PDA

View Full Version : The tour since Justine's departure...


brickhousesupporter
Mar 19th, 2009, 04:30 PM
I hear over and over that the tour is crap since Justine left. I contend that the tour was "crap" when Justine was around, however she played enough to keep players like Safina, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Dementieva from ever reaching the top spot. Remember these are the same players that Justine was beating to win her titles. Since Justine retired the Williams sisters have made it clear that they don't intend to play a bunch of tournaments, but would rather save themselves for the big tournaments. This leaves lots of points for the other players to pick up and add to their rankings. There are 3 ways you can become number one.....win big.....win often....or win big and often.

Remember Justine left the game because she tried to win big and win often but could not sustain it........The Wiliams are only interested in winning big.......What is so wrong with the other player trying to win often? The number 1 ranking does not predict who is going to win a tournament or who is the better player...it just states who has the most points at the moment.

Can we call a truce and accept the person who has the most points as the valid number 1 ranked player. What do you guys think?

pov
Mar 19th, 2009, 04:38 PM
lol. bhs, I agree with the sensible an accurate point of view you posted about rankings. The thing is that I've started a couple threads that basically made the same case and . . well . . folks here aren't having it. Then again, maybe your way of explaining it will do the trick.

volta
Mar 19th, 2009, 04:50 PM
who ever gets #1 deserves it simply because she earned more points then the others .

the #1 doesn't always show who is the best player on tour , this is just another case of that happening.

i don't like Safina or her game and her as #1 is repulsive to me but if she gets the points to get there ... :shrug:

Volcana
Mar 19th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Can we call a truce and accept the person who has the most points as the valid number 1. What do you guys think?I think there's a difference between being the #1 player, i.e., the 'best' player, and being the #1 ranked player.

Mightymirza
Mar 19th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Actually the WSs have played a lot of tournaments already this year :shrug: Th eonly important one where both of them dint participate was IW!

martinahfan
Mar 19th, 2009, 05:29 PM
I miss so martina hingis , today on www.abola.pt martina say what 2010 she will participate at many exhibitions and tennis clinic matchs great news http://hingisova.skyrock.com

BrianII
Mar 19th, 2009, 05:32 PM
Really don't mind Safina becoming no1, I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. I'm sure Venus or Serena would prefer to win a slam ranked anywhere rather than be no1 and not be able to win a slam. Interestingly when you think of about it since the rise of Hingis my estimate would be that an existing no1 ( whoever that be ) has been able to win less than a quarter of available slams.
a rough estimate (this is very open to correction as its from memory)of the 49 slams since AO'97

Hingis won 3 as no1, I don't think she was no1 for AO'97 or AO 99 I doubt whether daveport ever won a slam as no1, venus definetely didn't, I don't think caprati did either cos I remember lindsay was the no1 at the end of 01 meaning capriati wasn't no 1 going in to AO02 Majoli , Pierce,Myskina, Kuznetsova obviously didn't, serena may have 3 or 4 but if venus was no1 going in to Wim02 its 3, clijsters didn't (i'm not counting steffii prior to 97), sharapova and anna didn't, not sure about amelie and justine, but I know for justine's first 2 she wasn't no 1.

So really probably a maximum of about 13 (proabaly less) slams out of 49 won by an existing no1 ranked player.I hope one of the stats people can give us the accurate figure. From the trend safina probably has a better chance winning the french as anyhthing but the No1 player.

Conor
Mar 19th, 2009, 08:03 PM
I hear over and over that the tour is crap since Justine left. I contend that the tour was "crap" when Justine was around, however she played enough to keep players like Safina, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Dementieva from ever reaching the top spot. Remember these are the same players that Justine was beating to win her titles. Since Justine retired the Williams sisters have made it clear that they don't intend to play a bunch of tournaments, but would rather save themselves for the big tournaments. This leaves lots of points for the other players to pick up and add to their rankings. There are 3 ways you can become number one.....win big.....win often....or win big and often.

Remember Justine left the game because she tried to win big and win often but could not sustain it........The Wiliams are only interested in winning big.......What is so wrong with the other player trying to win often? The number 1 ranking does not predict who is going to win a tournament or who is the better player...it just states who has the most points at the moment.

Can we call a truce and accept the person who has the most points as the valid number 1 ranked player. What do you guys think?

She won at least 1 slam for 5 years in a row and won 10 titles in 2007. If thats not 'sustained' then I dont know what is.

shap_half
Mar 19th, 2009, 08:09 PM
She won at least 1 slam for 5 years in a row and won 10 titles in 2007. If thats not 'sustained' then I dont know what is.

I just love how people are trying to make it seem like the reason Justine quit was because she wasn't winning anymore. I think it was the other way around.

2Black
Mar 19th, 2009, 08:45 PM
She won at least 1 slam for 5 years in a row and won 10 titles in 2007. If thats not 'sustained' then I dont know what is.

Don't twist or misinterpret what the OP is saying. I don't think they're saying that Justine had stopped winning but that the day in & day out grind of the tour during the course of her career finally drained her. That when you play that type of schedule - winning big & often, eventually you burn out.

Dodoboy.
Mar 19th, 2009, 08:48 PM
The WS have dominated every big event since Wimbledon bar the Olympics, i hope skipping IW won't hurt that!

Olórin
Mar 19th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I just love how people are trying to make it seem like the reason Justine quit was because she wasn't winning anymore. I think it was the other way around.

:spit:

Justine quit because she winning too much? She got fed up of all those records, all the acclamations from the tennis media, all the glory, all those big fat prize cheques she was getting.

Of course.

A lot of people will always make comments that Justine quit because she was losing, because, in the two biggest tournaments she played in 2008 she was bagelled by two of her biggest rivals. To say she quit because of these losses is rather facile, and I don't agree. But, you can see why some people might think that.

Ultimately, what is clear, is that Justine burned out.

DemWilliamsGulls
Mar 19th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Justine left because she saw the writing on the wall. People were recovering from injuries and gettin back in shape and was beating her. She was on the verge of loosing the French Open as well...so she flew the coop because she didnt want to risk loosing the legacy she created there at the French Open. The tour has suffered a little because she's not in it, but top players such as Mauresmo, Sharapova, Pierce, Davenport and a few others have not played well or at all due to injuries or other outside reasons. Right now the Williams Sisters are the only thing I think is really keeping the WTA interested. I cant help but think that when they leave...womens tennis will suffer the same fate as figure skating when Michelle Kwan left. I hate to say it but if Americans are not top players in sports...the ratings go down tremendously..and Venus and Serena are the only thing we have winning slams on the womens AND mens.

Apoleb
Mar 19th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Justine quit because she winning too much? She got fed up of all those records, all the acclamations from the tennis media, all the glory, all those big fat prize cheques she was getting.


There's as much evidence that she quit because she was winning as there is because she was losing. One could make the argument that after she won the Open and beat the WS back to back on fast hard court, she lost a lot of her motivation. Point is, it's rather stupid to make either claim with any certainity. You could see possible validity in one of those claims because you're biased. :lol:

Human Nature
Mar 19th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Oh boy ..am tired of those justine's worshipping or bashing thread . The reason why she quit was not the point of the starter...

Junex
Mar 20th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Justine left because she saw the writing on the wall. People were recovering from injuries and gettin back in shape and was beating her. She was on the verge of loosing the French Open as well...so she flew the coop because she didnt want to risk loosing the legacy she created there at the French Open. The tour has suffered a little because she's not in it, but top players such as Mauresmo, Sharapova, Pierce, Davenport and a few others have not played well or at all due to injuries or other outside reasons. Right now the Williams Sisters are the only thing I think is really keeping the WTA interested. I cant help but think that when they leave...womens tennis will suffer the same fate as figure skating when Michelle Kwan left. I hate to say it but if Americans are not top players in sports...the ratings go down tremendously..and Venus and Serena are the only thing we have winning slams on the womens AND mens.

ATP
Football/Soccer
F1
Rugby
Badminton
etc... Oh, I forget your talking about in the U.S. of A!!!

Ciarán
Mar 20th, 2009, 02:27 AM
...has been diabolical.

LudwigDvorak
Mar 20th, 2009, 02:32 AM
The WS have dominated every big event since Wimbledon bar the Olympics, i hope skipping IW won't hurt that!

I love hearing it. Pretty cool Elena got it when you think of it that way.

Real #3. :hearts:

Anyway, Justine, whatever. She doesn't matter anymore and I'm loving it and the tour since. Brash words but I don't feel like being PC at the moment.

miffedmax
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:03 AM
The problem isn't Justine retiring. It's that Serena doesn't care about being Number One in the way that players like Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Hingis and others did. You have a disconnect where a woman who can consistently win slams just doesn't care to win Tier Is and hold the Number One ranking. A healthy Masha, a retired Serena, you probably wouldn't have this bizarre deal where the best player in the world and the #1 ranking are so completely divergent.

(Oh, this is not intended as a dig at Serena. Her life, her career, ain't none of my business how she runs it as long as she doesn't hurt my kids or steal my money).

Br'er Rabbit
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:18 AM
I love hearing it. Pretty cool Elena got it when you think of it that way.

Real #3. :hearts:

Anyway, Justine, whatever. She doesn't matter anymore and I'm loving it and the tour since. Brash words but I don't feel like being PC at the moment.

:worship:

It's almost been a year, and it HAS been so many changes to the game now that she's gone. That being said, it has almost been a whole year of ppl being stuck in the past, still talking about the state of the game is messed up because she's gone blah blah blah. I would say to those people just shut up,deal with it, and move on. Justine is irrelevant now, and you have players like Serena,Venus,Elena,and Safina that are relevant.

Martian KC
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:23 AM
Justine left because she saw the writing on the wall. People were recovering from injuries and gettin back in shape and was beating her. She was on the verge of loosing the French Open as well...so she flew the coop because she didnt want to risk loosing the legacy she created there at the French Open. The tour has suffered a little because she's not in it, but top players such as Mauresmo, Sharapova, Pierce, Davenport and a few others have not played well or at all due to injuries or other outside reasons. Right now the Williams Sisters are the only thing I think is really keeping the WTA interested. I cant help but think that when they leave...womens tennis will suffer the same fate as figure skating when Michelle Kwan left. I hate to say it but if Americans are not top players in sports...the ratings go down tremendously..and Venus and Serena are the only thing we have winning slams on the womens AND mens.

Even you don't believe your own crock of bull.

Br'er Rabbit
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:26 AM
The problem isn't Justine retiring. It's that Serena doesn't care about being Number One in the way that players like Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Hingis and others did. You have a disconnect where a woman who can consistently win slams just doesn't care to win Tier Is and hold the Number One ranking. A healthy Masha, a retired Serena, you probably wouldn't have this bizarre deal where the best player in the world and the #1 ranking are so completely divergent.

(Oh, this is not intended as a dig at Serena. Her life, her career, ain't none of my business how she runs it as long as she doesn't hurt my kids or steal my money).

I don't understand why you would think Serena doesn't care about her #1 ranking or winning Tier 1s. Serena has been playing very consistenly this season, and entered all of the major events, except for IW. So I assume you think that way because she decided to skip IW?

DemWilliamsGulls
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:27 AM
There's as much evidence that she quit because she was winning as there is because she was losing. One could make the argument that after she won the Open and beat the WS back to back on fast hard court, she lost a lot of her motivation. Point is, it's rather stupid to make either claim with any certainity. You could see possible validity in one of those claims because you're biased. :lol:

Some might could argue that..but thats stretching it a lot. She beat both of them in the same tournament one time and finally beat serena on all surfaces...but why would you retire because of that when both WS has beaten her on all surfaces as well. If anything the motivation would have come from the bagels she was gettin at the beggining of 2008...or the simple fact that she's never gotten a wimbledon title. I think she was just plain burned out of tennis in the end..just as Clijtsers and Myskina. Everyone had studied justines game in 2008 after 2007 and they were ready for her. I honestly dont think she wanted go through the extensive training as she did the previous years to challenge her oponnents who were out to get her. Serena and Sharapova made it their business to take it to her (especially Serena) Venus and a few others were next in line...I think she was just tired of tennis.

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:36 AM
She won at least 1 slam for 5 years in a row and won 10 titles in 2007. If thats not 'sustained' then I dont know what is.Let me enlighten you .....
10 slam singles titles in 10.25
22 slam singles titles in 12.25 years
24 slam singles titles in 14 years
18 slam singles tiles in 14.25 years
In other words, when I say 'sustained', I'm talking about 'more than a decade'. Venus Williams, Monica Seles, Justine Henin, all great players, for short periods of time. ('Short' being 'three years or less'.)

If you measure it just in winning slams, Serena Williams is on her fourth generation of WTA players, where she's good enough to win a slam. She came up against Graf, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario, jump the gun on Davenport-Venus-Capriati as a challenger to Hingis, then Venus-Henin-Clijsters-Mauresmo-Russians,and then suddenly Serena Dominatu Part II.

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2009, 03:42 AM
I honestly dont think she wanted go through the extensive training as she did the previous years to challenge her oponnents who were out to get her. Serena and Sharapova made it their business to take it to her (especially Serena) Venus and a few others were next in line...I think she was just tired of tennis.I listen to a lot of pro athletes from different sports on the radio. And they ALL, at one point o anothe, talk about the same thing. The willingness to prepare for the upcoming season. The weight-lifting, the roadwork, the stretching .... the 'work'.

Henin sacrificed to become the best player in the world. But, as in often the case, proving to herself that she could BECOME the best player in the world was stronger motivation than remaining the best player n the world.

Larrybidd
Mar 20th, 2009, 04:14 AM
Being #1 on the WTA point tally means just that. The numbers are what they are. The dispute comes in when the public is asked to decide what that MEANS. Does the points leader become the presumed "best player on tour"? That is for the tennis consuming public to decide.

I personally was not offended by Jankovic being #1, clearly she did what she needed to do to earn the points, the problem was that she decided to try to say that that position meant she was the best player in the world, and got defensive when people begged to differ. She knows that she needs to win slams before acting as if her #1 ranking was anything more than a statistical fun fact. I don't know if Tiger Woods is still the #1 ranked golfer in the world (I think they base those rankings on a 2 year period) but you can bet if somebody else did have more ranking points than Tiger, they wouldn't try to assume the title as "best golfer". They would be treated as a fraud just like JJ.

rjd1111
Mar 20th, 2009, 05:52 AM
who ever gets #1 deserves it simply because she earned more points then the others .

the #1 doesn't always show who is the best player on tour , this is just another case of that happening.

i don't like Safina or her game and her as #1 is repulsive to me but if she gets the points to get there ... :shrug:


"#1 doesn't always show who is the best player on tour"


This is the whole point. It should. Like in all other sports.

Even on the mens side. There is no doubt Rafa is # 1. & Fed is #2.

I don't have all the answers. But I'm not getting paid the bucks

for coming up with the answers. Larry and his gang are. Instead of

spending so much time coming up with rules to force the WS back

to IW in order to swell their coffers ( not that being a profitable

business is not important) they should spend some of that time

keeping the sport from being a laughing stock with the rankings.


One thing that sticks out to me is this.

Serena is No 1 and is the best player. But Venus, IMHO, is and

should be No 2. Since Wimb She has been winning ( Yes She lost

early at AO ). 5 or 6 titles. Venus won Wimb for the 2nd time

in a row, and recieved no points. Serena lost to her in the finals

and got points. This seems wrong. Why not give bonus points for

winning titles and more for repeats. Repeating titles is not easy

to do and deserves to be rewarded more than just playing a lot.

And at least the No 1 player would be winning titles and not

just playing a lot and going deep into the draw to be No 1.

Wojtek
Mar 20th, 2009, 06:24 AM
Another idiotic thread about Justine started by Williams fans. I think some people have the same nightmare all the time. RG? or something more......

Larrybidd
Mar 20th, 2009, 05:17 PM
"#1 doesn't always show who is the best player on tour"


This is the whole point. It should. Like in all other sports.

Even on the mens side. There is no doubt Rafa is # 1. & Fed is #2.

I don't have all the answers. But I'm not getting paid the bucks

for coming up with the answers. Larry and his gang are. Instead of

spending so much time coming up with rules to force the WS back

to IW in order to swell their coffers ( not that being a profitable

business is not important) they should spend some of that time

keeping the sport from being a laughing stock with the rankings.
.

Look, I'm a huge WS fan, and its OK with me if they tinker with the points system to reward GS titles more but if not then I'm fine with that too, because there are valid reasons for the present system. In part, the ranking system is designed to encourage players to play more and I won't argue with that goal. Now the goal of Serena Wiliams is first of all to win grand slams - being ranked #1 is way secondary.

I don't see how you design a system that balances the goals of identifying THE top player and the goal of rewarding top players for playing more. Therefore we will have to live with the present reality that its not perfectly reconcilable. I would rather the top dog be decided on the court instead of by a computer anyway - in all sports.

miffedmax
Mar 20th, 2009, 06:50 PM
I don't understand why you would think Serena doesn't care about her #1 ranking or winning Tier 1s. Serena has been playing very consistenly this season, and entered all of the major events, except for IW. So I assume you think that way because she decided to skip IW?

No, historically Serena has made it clear she enjoys pursuing her interest outside of tennis and has done so. This year has been more of an exception that the rule. I also believe she's said herself she's more interested in slam titles than rankings.

I know why she skips IW and I don't blame her or Venus at all.

Like I said, I'm not criticizing her, just pointing out that her approach to the game is different from a lot of players before her.

Olórin
Mar 20th, 2009, 07:35 PM
There's as much evidence that she quit because she was winning as there is because she was losing. One could make the argument that after she won the Open and beat the WS back to back on fast hard court, she lost a lot of her motivation. Point is, it's rather stupid to make either claim with any certainity. You could see possible validity in one of those claims because you're biased. :lol:

You're talking about my bias? If you could acutally read I said that I don't really see any validity in that point and I didn't make any claim other than that she burned out. If losing all inclination and means to professionally compete in a support which has been your life for 20 years isn't burning out then I don't know what is. I haven't even presented my opinions here, I've simply outlined a few arguments. Seriously Apoleb, is simple reading comprehension that hard?

One couldn't make the argument that she lost her motivation after winning the USO because there is no evidence whatsoever for that. What nonsense :shrug:

VenusSerenaBlvd.
Mar 21st, 2009, 05:33 AM
I totally agree that Justine was burned out. she accomplished everything she could in tennis. i do feel that she could have done more, but it was her decision. her decision to quit early, kind of diminishes her legendary status. it's not because i don't like her, it's because I know she could have won more.