PDA

View Full Version : Would you rather have Lindsay, Jennifer or Serena's GS?


joaco
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:10 AM
They all have won three times a major title. But which player would you rather be?
Jennifer winning back-to-back titles of Australian Open, and Roland Garros.
Or Lindsay winning three different Slams in different years being the Australian Open, Wimbledon and US Open the ones captured.
And Serena who won the US Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon titles.

I would rather like Lindsay's Slams:D Don't really know the reason:angel:

I think it would be great to win back-to-back titles, but I'd like to have three different ones, and I find Lindsay's ones more attractive.

What about you?

disposablehero
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:23 AM
Serena's. I'd rather have a Roland Garros than an AO.

harry_potter
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:24 AM
definitely lindsay's cause they're in different years and they're different grand slams

Volcana
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:27 AM
I want all four.

Serena is likelier to win on Rebound Ace than Lindsay is to win on red clay. So I'll take Serena's.

Ted of Teds Tennis
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:42 AM
Volcana:

Why not take all nine slams? :p

TSequoia01
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:43 AM
Definitely Serena's the French, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open are the top 3 slams. The Aussie is the lesser of the four in prize money and prestige. :cool:

"Topaz"
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:43 AM
Serena's, for all the reasons so far mentioned and because Mr Momentum is in her camp right now.

Becool
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:56 AM
Serena cause she pratically have Grand Slams in all surfaces
US Open and AUS Open surfaces are different, but very similar.


And Serena's definetly going to win someday :cool:

o0O0o
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:03 AM
The Australian is my favorite Slam, followed by the French, then the US Open. So that means Capriati, right? Well no, I want three different ones, not two the same, so I guess Lindsay's over Serena's because I like the Aussie Open a lot.

persond
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by o0O0o
The Australian is my favorite Slam, followed by the French, then the US Open. So that means Capriati, right? Well no, I want three different ones, not two the same, so I guess Lindsay's over Serena's because I like the Aussie Open a lot.

;) ;) I know you do, just LUV the Aussie Open, especially, since Martina Hingis won it three times!!!:) :) :) :)

kiwifan
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:29 AM
How could you not chose Serena's GS Titles? :eek: :confused: :eek:

First of all, short of the Grand Slam, for posterity there is nothing more impressive than holding both the French and Wimbledon at the same time. Making the transition from Queen of Clay to Queen of Grass is the ultimate. Is there an active player that can make the same claim (I know Monica, Chucky & most recently Venus have come close)?

Second, the US Open is more impressive than the Aussie (no offense, Aussies). Back when I first started following the pro game (an old Connors fan, I am), it was common for top players to blow off the Aussie. This is part of the reason they moved it to the beginning of the year.

Third, if you are a current player (meaning not retired) the most impressive Grand Slam titles to hold are the most recent Grand Slam titles :angel: I can assure you JCap and Lindsay would rather be the current French and Wimbledon champs than the former ________ champ or the current Aussie Open champ.

Never winning Wimbledon will be a black mark on JCap's resume.

Never winning the French will just be a glitch on Lindsay's

Never winning the Aussie will...

...who are we kidding? Serena's going to win the Aussie next year (If Venus doesn't beat her to it).:cool: :cool:

Don't get mad Lindsay & JCap fans. The most of the rest of the top players wish they had your fave's titles.

Venus Forever
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:36 AM
I would prefer Serena's, then Lindsay's, then Capriati's!!

I prefer Serena's because of two reasons:

1- They are three totally different surfaces!! Clay - Very Slow, Grass - Very Fast, Hard Court - Fast!!

2- The Aussie Open is the least prestigous of the four GS, and Serena doesn't have that one.

oshun
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:54 AM
Serena's for sure..cause those 3 are the hardest ones to win. Anybody can win the Australian!!

Robbie.
Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by oshun
Serena's for sure..cause those 3 are the hardest ones to win. Anybody can win the Australian!!

Anyone can win the Australian? That is such an idiotic comment. I guess that is why Venus and Serena just head down their every year and grab the trophy :rolleyes: And I don't understand this "the australian is the least prestigious" either; the grandslams are pretty much rated equal at present. Neither connotates more class or prestige than another. That may have been the case in the past, but that statement no longer applies today. I don't think you'd find many players who would turn down an Ozzie in favour of the other majors becuase it is less "prestigious" - it would be because their fave surface is clay, or grass, or they are from a particular country. That said I would chose Serenas, it is preferable to win GS's on all surfaces (clay, grass, hardcourt) - it shows that you are an all round champion.

AjdeNate!
Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:19 AM
d. Monica Seles'.

:)

thecorrs
Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:57 AM
I would definatly choose Lindsay's GS! Their more attractive! I don't like RG that much... :)

Weevee
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:01 AM
The four slams equal in prestige! Why didn't somebody tell me? At least they should have told the players!
I realize now that money is not important stupidly I had believed that the tournaments that get the least attention pay out the least money!

Dawn Marie
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:38 AM
WtF? this is a silly question, anyone who loves tennis knows Serena's are the best of the bunch. LMAO

Every grass and hard court player would love to own a clay court slam. Anyhow, this topic will be forgotten as Serena will win OZ Open and have all 4 majors. Something that Capriati nor Lindsay will NEVER, ever do.

LaFawntanitra
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:45 AM
Serena's :-)

Mattographer
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:52 AM
:rolleyes: @ people comments on Australian Open about least prestigious!!

Anyway, I like Lindsay's!! :cool:

Harju.
Jul 22nd, 2002, 09:02 AM
Serena had enough.. and so do Jen!!
Lindsay :bounce:

Sam L
Jul 22nd, 2002, 10:47 AM
Serena cause winning French Open and Wimbledon back to back is VERY hard to do! :)

Plus she got to win a US Open at 17, I've always liked the teen-queens :)

Beige
Jul 22nd, 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by AlexSydney
:rolleyes: @ people comments on Australian Open about least prestigious!!

I know, Alex! :mad: It's unfair but it's true that many tennis fans feel like that-- that the US Open and Wimbledon are the premiere Slams and the French follows them, leaving the AO as the "outcast". :rolleyes:

Anyway to answer the question:

I'll go with Serena's because she has all the surfaces covered. :)

-Sonic-
Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:07 AM
taken as they are without any of the extra baggage (e.g. who can win the other ones) I'd take Lindsays.

I'd prefer the consistent success over a long time of Lindsays as opposed to the comparable streaks of the other 2. Winning the FO and W may be a great achievement, but all the success in just 6 short weeks would irk me. Defending a slam would be cool, but there'd be a sense of "...... agaiiiin" in it, when instead it could be something new and exciting.

In reality, I know Serena could win the next 4 on the trot. But then it'd be a case of "Serena's 1000 to Jen/Linds 3" which would be no contest of course.

Kart
Jul 22nd, 2002, 12:10 PM
It's a difficult choice between Serena and Lindsay ... I'd probably take Lindsay because although Serena has a French open title (which is my favourite slam), Lindsay has a Wimbledon title beating the legendary Steffi Graf in the final. Victories don't really come much bigger than that.

Williams Rulez
Jul 22nd, 2002, 12:36 PM
Serena... cause the surfaces are so diverse...

Josh
Jul 22nd, 2002, 12:39 PM
Serena's.

I want both Wimbledon and Roland Garros.

selesrules
Jul 22nd, 2002, 12:40 PM
Defending a grandslam is one of the hardest things to do and neither Davenport or Serena have been able to accomplish it. On the other hand, Capriati has defended a grandslam. So...

supremeross
Jul 22nd, 2002, 02:32 PM
IMO, I'd take Serena's GS, just b/c the French seems so hard to win. (Just ask Pete Sampras). And while I think all players want to win one of the Grand Slams, there does seem to be a pecking order for prestige. While most would agree (except some dirtballers), Wimbledon has the most prestige, the USO and the FO are about tied and the AO, IMO, does not carry as much weight. While yes, its still a GS, and will always have a certain amount of prestige, it also begs the question as to why, so many players (top) have skipped it in the past. Not to mention the whole prize money thing. The winner of IW and Miami I think earn more money than the winner of the AO.

R. DIS
Jul 22nd, 2002, 02:46 PM
Jen's because her's were very hard fought!!!!!!!

Saskatoon
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:09 PM
Lindsays cuz they mean more than the others.when she defeated the others in the fianls they were at their best unlike the others.

selesrules
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:23 PM
In the finals

Serena def. Hingis, Venus, Venus

Capriati def. Hingis, Clijsters, Hingis

Davenport def. Hingis, Graf, Hingis

All I have to say is: POOR HINGIS :(

Ryan
Jul 22nd, 2002, 03:39 PM
Lmao, if Hingis had won those matches she'd be 5 GS's richer.


The winner of IW and Miami I think earn more money than the winner of the AO.


Plleeeease. I'd probably take Serena's, winning RG and Wimby back-to back is tough. Or Lindsay's because the success was spread out over a longer period of time.

QUEENLINDSAY
Jul 22nd, 2002, 04:29 PM
I'll take Lindsay GS run, Won in different years. At least lindsay is winning for longer period. But all of them might win more.

Also Lindsay has tons of titles in doubles and singles added to that GS titles.

Becool
Jul 22nd, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by R.DIS:
Jen's because her's were very hard fought!!!!!!!



:rolleyes:

And you think Serena and Lindsay didn't fought VERY HARD to win their Grand Slams? Pleeeeease

Renee
Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:06 PM
Serena, hands down. Venus and Jen winning back to back is cool too. That is no small feat to defend a Grand Slam.

Ms. Lively
Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:35 PM
Lindsay

Nan Cu
Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:56 PM
Puhleez!!!

The fact that so many people are choosing Lindsay's accomplishments over Serena's proves that people are no longer answering the question objectively, but along certain lines.

Pathetic!!!

darren cahill
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:11 PM
I wouldnt turn down any of those but forced to pick i would want Lindsays. She has 2 of the ones i like most, the WImbledon title and US open. I hate the French open so i'd prefer the aussie title over that.

RAA
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:18 PM
I agree with a previous posters- Monicas.

Daniel
Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:19 PM
Lindsay

DEETHELICK
Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:01 PM
All three have their good points:

Serena: 3 Slams on 3 VERY different surfaces. 1 Slam short of a Career Slam.

Jen: Won RG (my fav Slam) and defended her GS title (a very difficult thing to do). Winning the Aus 02 was the most difficult thing Jen had to face, matchpoints down, supposed injury, criticisms about her fitness and focus. But she came through.

Lindsay: 3 different Slams on 3 similar-ish surfaces. All medium-fast. She won in three different years.

I personally like Jen and Serena (mainly cos they won RG) and cos one has nearly all the Slams in her kitty, whilst the other defended her GS in the most amazing fashion. Actually just defending it was good enough for me. Period.

ys
Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:30 PM
Serena's. She won Big Three. AO is still the least important of the four, even if by much lesser margin than 20 years ago.

geoepee
Jul 23rd, 2002, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by ys
Serena's. She won Big Three. AO is still the least important of the four, even if by much lesser margin than 20 years ago.

Ditto.

vs1
Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:33 AM
Definitely Serena's. She won her first one in 99, came back to step it up to win two in a row (so far). Almost has the career grand slam in the bag. If she wins USO & AO, then she'll have four consecutive GS.

I like Lindsay's second because she almost has a career GS as well. Shows how hard it is to do a career GS. There are all of these wonderful players right now and no one has one of those. Not even the legendary Monica Seles!

Who'll get it first (out of the active players)?

o0O0o
Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:45 AM
Serena winning the Aussie is realistic, and Hingis winning the French is too. I think they will both achieve a career Slam.

Anyway, the Australian is my favorite Slam, followed by the US, French, and Wimbledon. I hate Wimbledon, everyone is so boring and it rains and the tennis is crap. The French is hit-or-miss, I don't like the crowd or atmosphere but the tennis gets really creative. I like the two hard court tournaments because they don't favor anyone, it's all equal ground. And I love the Aussie because it's fun seeing how everyone improved over the off-season, it has a warm, fun feeling to it, and my fave kicks all kinds of ass there!

So we all have our reasons, not everyone has to like the Aussie last. Oh, and hate to break it to you, but the Australian Open is having the most amount of repeat performers (Seles won it tons of times, Capriati twice, Hingis six finals etc.) so it seems like it's the hardest Slam for players to win, since so few can do it. Just a thought!

ys
Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:54 AM
So we all have our reasons, not everyone has to like the Aussie last.

It is not about us as *fans*, it is about us as would-be-players. As a player, which one would you want most? I think that despite of all things, Wimbledon wuold still be a Grand Slam tournament of choice. Which two? I am pretty sure it would be between Wimbledon-US, Wimbledon-French and two Wmibledons.

o0O0o
Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:57 AM
Point taken, ys. As a player I would want the win on my worst surface, so Serena's French win would be great or Martina's Wimbledon.

Buitenzorg
Jul 23rd, 2002, 05:02 AM
Martina HINGIS

3 Australian OPEN Titles
1 The Wimbledon Championships Titles
1 US OPEN Titles

Serena WILLIAMS

1 US OPEN Titles
1 French OPEN Titles
1 The Wimbledon Championships Titles

Buitenzorg
Jul 23rd, 2002, 05:03 AM
My Favorite Grand Slam Tournament are:

1. Australian OPEN
2. US OPEN
3. The Wimbledon Championships
4. The FRENCH OPEN

Buitenzorg
Jul 23rd, 2002, 05:05 AM
I'm hoping,

SERENA will get The Australian Open Titles! and Martina HINGIS will get The French Open Titles!

mn73
Jul 23rd, 2002, 07:02 AM
I shall look at it from a different angle and take Jennifer's Slams because of how she won them.

Aus Open 2001 - you win your first Grand Slam in some style 6-4 6-3 against the World #1.

French Open 2001 - a real dogfght but you come through 12-10 in the third set. Phew!?!

Aus Open 2002 - an even bigger dogfight - you come from a set and 0-4 down and save four championship points to win in sweltering heat!

I would much rather have those Slams because of the way she won them.

geoepee
Jul 23rd, 2002, 11:59 AM
I thought the question was which would you rather have, not the fashion in which each slam was won...

joaco
Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:22 PM
that's exactly geo. This threads always seem to diverse in some way to another thing...

Volcana
Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:52 PM
There are no 'lesser' slams.

The Australian Open may be the hardest because of where it is in the year. It's very early. The 'play yourself into shape' types get creamed here. I don't see a Williams sister win here til one of them skips school in the fall.

Roland Garros may be the hardest to win because its the worst grind. It can be very hot, and you have to hit a lot of balls. A determined player ranked #150 can wind up in the semis simply by not giving in to fatigue, impatience and intimidation. And even if #150 loses in the 2nd rond. They can keep an elite player out there in the sun for three hours, wrecking their shot at the title.

Wimbledon may be the hardest to win because its 'amp it up' time. It the fastest surface of all. Players literally have to play faster, and many of them can't. Power on offense, speed on defense, or no title. As late as 1998, you could win with one or the other, now you really need both.

The US Open may be the hardest to win because its the final slam. It has the most media, it hot, the fans are the most prone to 'protocol violations' (yelling during non-faves serve and such). Also, its three quarters of the way through the year. Players have nagging injuries, and its hard court, so joints get beaten up form all the runnning on cement.