I think Justine would necessarily win, just that that head to head doesn't show us much either way any more.

Oh, and pigam - my predictions of Justine's performance are based on the conditional of health. I don't see a healthy and fit Justine ending 2006 without a Slam title given that she had a rotten year this year and still won one.

And, fifi, please don't waste your time responding to anything I say. You're on my ignore list and I only just saw your post now because someone quoted it. You're a troll and I see no reason to talk to you.

Sir Stefwhit
Dec 18th, 2005, 02:22 PM
The belief that the Venus-Serena-Henin-Clijsters axis is head and shoulders above the field is a common one, but probably is too often informed by a view of history which draws a line in mid 2003 and forgets that tennis is cyclical, and that form peaks and troughs.

If you travel back another 4 years, 1999-2000-2001 was dominated - far more thoroughly might I add - by another big 4 - Hingis, Davenport, Serena and Venus Williams - with apologies to Capriati in 2001. Hingis and Davenport got injured at the end of 2001. Hingis retired at the end of 2002. Davenport returned in the second half of 2002 but clearly wasn't the same player she was previously either for the rest of that season or in 2003...

It was at about this time that Henin Hardenne and Clijsters made their move into the elite. They finished 2002 4th and 5th in the rankings and after the Australian Open in 2003 they moved to 3rd and 4th. Although they both reached the semifinals at the AO, atleast part of the ascension was due to the decline of Capriati - who was showing signs of burnout and beginning to struggle with injury. And with Davenport still well below par, struggling with confidence, her knee and a new problem - a neuroma in her foot - the three greatest non-Williams players of 1998-2003 by early 2003 were either gone or seemingly spent as forces. To say at that stage that it was a 'Big 4' would be incorrect - you yourself even started a thread to the effect 'Henin Hardenne - Fourth best or best of the rest?'. At Miami, Henin Hardenne was thumped by Rubin and there were real doubts that she would ever be real elite on Hard Courts.

When you consider that the Williams Sisters were on the sidelines for the rest of the year following Wimbledon '03, there really was a very short window between Miami and Wimbledon where anything like a 'big 4' could be said to exist. Even this period, Serena and Venus were barely playing. With some justification, one could argue that the big 4 as a 'head and shoulders above the rest quartet' existed only at two tournaments - Wimbledon and Roland Garros '03.
If you view the Big Four with regards to their rivalries with one another at the slams then the Big Four would be hard to conceptualize, since so many slams have at least one (of the Big 4) missing. Instead, I think most people view the “Big Four” at a time that spans from about 2001 and on, when those four players were the tours four most dominant players, with an emphasise on thier performances in the majors. These were (maybe still are,) four of the tours’ most dominant players- the 4 players to beat, the 4 players most likely to provide the biggest opposition in a slam, and more importantly the 4 players with the most appearances in slam finals in the last 5 years. A year like 2005 with all four girls taking all the slams only adds stock to the “Big Four”. Going back as far as Serena’s first slam to the last slam played in 2005, without question these ladies are still 4 of the tour's toughest to beat, particalurliy at the slams.

You said it yourself, Hingis retired and Davenport hasn’t won a slam in years. That alone is more than enough reason not to venture back 4 years ago. But if we do venture back to that time we’ll notice both Kim and Justine making major noise in 2001, reaching both the French and Wimbledon finals. This actually makes a stronger case for the theory on “The Big Four” IMO. A rather impressive run at the majors for both Belgians so early in their careers, wouldn’t you agree?



Since the beginning of '04 only Clijsters has approached anything that could be called 'dominance'. Despite winning slams Venus and Serena have been generally mediocre and Henin Hardenne, despite a stellar clay season, played 4 non-clay tournaments this year and failed to get the passed the quarters in 3 of them. The slam results may mask this fact, but considering the rest of the happenings of 2005 they may actually prove as misleading as predictors of future results as those of 2004.

Meanwhile Davenport, injury free for the first time in a half decade, has returned to something like her 1998-2001 form. Since the middle of 2004 she has won 2 of 3 encounters with Clijsters, 2 of 3 encounters with Serena and 4 of 5 encounters with Venus (and was a match point away from being 5/5) and while she hasnt completed a match against Hardenne she has generally been the benchmark player for the last 18 months. With respect, to say that she is simply not as good as the 'big 4' is, as vogus says, to live in the past. It's a similar if less straight forward story with Sharapova. Since mid '04 she has won 2 of 3 matches against Serena (and was a match point away from 3/3), 2 of 3 against Venus and while she has struggled with Clijsters who may be a hoodoo player for her, she won her only non-clay meeting with Henin-Hardenne.

It’s all how you view things. If you look at things with a broader scope and factor in slam wins and number of tournament titles won during the last five years then the clear “Big Four” are Serena-Kim-Justine- and Venus. If you downplay slams and give equal importance to the rest of the tournaments throughout the year then you have to downplay 2002 when Jennifer won the Australian. She didn’t win too many other tournaments that year and it wasn't like Myskina, Sharapova, or Kuznetsova were "burning" up the tour the year they won their slam titles- they were slightly above mediocore at best (not including their Slam wins).

In a lot of areas Lindsay has performed better than each of the “Big Four” she seems to always be there making her own kind of noise. The major reason Lindsay isn’t mentioned in the same breath as the “Big Four” is because before this season it had been over 5 years since she’s appeared in a major final. In that same time span Kim, Venus, Serena, and Justine had all appeared in at least 4 slam finals. Even if you include this past year, Lindsay’s best year in sometime, everyone in “ The Big Four” have appeared in at least 5 slam finals compared to Lindsay's two- that’s primarily why their known as “The Big Four”. Since Hingis retired as the last dominant force on tour, these four women have accomplished the most with regards to their slam results.

...As I have a demonstrated, the 'big 4' acting as a simultaneous road block to the rest of the tour's aspirations was apart from a period of a couple of months in 2003, a big ruse. The demise of Hingis and the decline of Davenport and Capriati had no small say in the allignment of the stars for that short period and I see no real reason for regarding that very short period as the norm. Since 2004 we have seen the resurgence of Davenport and Pierce, the arrival of Sharapova and a number of other, at this stage less credentialled, stars and in 2006 we will see the return of Hingis. Surely it is going to get tougher not easier for the 'big 4' in 2006. This is not to say that some or all of them will not win slams in 2006, but i would not say they are head and shoulders above another 3 or 4 players. As a quartet, they never really have been.
If you think back to the end of 2004 you’ll remember the promise of what 2005 had in store for us as tennis fans. There was the nonstop talk of the Russian Revolution, The Big Four, Lindsay’s emergence, and talk of promising new talent. At the end of the day (or year) it was Venus-Serena-Justine- and Kim taking all the slams. The four players who had performed the best in the slams over the last 4-5 years, were the same four players that won them all- “The Big Four.”

I don't think anyone is cutting down the rest of the field by stating the facts, and the facts are there are 4 players who should be taken more seriously than all others, with regards to their chances in the majors. It's not to imply others don't have great records to stand on or that others wont actually win, it's moreso out of recognition at what Venus-Kim-Justine- and Serena have done time and time again- "The Big Four".

Foot_Fault
Dec 18th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Let's see.
Mauresmo has never beaten either Williams sister in a Grand Slam match.
Kutznetsova has never beaten either Williams sister in a Grand Slam match.
Dementieva has never beaten either Williams sister in a Grand Slam match.
Sharapova lost to both this year in the SF leading to their Grand Slam victories, in a year which by Williams standards was below their typical Grand Slam results.
and Davenport is fair game, but is nonetheless 1-4 to Serena in Grand Slam competition and Venus leads Davenport 5-4 in Grand Slam competition defeating her in three of those times to take the title.
Even if you add the two other players in the best position to beat them, Kim and Justine, you still got pretty impressive results for the Williams sisters.
Kim beat Venus for the first time playing in a Grand Slam at this year's U.S. Open, but her overall Grand Slam record against Venus and Serena is: 1-4.
Justine beat Serena in the controversial RG SF, but otherwise is 1-5 and has been bageled by both during Grand Slam competition.
If Venus and Serena are fit and ready to play, their Grand Slam success is completely within their hands. And that is not arrogant. That is just fact.

NUFF SAID!:tape:

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 04:47 PM
That is incorrect. Kim and Venus had the same win percentage at the slams. That is a better way to define "better at the slams" than 2nd best result IMO.
Ok. I trust your math on this and have no intention to go back and calculate slam winning percentage for 2006. But I was comparing slam results and Kim did not get past the 4th round at any slam except the one she won! Venus got to QF of the Open. Kim's higher winning percentage did not get her any closer to a title, whereas Venus getting to QF brought her one round closer. So, I might disagree that winning percentage is the best measure.

And Kim obviously had a better 2005 overall than the other three. Ok. no argument, even if beside the point since the discussion was focused on slam performance.

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 04:55 PM
It may have taken her some time to get back but she is back.
exactly. and as frustrating as it was as a fan watching her in 2004, I am so impressed that she hung in there, took her losses with grace, kept working and it all came together at Wimbledon. She deserves respect for that and I can't help but think and hope that the worse patch is over.

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 05:10 PM
With respect, to say that she is simply not as good as the 'big 4' is, as vogus says, to live in the past. As a Lindsay fan, I think she is certainly as good as the big four, but not at the slams.When they have to the big three can raise their games and have done so repeatedly. Kim may be joining them, but she like Davenport until this summer couldn't convert her big game into slam success.
Outside the slams, Davenport is the best player on tour, as her ranking indicates. But she is not the best player at the slams, as her results also indicate!Surely it is going to get tougher not easier for the 'big 4' in 2006. This is not to say that some or all of them will not win slams in 2006, but i would not say they are head and shoulders above another 3 or 4 players. As a quartet, they never really have been. I don't think it will be easy for them, but it will be harder for the rest of the field. Serena and Kim are head and shoulders better than the rest of the field on hardcourts; Justine is head and shoulders better than the rest of the field on clay; and Venus is head and shoulders better than the rest of the field on grass. It is hard to dispute this and this is why it will be difficult for the rest of the field to break the juggernaut. The irony is that these players are also good on other surfaces. Whether Davenport, Pierce and Sharapova were place Holders, while Venus, Serena, Kim, and Justine got back to health and form will be seen in 2006. But I don't think anyone would be surprised if either of them get one or more slams in 2006 and that was the orginal thread.

terjw
Dec 18th, 2005, 05:37 PM
I agree with Robbie that the idea there is a big 4 - the sisters and the Belgians and look no further - is way over-exaggerated and largely based around 2003. Sure they each won a slam in 2005 - but it wasn't the domineering way of 2003. There are question marks against them now - particularly Serena and Justine.

As vogus has pointed out - it is too simplistic to just say the sisters have won so many in the past - they'll do it in 2006. If you follow that logic then Martina Hingis should be a cert for a couple of slams.


I think the 3 most likely to win a slam are:
Kim, Venus, Lindsay:- with Venus, Lindsay (and perhaps Amelie) as favourites for Wimbledon.

IMO these three players in bold italics have the best chance of multiple slams.


Next in a group of their own in which anything could happen:
Justine, Serena:- I just dunno - they could sparkle or flop. Neither impressed me in 2005. Serena's AO - her one win in the whole season - she didn't exactly dominate. And it was with the Belgians not playing. Justine's season was better - she dominated on clay but that was without Kim - and she did little else. Did she just overtrain in 2003? Also her win at RG was without Serena there - and Kim just coming back to get a few games in. Only Venus and Kim won their grand slam with all the top players playing.

Still I'd make Justine favourite for RG - but not overwhelming favourtite.

IMO these two players are the most unpredictable so could win multiple slams But I don't think they will. And it wouldn't surprise me if neither won a slam.


Then in the next group I'd put:
Maria, Mary, Amelie.

Maybe any of these players wins a slam. But multiple slams in 2006 - no way.


After that it's rank outsiders - although I'd love to see Nicole or Martina do it - so long as they don't beat Kim. If either won a slam that would be a huge surprise. IMO it's not totally out the question and impossible though.

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 05:51 PM
In the matches that she lost to the players I mentioned above, Serena/Justine/Kim would have beaten her and the head to heads that you like to quote would look very different. Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps, if she had played against these three players, she would have played better. This year, she is 2-0 against Serena, 1-2 against Kim, and has not played Justine. So, there is no assurance that the h2hs would have changed. I would not have guessed that she would beat Serena, but at the same time I would not have guessed that she would have loss Kim. I don't know what would have happened, but I do know what the history between these players has been. The 7-1 h2h is dominating! Justine would have to have significantly improved and Venus significantly decline to reverse this. If both are playing well, the h2h tells us Venus is favored.

terjw
Dec 18th, 2005, 06:02 PM
The 7-1 h2h is dominating! Justine would have to have significantly improved and Venus significantly decline to reverse this. If both are playing well, the h2h tells us Venus is favored.

Well saki pointed out they haven't played for years - so the 7-1 h2h is meaningless for predictions in 2006. By your logic, Martina Hingis should beat Venus on her comeback because she has a better h2h.

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 06:57 PM
Well saki pointed out they haven't played for years - so the 7-1 h2h is meaningless for predictions in 2006. By your logic, Martina Hingis should beat Venus on her comeback because she has a better h2h.
:confused: There is no parallel.
1. Martina was not dominating Venus when she left, but had had a period during which she was beating Venus consistently. Justine never came close.
2. Martina had beaten Venus on multiple occasions, but Justine has one win (their first)
3. Martina probably does have as good a chance of beating Venus as Henin does, since Venus respects Hingis' on-court smarts even if she can easily blow her off the court.
We could ignore the stats and h2hs and just surmise, but the h2h tells us one thing for sure that Venus holds an immense mental advantage the minute they step out on the court.
And even if we put all the stats aside, the fact will still remain that Venus playing at her best beats Justine at her best on hardcourts, grass, and probably clay!
I don't get why this is so hard to see. Every player has a slump and Justine may have missed her best chance to beat Venus, which would have been during her slump of 2004 (a slump period btw during which she too was undefeated on clay prior to an ankle injury that ended her run).

fifiricci
Dec 18th, 2005, 07:25 PM
And, fifi, please don't waste your time responding to anything I say. You're on my ignore list and I only just saw your post now because someone quoted it. You're a troll and I see no reason to talk to you.

So you keep telling yourself, but you're still doing it. :lol:

It must be "International Talk to the Troll" day ;)

Ryan
Dec 18th, 2005, 07:40 PM
:confused: There is no parallel.
1. Martina was not dominating Venus when she left, but had had a period during which she was beating Venus consistently. Justine never came close.
2. Martina had beaten Venus on multiple occasions, but Justine has one win (their first)
3. Martina probably does have as good a chance of beating Venus as Henin does, since Venus respects Hingis' on-court smarts even if she can easily blow her off the court.
We could ignore the stats and h2hs and just surmise, but the h2h tells us one thing for sure that Venus holds an immense mental advantage the minute they step out on the court.
And even if we put all the stats aside, the fact will still remain that Venus playing at her best beats Justine at her best on hardcourts, grass, and probably clay!
I don't get why this is so hard to see. Every player has a slump and Justine may have missed her best chance to beat Venus, which would have been during her slump of 2004 (a slump period btw during which she too was undefeated on clay prior to an ankle injury that ended her run).


You don't see his point because you're :retard:. Justine and Venus haven't played in almost three years, so a lot will have changed. I'm not going to say Justine would beat Venus, because I don't know. However, I don't think their H2H will play a big factor in any match they play in 2006.

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 08:55 PM
You don't see his point because you're . Justine and Venus haven't played in almost three years, so a lot will have changed. I'm not going to say Justine would beat Venus, because I don't know. However, I don't think their H2H will play a big factor in any match they play in 2006. hmm. . . sounds like the only thing you're convinced by is that things might be different. yes, they might. but the stats are against you and Justine.

terjw
Dec 18th, 2005, 11:01 PM
hmm. . . sounds like the only thing you're convinced by is that things might be different. yes, they might. but the stats are against you and Justine.

All we are saying is h2h years ago are meaningless for 2006 predictions. Any sane person can see that. So you think the stats are against Justine. How about since they last played at the AO in 2003 nearly 3 years ago Justine has won 4 slams compared to Venus' 1. She's reached #1, Venus has never reahed #1 during this time. She has been ranked above Venus most of the time and is currently ranked higher. Also - despite being out for a large part of 2004, she's won more tournaments than Venus every year since they last met:

Justine 2003:
8 tournaments wins including 2 slams.
Venus 2003:
1 tournament win with no slams.

Justine 2004:
5 tournaments wins including 1 slam and the Olympics.
Venus 2004:
2 tournament wins with no slams.

Justine 2005:
4 tournaments wins including 1 slam.
Venus 2005:
2 tournament wins including 1 slam.

And yet you think it's an act of faith by us that things are different from 3 years ago and harp on about these h2h matches years ago.

I do feel very concerned about your health and your selective amnesia. To cure your problem I suggest grasping the top of your head with your hand, and then turning clockwise until tight. In your case it will probably require several turns.

vwfan
Dec 18th, 2005, 11:13 PM
how Justine has performed against the rest of the field, especially during the months that Venus was out injured is not evidence that she can beat Venus. It is evidence that she is one of the big four and on that we agree.

tennisjunky
Dec 19th, 2005, 03:58 AM
maria has as good of a chance as serena, venus, kim, and justine. she probably has a better chance than kim to win two slams next year.

Volcana
Dec 19th, 2005, 04:39 AM
All we are saying is h2h years ago are meaningless for 2006 predictions. Any sane person can see that.I don't defend my relative saninty because even my friends and family are convinced of it's absence. However, the head-to-head, even if it is three year old is NOT meaningless.

Henin-Hardenne finished 2001, 2002 and 2003 in the top ten. She was not some marginal player back then. And yet, Venus' seven straight victories all occurred in those years. SOME, not all but SOME, of what goes into a head-to-head is is a player's strength going agianst another player's weaknesses, and vice versa.
Venus is a very hard player to hit a winner against. In that respect, one of Henin-Hardenne's strengths goers against a strength of Venus'.

Venus, OTOH, can hit stone cold winners from anywhere, at a dead run. Her ability to attack challenges Henin-Hardenne signal weakness, her height.

If the head-to-head the SOLE predictor of future matches. No way. Monica Seles DID eventually beat Venus. But calling the head-to-head 'meaningless', renders your entire arguement suspect.

xin_hui
Dec 19th, 2005, 05:01 AM
maria has as good of a chance as serena, venus, kim, and justine. she probably has a better chance than kim to win two slams next year.

:lol: :tape:

hingis-seles
Dec 19th, 2005, 07:09 AM
Some people in this thread are speaking with such certainty, it's interesting. Tennis is so unpredictable. I'm expecting we're going to be thrown for another loop in 2006. Something no one will expect will happen.

spencercarlos
Dec 19th, 2005, 12:46 PM
excuse me! :fiery:
Venus has the best slam performance of all active players with:
5 Grand Slam singles titles, 6 Doubles titles and 11 finals
followed by Serena with:
7 Grand Slam singles titles, 6 Doubles titles and 9 finals.
I don't have to hype her stats, they are there for anyone to see. Venus played no worse that the other slam winners in 2005; in fact, she played better than all at the slams. She is the only one to get to a QF in another slam other than the slam she won. Justine didn't. Kim didn't. and Serena didn't.
In 2004, she lost to Lisa Raymond, Myskina (the eventual champion), Sprem (don't make me go there), Davenport (then #1 in the world)
In 2005, she lost to Alicia Molik, Sesil (truly embarassing!), Kim (the eventual champion). The only performance that was not befitting her status as a Champion was the loss to Sesil and perhaps Lisa (who she owns, but it was her first tournament back after a 7 month + layoff).
But for some, if Venus isn't competing in every slam final then she's under-performing. She certainly has the talent to do so; I'm just hoping for the focus, but I don't ever count her out and neither my friend should you.
Only your parallel world winning 5 slams is better than winning 7.
Helena Sukova reached 4 GS finals. I doubt she is considered or remmembered better than Conchita, Jana or Sabatini. Winning means much more than being runner up, in the big picture and after time almost nobody remmembers who was runner up at grand slams. Anyway remmember that Serena won 5 of those beating her big sister in the final.

spencercarlos
Dec 19th, 2005, 01:31 PM
:confused: There is no parallel.
1. Martina was not dominating Venus when she left, but had had a period during which she was beating Venus consistently. Justine never came close.
2. Martina had beaten Venus on multiple occasions, but Justine has one win (their first)
3. Martina probably does have as good a chance of beating Venus as Henin does, since Venus respects Hingis' on-court smarts even if she can easily blow her off the court.
We could ignore the stats and h2hs and just surmise, but the h2h tells us one thing for sure that Venus holds an immense mental advantage the minute they step out on the court.
And even if we put all the stats aside, the fact will still remain that Venus playing at her best beats Justine at her best on hardcourts, grass, and probably clay!
I don't get why this is so hard to see. Every player has a slump and Justine may have missed her best chance to beat Venus, which would have been during her slump of 2004 (a slump period btw during which she too was undefeated on clay prior to an ankle injury that ended her run).
Don´t celebrate as much, Venus won Wimbledon sure, but she was not consistent at all during the year, if you think she had a stellar 2005, is another belief in your parallel world.
Venus was brilliant at Wimbledon but she had a bad clay court season (losing to Davenport on clay was ridiculous, and loses to Golovin and Karatancheva at the bigger clay court events played were poor too), an unimpressive campaing on hard courts (to her standards at least) winning 0 tournaments, and played no tournaments on carpet.

It will be extremly interesting to see Henin, Clijsters, Venus, Serena if they are 100% fit for next year. Sharapova will be hungry and focused as she always is and don´t count out Mauresmo, who seems to have gained the confidence to win a GS after the Masters 2005, (players like Seles,Sabatini, Novotna, Serena, Clijsters won at least a grand slam after the Masters title).
Add Davenport and Pierce to this equation and you have 8 women that could definetly win a grand slam for 2006. Two outsiders like Myskina and Kuznetsova if playing their best, could make some noise too.
It will be hard in 2006 for someone to win 2 grand slams.

tennisjunky
Dec 19th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Some people in this thread are speaking with such certainty, it's interesting. Tennis is so unpredictable. I'm expecting we're going to be thrown for another loop in 2006. Something no one will expect will happen.
all sports are unpredictable, thats part of the fun. though most things aren't completly random. if they were there wouldn't be odds on favorites to win. you can bet on most grandslams for cash and the odds favorite to win the australian open was serena. the odds favorite for the french open was justine and the odds favorite for the us open was kim. three out of four times the odds on favorites won. some can say coincidence but most people know some people have much more better odds at winning slams than other people.

this thread has a lot of interesting points. i enjoyed reading volcana, vwfan, sir stefwhit, and robbies comments. i even enjoyed vogus, even if i didn't agree with a lot of stuff. i still think maria has the best shot for winning 2 or more slams next year. serena is always up there with good chances too. other players that stand out above the rest are lindsay and justine. maybe venus, but not too sure about her. and no confidence at all in kim, her chances aren't any better than anyone mentioned, but she's probably the next most likely person to do well in the slams.

outside of these people you still have people who can make things interesting. in actual probability i would say their chances are much lower.

tennisrox
Dec 19th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Some people in this thread are speaking with such certainty, it's interesting. Tennis is so unpredictable. I'm expecting we're going to be thrown for another loop in 2006. Something no one will expect will happen.

I completely agree.This thread is meaningless.Who would have predicted what happened in 2004?
Similiarly,after RG 05,which sane person would have predicted that Venus would win wimbledon?Or that after winning the Oz open,Serena would basically do nothing for the rest of the year.Justine too for that matter.
I think we might be in for a couple of surprises next year...

Sir Stefwhit
Dec 19th, 2005, 05:43 PM
all sports are unpredictable, thats part of the fun. though most things aren't completly random. if they were there wouldn't be odds on favorites to win. you can bet on most grandslams for cash and the odds favorite to win the australian open was serena. the odds favorite for the french open was justine and the odds favorite for the us open was kim. three out of four times the odds on favorites won. some can say coincidence but most people know some people have much more better odds at winning slams than other people...this thread has a lot of interesting points. i enjoyed reading volcana, vwfan, sir stefwhit, and robbies comments
Thanks for the nod. I also found some interesting thoughts within this thread.

I don't get the point of calling this thread "meaningless" just because it's not an exact science. I think everyone is well aware that "anything" can happen, but more often than not "any ol' thing" doesn't just usually happen. What tends to happen is that the players who have tasted success are generally the players that repeat success. Besides all that, this is a tennis forum and if we can't have a discussion about 'using the past as a possible indicator to predict the future, then what's the point?

It's common place in all sports to forecast how the upcoming season will likely unfold. Truth be told, both fans and sports analyst tend to be wrong just about as often as they're right. Nonetheless, patterns persists and often times things play out just like you thought they would. Tennis is anything but completly random. Just look up past slam winners and finalist and you'll see the same names keep popping up.

Of course you have your 'out-liners', players who take everyone by surprise and do really well. That's part of the unpredictability and fun of it all, but again I'm a believer that the 'creame of the crop will usually rise to the top'. Looking at 2004, the so-called 'fluke year' even helps to illustrate this point. In a year where we had three surprise slam winners, we still had 3 out of 4 members of the "big four" reaching a slam final. That's a perfect example of unpredictable things happening, right alongside things we probably would have predicted (Justine, Kim, and Serena reaching a slam final).

You brought up a good point with gambling in sports. Gambling organizers use the past (amongst other factors,) to help determine the odds favorites to win at any given slam. As you pointed out, this year they picked three of the four winners at the slams. If I was a betting man I'd put my money one of the "big four" winning a slam -or two in 2006.

guyinsf
Dec 19th, 2005, 05:54 PM
I like the Serena and Venus a lot but to keep on saying that they are still the benchmark of tennis is crazy!!! Everyone's coming up with stupid stats about how a certain top player has never beaten Serena or Venus before in a grand slam, but there's like a good 10+ players out there who can beat Serena or Venus on any surface because their dominance doesn't really exist anymore. Both sisters have lost to almost complete unknown players way out of the top ten, like (Craybas?) so I can see them losing to Sharapova, Kim or Mary very easily. They were once the benchmark but just not anymore, the competition is too stiff right now.

Sir Stefwhit
Dec 19th, 2005, 06:15 PM
I like the Serena and Venus a lot but to keep on saying that they are still the benchmark of tennis is crazy!!!
Who said Vee and Serena were the bench mark of tennis today? :confused:

Everyone's coming up with stupid stats about how a certain top player has never beaten Serena or Venus before in a grand slam, but there's like a good 10+ players out there who can beat Serena or Venus on any surface because their dominance doesn't really exist anymore.
Serena and Vee's stats were posted in response to people saying they couldn't do well facing the competition of today. When you say there are ten players that could beat Serena (at a slam) any Serena fan will likely bring to your attention all the elite players that have failed at doing so thus far, which is more than fair. I'm not the kind of Serena fan to sit in silence while the facts are misrepresented.

Both sisters have lost to almost complete unknown players way out of the top ten, like (Craybas?) so I can see them losing to Sharapova, Kim or Mary very easily. They were once the benchmark but just not anymore, the competition is too stiff right now.
While it's true that Serena (and Vee for that matter,) have lost to lower ranked players it should also be noted that Serena has done extremely well against the higher ranked players she faced at that same time period. To conclude that Serena lossing to Craybas automatically means that she will lose to Sharapova let's me know your understanding of how rivalries work in tennis is flawed. In 2005 Serena never lost to Lindsay, Maria, or Mary, while going on to lose to the likes of Craybas and the woman at Beijing (forgot her name, sorry).

Again, with regards to this "bench mark" stuff you keep saying, I think most people will acknowledge they were the bench mark of excellence in their dominant years and now others have stepped up to the challenge as legitimate contenders. This shouldn't imply that Serena (or Vee) still can't be victorious, after all they did win slams last year. There seems to be some sort of warped notion that if Serena and Vee aren't dominating and having spectacular years then that can't beat the top players- of course the facts don't support this theory at all.

Robbie.
Dec 20th, 2005, 05:56 AM
If you view the Big Four with regards to their rivalries with one another at the slams then the Big Four would be hard to conceptualize, since so many slams have at least one (of the Big 4) missing. Instead, I think most people view the “Big Four” at a time that spans from about 2001 and on, when those four players were the tours four most dominant players, with an emphasise on thier performances in the majors. These were (maybe still are,) four of the tours’ most dominant players- the 4 players to beat, the 4 players most likely to provide the biggest opposition in a slam, and more importantly the 4 players with the most appearances in slam finals in the last 5 years. A year like 2005 with all four girls taking all the slams only adds stock to the “Big Four”. Going back as far as Serena’s first slam to the last slam played in 2005, without question these ladies are still 4 of the tour's toughest to beat, particalurliy at the slams.



You said it yourself, Hingis retired and Davenport hasn’t won a slam in years. That alone is more than enough reason not to venture back 4 years ago. But if we do venture back to that time we’ll notice both Kim and Justine making major noise in 2001, reaching both the French and Wimbledon finals. This actually makes a stronger case for the theory on “The Big Four” IMO. A rather impressive run at the majors for both Belgians so early in their careers, wouldn’t you agree?



....It’s all how you view things. If you look at things with a broader scope and factor in slam wins and number of tournament titles won during the last five years then the clear “Big Four” are Serena-Kim-Justine- and Venus.



It's an interesting take, and to be honest I think that this is pretty much the reasoning which supports the 'big 4' thesis. If we are talking about the four most accomplished players since 2001, then, again with apologies to Capriati for what she achieved in 2001-2, there is no question that Serena-Justine-Kim-Venus come out on top.



However surely if we are going to be linking them together as is so often done, there should be something more to justify it? I could for example look at the results from 1995-1998 and label Graf (6 GS finals), Hingis (6 GS Finals), Seles (4 GS finals) and ASV (6 GS finals) a 'big 4' based on accomplishments, but it really does nothing in the way of analysis. It doesn't tell us that Graf won 6 out of 6 slams she entered in 95-96 and then got injured allowing Hingis to sweep 4 of the next 5 and that there was really no overlap between there reigns accept that one glorious (and painful) YEC final It doesn't tell us that ASV and Seles were in progressive decline during the period. And it proved pretty useless as a predictor of the future.



Of course no one has ever sort to label these 4 a big 4 and many may scoff at that comparison, but I think it is pretty relevant. As I outlined in my previous post, the Belgians could hardly be considered dominant forces on tour before Roland Garros '03, and the Williams Sisters' could hardly be considered dominant forces on tour post Wimbledon '03. Just like the Graf dominance gave way to Hingis dominance, Williams dominance gave way to Belgian dominance and now none of them dominate at all.



The term 'big 4' surely implies some element of dominating at the same time, this is something the Venus-Serena-Kim-Justine axis clearly lacks, apart from a very brief period in 2003 which may have only come about because of an alignment of retirements, slumps and injuries of other players. Davenport is now playing better. Mauresmo is playing better. Pierce is playing better. Sharapova is playing better. And there are others.


That’s my first problem with the first problem with the ‘big 4 will rule the world if only they aren’t injured thesis’. Because in a real sense, for whatever reason, they never have.



The second is that when I refer to 'dominating', I refer to more than just winning majors. Only the loosest interpretation of ‘domination’ would accurately describe the play of the so called big 4 in 2005.



When you wrote:



If you downplay slams and give equal importance to the rest of the tournaments throughout the year then you have to downplay 2002 when Jennifer won the Australian. She didn’t win too many other tournaments that year and it wasn't like Myskina, Sharapova, or Kuznetsova were "burning" up the tour the year they won their slam titles- they were slightly above mediocore at best (not including their Slam wins).



You basically hit the nail on the head, just subs in the names Serena Williams, Venus Williams and Justine Henin-Hardenne for the three Russian GS winners of 2004.



And what happened to 2004 slam winners in ’05?



Whatever you want to say about how good the big 4 were in 2003 and the reasons for that it is quite clear that the Williams’ have not regained their dominance since Wimbledon ’03, and the Belgians since AO ’04.



In ’03 they took all 8 finals spots at the majors, in ’05 they took 4. In ’03 they took 13 of 16 semis sports, this year they took only 4, and in ’03 they reached 13 quarterfinals to only 5 this year. In fact in 2003 Venus at RG was the only player of the four who lost before the quarters at a major, this year all four lost before the quarters twice each.



When you consider also that Venus Serena and Justine were all one point away from oblivion in winning there respective majors, these results would tend to indicate to me is that the gap between the four and the rest of the tour, seemingly so wide at the end of 2003 has closed.



Now some of that may be due to injuries and lay offs but the result is the same, and it is not like the rest of the tour has been immune from these things. Injury can also be overplayed. Venus has been more or less healthy for the last two years and done virtually nothing apart from two weeks at Wimbledon. And the excuses for Clijsters’ losses this year to the likes of Kuznetsova, Davenport, Mauresmo and Pierce – all of whom are now better players than in the golden period of the big 4 - are thin on the ground. While Serena and Justine have had their injury problems – you have to begin to wonder whether they will ever recover fully from them.



With few exceptions only a dominating player can win 2 slams in year. The evidence from the last two years would appear to suggest that the line that provided the big 4 are healthy one of them will win two is rather simplistic. For a start, if all four are healthy and in top form then they have each other to contend with which despite much rhetoric has not hitherto happened. We probably haven't seen Serena at her best since Wimbledon '03. We probably haven't seen Justine at her best since early '04. Next year is '06. That's a long time in tennis. Who knows whether that form would be good enough to dominate today (though at least in the case of Serena I think it would be), but more importantly who says they will ever return to that level? It is easier to say that on the best form (Serena at AO, Justine at RG, Venus at W, Kim at USO) each of the big 4 showed in 2005 when injury free, they are very beatable by the other top players. And I don't see any compelling reason why that should change in 2006.

LucasArg
Dec 20th, 2005, 06:01 AM
Venus can win 2 at least :kiss:

Penglover
Dec 20th, 2005, 06:36 AM
I think Peng will win AO, FO, WIM and USO in 2006 :bounce: :bounce:

vwfan
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:45 AM
Only your parallel world winning 5 slams is better than winning 7.
Helena Sukova reached 4 GS finals. I doubt she is considered or remmembered better than Conchita, Jana or Sabatini. Winning means much more than being runner up, in the big picture and after time almost nobody remmembers who was runner up at grand slams. Anyway remmember that Serena won 5 of those beating her big sister in the final.First, we are talking about grand slam performance. There have been 24 Grand Slam played between 2000 and 2005. Venus has been in 11 finals, nearly 50% of the time she is one of two players standing on the final day. If you take out the two Slams, she did not play during the same period, then she was in final 50% of the time. Serena has won 7 out of 9 of the finals, she played. Venus has a more consistent record getting to the slam final and Serena has performed better once there. Second, winning the slam does make a difference in history, but your consistency of play makes a difference in how you rank in performance against the current field, which is what we were discussing. Third, Sukova won't be remembered because she never translated her multiple final appearances into a Slam title. Venus has. Five times. If Kim hadn't won the U.S. Open, she would not be taken as seriously as a slam contender. Finally, my post was not really about comparing Venus to Serena, it was about Venus vs. Justine. Come to my parallel universe and you might be able to follow the flow of a pretty simple argument.

vwfan
Dec 21st, 2005, 03:53 AM
if you think she had a stellar 2005, is another belief in your parallel world.
did I say that Venus had a stellar 2005? Two titles and losing to players far less talented is hardly a stellar year by Williams standards. In terms of history though, only three other players had as good a year (the other three slam winners)as she did. That said, if she can take that same "inconsistent play" into 2006, but play the way she played at Wimbledon again next and for two weeks at another Grand Slam event, I'm a happy fan even if she doesn't win another title.

vwfan
Dec 21st, 2005, 04:14 AM
The term 'big 4' surely implies some element of dominating at the same time, this is something the Venus-Serena-Kim-Justine axis clearly lacks, apart from a very brief period in 2003 which may have only come about because of an alignment of retirements, slumps and injuries of other players. Davenport is now playing better. Mauresmo is playing better. Pierce is playing better. Sharapova is playing better. And there are others.Since Wimbledon 2003, each of the big four has been injured or ill. 2005 they all returned back from injury and played well enough to win on the surfaces most suited to their games though none did much damage at the other slams. 2005 could well indicate that these four players are the players to beat on these surfaces. Venus has won Wimbledon three times, she is the player to beat on grass (but she has also won two other slams on hardcourts); Justine has won RG twice and was undefeated on clay, she is the player to beat on clay; and Kim won the U.S. Open and was RUP and won nine titles on hardcourts. She is the player to beat on hardcourts.Serena won the Australian Open twice and not even playing particularly well; she is undoubtedly the player to beat there and since she has also won a slam on every other surface, she will also be a player to beat. These are the players that have most proven their mettle. No just their potential. They have done it and in all cases, done it multiple times. Except for Kim, all have also won on both their preferred surface and on another surface. They are the big four. They are the players to beat, but it doesn't mean that other players won't break through. It is merely that the odds are in the favor. 2005 told us that! and 2000-2003 also showed us that.
Let's let 2006 unfold, but any of those four have the ability to win not just one but two slams, if healthy and fit!

spencercarlos
Dec 24th, 2005, 01:49 AM
First, we are talking about grand slam performance. There have been 24 Grand Slam played between 2000 and 2005. Venus has been in 11 finals, nearly 50% of the time she is one of two players standing on the final day. If you take out the two Slams, she did not play during the same period, then she was in final 50% of the time. Serena has won 7 out of 9 of the finals, she played. Venus has a more consistent record getting to the slam final and Serena has performed better once there. Second, winning the slam does make a difference in history, but your consistency of play makes a difference in how you rank in performance against the current field, which is what we were discussing. Third, Sukova won't be remembered because she never translated her multiple final appearances into a Slam title. Venus has. Five times. If Kim hadn't won the U.S. Open, she would not be taken as seriously as a slam contender. Finally, my post was not really about comparing Venus to Serena, it was about Venus vs. Justine. Come to my parallel universe and you might be able to follow the flow of a pretty simple argument.
I read "best" when comparing the GS record performances of Venus and Serena.
Again 5 is better than 7 only in your parallel universe. No matter how you look at it, Serena´s Grand Slam record is better than Venus´s at the moment, only because she has won more GS, that is plain simple.
If you feel Venus 5 wins out 11 GS finals mean much more than winning 7 out 9 GS that is your preference, but does not mean that it is better. 7 wins alone tops 5 GS wins out of 11 GS finals.

vwfan
Dec 24th, 2005, 02:02 AM
I read "best" when comparing the GS record performances of Venus and Serena.
Again 5 is better than 7 only in your parallel universe. No matter how you look at it, Serena´s Grand Slam record is better than Venus´s at the moment, only because she has won more GS, that is plain simple.
If you feel Venus 5 wins out 11 GS finals mean much more than winning 7 out 9 GS that is your preference, but does not mean that it is better. 7 wins alone tops 5 GS wins out of 11 GS finals.you're right 7> 5 and 11 > 9. Which current player is most likely to contend for the Grand Slam title? Answer Venus. Which player is most likely to win a Grand Slam title? Answer Serena. Does that make it easier for you to understand?!

heyblondie
Dec 24th, 2005, 02:37 AM
amelie mauresmo to win AO, wimby and RG! its her turn! they better be ready for her!

Brooks.
Dec 24th, 2005, 03:41 AM
AO:
Venus def. Kim

FO:
Kim def. ???

Wimbledon:
Serena def. Venus or Sharapova

US Open:
Serena def. Justine

those are my predictions

Rub
Dec 24th, 2005, 04:45 AM
yeah... kim will win at least 2! :dance:

CanIGetAWhat
Jul 11th, 2006, 07:30 PM
How prophetic. Amelie won AO and Wimbledon.

hablo
Jul 11th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Some people in this thread are speaking with such certainty, it's interesting. Tennis is so unpredictable. I'm expecting we're going to be thrown for another loop in 2006. Something no one will expect will happen.
So true, who would have thought Momo would win AO and Wimbledon :worship:

amelie mauresmo to win AO, wimby and RG! its her turn! they better be ready for her!
:bowdown:

It would be Amélie dont search more.
tu m'épates :lol::worship:
dis-nous ce qu'Amélie fera pour le reste de l'année :p

Markus
Jul 11th, 2006, 07:36 PM
amelie mauresmo to win AO, wimby and RG! its her turn! they better be ready for her!
now that was close...:)

hingis-seles
Jul 11th, 2006, 08:26 PM
Hee! I love these "bumped" threads.

Viktymise
Jul 11th, 2006, 08:28 PM
Yeah Vee winning Aus and Wimbledon lenaD winning RG and the USO :bounce:

vogus
Jul 11th, 2006, 08:48 PM
Pretending that Nadia Petrova or Elena Dementieva is a likely to win a slam in 2006 as Venus Williams is arrant nonsense. Not that YOU actually said that.

The ugly fact for YOU is that NONE of those players won slams last year, and both Williams sisters did. And Mauresmo, Sharapova and Davenport all got to play one or both of the Williams sisters in slams last year. How'd that work out?


looks like somebody MISSED THE BUS with their '06 predictions... :tape:

you were right about the two slams, but not in the way you wanted to be.

rjd1111
Jul 11th, 2006, 09:52 PM
It's been 37 years of open era tennis. In 29 of the 37, someone has won at least two same. That's 78% of the time, which is wildly disproportionate. Injuries really seem the reason we've had so many GS champs the last two years. One would hope that the agents, if not the players, realize that the sheer physicality of today's game demands some changes in training regimen. Like more rest.

If any of last year's GS champs stay healthy, thery're certainly capable of winning two slams next year. Of course, if they ALL stay healthy.....


You have a chance for someone to win 3 this year.

Dexter
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Get ready for an 'Allez Slam' next year! :devil:

lolo21
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:19 PM
It would be Amélie dont search more.

you were spot on!! :eek:

Tennisation
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:31 PM
:banana: sharapova!i believe the person said grand slam champion, not semi-finalist

QUEENLINDSAY
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:38 PM
Lindsay farewell season will be perfect winning all 4!!!

GO LINDSAY!!

The_Pov
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:41 PM
i believe the person said grand slam champion, not semi-finalist

Are you replying to a post from over 7 months ago?

I think they've probably moved on.

Mother_Marjorie
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Get ready for an 'Allez Slam' next year! :devil:

:angel:

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 11th, 2006, 10:58 PM
Serena- 4


i agree

Justine Fan
Jul 12th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Get ready for an 'Allez Slam' next year! :devil:

*prays*

"Allez Slam" :haha: :haha:

I like it ... it sounds good!!! :lol:

Brooklyn90
Jul 12th, 2006, 01:03 AM
Serena- 4
:worship: :worship:

Oneofakind0490
Jul 12th, 2006, 01:09 AM
:lol: This thread is a great read.

Pengwin
Jul 12th, 2006, 02:31 AM
I think Peng will win AO, FO, WIM and USO in 2006 :bounce: :bounce:

:awww:

shirgan
Jul 12th, 2006, 06:22 AM
lets look at the last 10 years of grandslams and see:
1996 - Seles, Graf, Graf, Graf
1997 - Hingis, Majoli, Hingis, Hingis
1998 - Hingis, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Davenport
1999 - Hingis, Graf, Davenport, Serena
2000 - Davenport, Pierce, Venus, Venus
2001 - Capriati, Capriati, Venus, Venus
2002 - Capriati, Serena, Serena, Serena
2003 - Serena, Henin, Serena, Henin
2004 - Henin, Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova
2005 - Serena, Henin, Venus, Clijsters

4 out of 10 years there was a different grandslam champion at all 4 slams and the last 7 slams have all had different winners
The wins of Myskina, Sharapova and Kuznetsova are only due to injuries from top players. I wouldn't make too much statistical analysis out of that..