PDA

View Full Version : Holding 3 Slams but not #1


Kworb
Jun 21st, 2009, 01:56 AM
If Serena wins Wimbledon she will hold 3 Slams but Safina will still be #1. I think the last time this happened was in early 1997 when Hingis became #1 while Graf was still holding RG, Wimbledon and US Open. Anyone know if there are more examples of this happening?

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:12 AM
If Serena wins Wimbledon she will hold 3 Slams but Safina will still be #1. I think the last time this happened was in early 1997 when Hingis became #1 while Graf was still holding RG, Wimbledon and US Open. Anyone know if there are more examples of this happening?

No. Actually the last time it happened was in the summer of 2003 when Clijsters was #1 while Serena held the 02 U.S Open, 03 AO and 03 Wimbledon. :sad:

Havok
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:15 AM
Just goes to show you to be #1 you still need to participate in a decent amount of additional tournaments and do well in them.

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:20 AM
Serena could've been ranked 2nd even if she had won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in addition to her US and Australian Opens titles. The current ranking system is a big fat joke.

Expat
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:23 AM
Serena could've been ranked 2nd even if she had won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in addition to her US and Australian Opens titles. The current ranking system is a big fat joke.

You are not updating your weekly ranking system even that shows Safina as no 1
how can WTA rank someone as no 1 if they dont play enough

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:31 AM
You are not updating your weekly ranking system even that shows Safina as no 1
how can WTA rank someone as no 1 if they dont play enough

I'm gonna update it. In my system Serena would've been #1 had she won Roland Garros.

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:43 AM
Just goes to show you to be #1 you still need to participate in a decent amount of additional tournaments and do well in them.

Serena did play enough in 02-03 and she did win enough titles too. She had 3 of the 4 Slams and the semis of the other. She also had 4 other WTA titles(7 in total) when she lost the #1 ranking.:p

Serena could've been ranked 2nd even if she had won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in addition to her US and Australian Opens titles. The current ranking system is a big fat joke. You got that right! :yeah:

You are not updating your weekly ranking system even that shows Safina as no 1
how can WTA rank someone as no 1 if they dont play enough

In 2003 Serena held 7 titles and was the defending champ of 3 slams and could have lost the #1 ranking at Wimbledon that year if big sis didn't win that courageous match against Clijsters. Kim would have taken over the #1 ranking if she had reached the Wimbledon final. Even if she had lost to Serena she would have been #1. Even with 3 losses that year to Serena, Serena having 7 titles and 3 slams and Kim being slamless with the same number of titles in the last 52 weeks. Obviously Serena had more high value titles. ;) The fact that she could have done it, and even if Serena hadn't gotten injured, Serena basically would have had to go undefeated the rest of the season to hold on to the #1 ranking. :help: Now you have to admit that is just stupid. All because Kim played 22 tournaments in 52 weeks.:tape:

Diesel
Jun 21st, 2009, 02:52 AM
I'll take the three slams then and be happy about it.

sakya23
Jun 21st, 2009, 03:40 AM
safina had an amazing clay season and reached finals of 2/4 slams. Serena has only done good in the slams, everything isn't worth mentioning. you can't just play 12 tourneys and be #1 esppecially when someone else is playing more and winnning more matches.

Donny
Jun 21st, 2009, 03:43 AM
I think Serena winning Wimbledon would be a good chance to show the world just how useless rankings are as a measure of ability.

hingisGOAT
Jun 21st, 2009, 03:43 AM
All because Kim played 22 tournaments in 52 weeks.:tape:

I like how you say it as though we should fault Kim for her dedication :rolleyes: As if 22 tournaments is some astronomical number, when there are women who play 30+ :rolleyes:

Ryan
Jun 21st, 2009, 03:46 AM
I like how you say it as though we should fault Kim for her dedication :rolleyes: As if 22 tournaments is some astronomical number, when there are women who play 30+ :rolleyes:


Especially when she went deep in almost all of them. How evil of her. :rolleyes: Playing a lot, and being in the top 5, is a great thing, because it almost always means you're winning a lot too.

In The Zone
Jun 21st, 2009, 03:56 AM
Serena could've been ranked 2nd even if she had won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in addition to her US and Australian Opens titles. The current ranking system is a big fat joke.

Yep. Had she defeated Safina in the French final, Safina would have been #1. If Safina improved on her 3rd round Wimbledon showing and Serena went on to win Wimbledon, mathematically, Safina could still be #1. That's insane.

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 04:15 AM
I like how you say it as though we should fault Kim for her dedication :rolleyes: As if 22 tournaments is some astronomical number, when there are women who play 30+ :rolleyes:

Especially when she went deep in almost all of them. How evil of her. :rolleyes: Playing a lot, and being in the top 5, is a great thing, because it almost always means you're winning a lot too.

I love how you both assumed that was my meaning. Kim retired too early and now is attempting a comeback because she burned herself out. A modern plague on women's tennis.:( Kim, Myskina, Hingis and Dokic led the tour in different years for matches played and tournaments entered and what do they all have in common? :scratch: Early exits from the game. My greater point,(which you both seemed to miss) was that it took Kim( a player I liked mind you) 22 tournaments to do what it took Serena 12 tournaments to do.:p And because Kim played such a heavy schedule and had consistent results she was able to challenge for a ranking that under a quality and winning percentage based ranking system she wouldn't have. Quantity doesn't and shouldn't equal quality. You do understand if Justine hadn't reached the semis of the YEC in 2003 that Kim would have ended the season #1? A season were Serena and Justine both won 2 majors, both beat Kim on the biggest stages of the sport and a year Justine won 8 titles. Come on, you can't always justify slamless #1's by saying "Serena doesn't play enough", because sometimes (shocker I know:eek:) the person who should be #1 at the time isn't Serena.:wavey:

AcesHigh
Jun 21st, 2009, 04:20 AM
Blah blah blah. Serena would then be holding 3 titles. If she had top 5 results outside slams this wouldn't be an issue. Serena's chances at #1 are in her hands.

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 04:29 AM
Blah blah blah. Serena would then be holding 3 titles. If she had top 5 results outside slams this wouldn't be an issue. Serena's chances at #1 are in her hands.

She's #2 by a good bit so her results outside the slams have to be pretty good. :shrug: And she still was #1 for most of this season. Geeze!!! people act like Serena is ranked 50 or something Damn! :o

homogenius
Jun 21st, 2009, 04:41 AM
She's #2 by a good bit so her results outside the slams have to be pretty good. :shrug: And she still was #1 for most of this season. Geeze!!! people act like Serena is ranked 50 or something Damn! :o

No, she's #2 cause she has the best results in slams by far.Outside slams :

F : Miami
SF : Stanford, Sydney, Paris, Dubai
QF : OG
RR : YEC
1rst or 2nd round losses (didn't win a match) : Stuttgart, Marbella, Rome, Madrid

That's hardly top5 results (actually it's barely top10 results).

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 04:51 AM
No, she's #2 cause she has the best results in slams by far.Outside slams :

F : Miami
SF : Stanford, Sydney, Paris, Dubai
QF : OG
RR : YEC
1rst or 2nd round losses (didn't win a match) : Stuttgart, Marbella, Rome, Madrid

That's hardly top5 results (actually it's barely top10 results).

So now she doesn't deserve to be #2 either? Give me a break! Safina won 4 matches from the end of January till May. Was she playing top 5 tennis then?

homogenius
Jun 21st, 2009, 05:03 AM
So now she doesn't deserve to be #2 either? Give me a break! Safina won 4 matches from the end of January till May. Was she playing top 5 tennis then?

Who said that ?? :confused: I just said that she's still ranked #2 cause of her slam results (never said she didn't earned these results)and not cause she had "pretty good results outside slams" like you claimed.Aceshigh was right.
Btw, since you brought Safina in this...her results outside slams :

V : Rome, Madrid, Los Angeles, Montreal, Tokyo
F : Sydney, Stuttgart, Olympic games
SF : S'hertogenbosch, Moscow
QF : Indian W., Stuttgart
R32 : Miami
1rst and 2nd round losses : Dubai, YEC

faboozadoo15
Jun 21st, 2009, 05:03 AM
I think Serena winning Wimbledon would be a good chance to show the world just how useless rankings are as a measure of ability.

Since when were the rankings meant to reward raw ability?

They reward the ability to win a lot of matches in all the big tournaments.

Temporary0369
Jun 21st, 2009, 05:05 AM
I believe in 87 Navratilova held 3 of the slams yet Graf was number one.

Of course, that was a scenario that actually happened. This, again, is a theoretical situation. It could have happened at the French Open too. Slams are very important, but ultimately a 27 year old player should be able to play at a top ten level for more than 8 weeks in a year. Serena's W-L this year barring Slams = 14-6. Wozniacki's W-L excluding Slams = 38-10.

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 06:23 AM
Who said that ?? :confused: I just said that she's still ranked #2 cause of her slam results (never said she didn't earned these results)and not cause she had "pretty good results outside slams" like you claimed.Aceshigh was right.
Btw, since you brought Safina in this...her results outside slams :

V : Rome, Madrid, Los Angeles, Montreal, Tokyo
F : Sydney, Stuttgart, Olympic games
SF : S'hertogenbosch, Moscow
QF : Indian W., Stuttgart
R32 : Miami
1rst and 2nd round losses : Dubai, YEC

Safina's great clay-court season and Serena's bad one have skewed many people perspectives on their years before then.

Safina's results when she became #1 in early May.

V : Berlin, Los Angeles, Montreal, Tokyo
F : French Open(how could you forget this one?) S'hertogenbosch, Sydney, Olympic games
SF : U.S Open,(you missed this one in your tally;)) Moscow
QF : Indian W., Stuttgart(indoor hardcourt fall 08)
R32 : Miami, Wimbledon(you missed this one too in your tally);)
1rst and 2nd round losses : Dubai, YEC(went 0-3 and didn't win a set :o)

Serena's results prior to injury and horrendous clay court season

V: Miami, Charleston, U.S Open, Australian Open
F: Wimbledon
SF: Stanford, Sydney, Open gaz de Suez(Paris indoors), Dubai
QF: Berlin, Rome, Olympics
R32: FO
1st rnd and 2nd rnd: Stuttgart(indoor hardcourt fall 08), RR:YEC at least she won a match there. Over? :scratch: Dinara

So prior to the injury that all of the sudden makes people think Serena loses 1st round at every tourney that's not a slam.:rolleyes:(sarcasm)

Serena 4 titles(2 slams)/ Dinara 4 titles (no slams)
Serena 1 final lost/ Dinara 4 finals lost (not a good stat to be leading in, in my opinion)
Serena 4 semifinal losses/ Dinara 2 (to show consistency not a good stat to be leading in either, but it does show she wasn't losing early before the injury related bad stretch on clay)
R32: Serena1/Dinara 1 (I'm counting the losses in slams at the French(Serena) and Wimbledon(Dinara) and not Dubai(Dinara) and Stuttgart(Serena) because those losses were really 1st rounds.

So before she got hurt in the semis at Miami Serena had 4 titles,a final(of a slam), 4 semis and 3 quarters. Dinara had 4 titles, 4 finals(2 ugly losses in slam final at that), 2 semifinals, 3 quarters in the previous year. They both had 1st rnd losses in the previous 52 weeks and the YEC is kinda tricky because Serena won a match(over Dinara) and Dinara didn't. There results before the injury and Serena's loosing streak on clay were comparable. It is very disingenuous of some to act as if Serana's record is 2 slams wins, a final and 15 first round losses.(The previous sentence is Hyperbole just in case some may have missed it. :))

Donny
Jun 21st, 2009, 07:17 AM
Since when were the rankings meant to reward raw ability?

They reward the ability to win a lot of matches in all the big tournaments.

Of course. The thing is, though, casual fans tend to equate rankings with ability. They assume the number one player to be the best in the world. Of course, that isn't the case at the moment.

friendsita
Jun 21st, 2009, 07:36 AM
crap

Stamp Paid
Jun 21st, 2009, 07:47 AM
Serena's fans arent bothered. :shrug:

Matt01
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:11 AM
Safina's great clay-court season and Serena's bad one have skewed many people perspectives on their years before then.

Safina's results when she became #1 in early May.

V : Berlin, Los Angeles, Montreal, Tokyo
F : French Open(how could you forget this one?) S'hertogenbosch, Sydney, Olympic games
SF : U.S Open,(you missed this one in your tally;)) Moscow
QF : Indian W., Stuttgart(indoor hardcourt fall 08)
R32 : Miami, Wimbledon(you missed this one too in your tally);)
1rst and 2nd round losses : Dubai, YEC(went 0-3 and didn't win a set :o)



What exactly do you not understand about "results outside of Slams"? :confused:



Serena's results prior to injury and horrendous clay court season



:tape: :lol:

sammy01
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:24 AM
Blah blah blah. Serena would then be holding 3 titles. If she had top 5 results outside slams this wouldn't be an issue. Serena's chances at #1 are in her hands.

exactly, serenas results outside of slams aren't even that of a top 5 player, 1 RU this year outside of the slams isn't that of a #1 player.

safina is winning a lot more matches than serena, safina has 13 more wins and only 1 more loss thats why shes #1.

G1Player2
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:34 AM
exactly, serenas results outside of slams aren't even that of a top 5 player, 1 RU this year outside of the slams isn't that of a #1 player.

safina is winning a lot more matches than serena, safina has 13 more wins and only 1 more loss thats why shes #1.


:rolleyes: If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be saying the complete opposite. Safina is a complete joke as No.1 and I only say that after her horrific and nervous performance at the French Open. SHe had a chance to silence her critics and more than anything prove to herself that she had what it took to be No.1. She proved that she does not have what it takes. And, now that the claycourt season is over I predict a very big fall in the rankings for Safina. ::wavey: Dinara.

volta
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:37 AM
I'll take the three slams then and be happy about it.

ditto

Hazel
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:40 AM
I'll take the three slams then and be happy about it.

Me too! Hingis was number 1 for ages with only the Aussie Open to her name. Players are remembered for their slam record more than the ranking record. More emphasis and points should be on the slams.

DiNozzo
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:46 AM
Me too! Hingis was number 1 for ages with only the Aussie Open to her name. Players are remembered for their slam record more than the ranking record. More emphasis and points should be on the slams.

We ALL know that, so why WS fans always bitching about the N1 spot?:rolleyes:

volta
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:48 AM
We ALL know that, so why WS fans always bitching about the N1 spot?:rolleyes:

yet this thread wasn't made by a WS fan and you have WS fans saying that they'd take the slams over the #1 . fail anyone?

DiNozzo
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:54 AM
yet this thread wasn't made by a WS fan and you have WS fans saying that they'd take the slams over the #1 . fail anyone?

Certainly not me. We do know WS fans have issues with Safina being N1, but if Serena can't reach the spot, maybe you should blame her, because actually it's kinda pathetic to win 2 Slams and still be N2. Rankings points aren't the pb, the problem is Serena's consistency out of Slams.

Matt01
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:57 AM
:rolleyes: If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be saying the complete opposite. Safina is a complete joke as No.1 and I only say that after her horrific and nervous performance at the French Open. SHe had a chance to silence her critics and more than anything prove to herself that she had what it took to be No.1. She proved that she does not have what it takes. And, now that the claycourt season is over I predict a very big fall in the rankings for Safina. ::wavey: Dinara.


:weirdo:

The only complete joke that I'm seeing...that would be you :tape:

volta
Jun 21st, 2009, 10:59 AM
Certainly not me. We do know WS fans have issues with Safina being N1, but if Serena can't reach the spot, maybe you should blame her, because actually it's kinda pathetic to win 2 Slams and still be N2. Rankings points aren't the pb, the problem is Serena's consistency out of Slams.
we don't

again , you have some WS fans HERE saying that they'd rather hold the 3 slams over having her as #1 so all that "WS fans bitching" parade isn't going to work

and i dont blame her for anything , im one of those who couldn't care less about the #1, my favs are still winning slams that's all that matters to me

sammy01
Jun 21st, 2009, 11:05 AM
:weirdo:

The only complete joke that I'm seeing...that would be you :tape:

true but don't quote it, its heaven having it on ignore! ;)

homogenius
Jun 21st, 2009, 11:15 AM
Safina's great clay-court season and Serena's bad one have skewed many people perspectives on their years before then.

Safina's results when she became #1 in early May.

V : Berlin, Los Angeles, Montreal, Tokyo
F : French Open(how could you forget this one?) S'hertogenbosch, Sydney, Olympic games
SF : U.S Open,(you missed this one in your tally;)) Moscow
QF : Indian W., Stuttgart(indoor hardcourt fall 08)
R32 : Miami, Wimbledon(you missed this one too in your tally);)
1rst and 2nd round losses : Dubai, YEC(went 0-3 and didn't win a set :o)

Serena's results prior to injury and horrendous clay court season

V: Miami, Charleston, U.S Open, Australian Open
F: Wimbledon
SF: Stanford, Sydney, Open gaz de Suez(Paris indoors), Dubai
QF: Berlin, Rome, Olympics
R32: FO
1st rnd and 2nd rnd: Stuttgart(indoor hardcourt fall 08), RR:YEC at least she won a match there. Over? :scratch: Dinara

So prior to the injury that all of the sudden makes people think Serena loses 1st round at every tourney that's not a slam.:rolleyes:(sarcasm)

Serena 4 titles(2 slams)/ Dinara 4 titles (no slams)
Serena 1 final lost/ Dinara 4 finals lost (not a good stat to be leading in, in my opinion)
Serena 4 semifinal losses/ Dinara 2 (to show consistency not a good stat to be leading in either, but it does show she wasn't losing early before the injury related bad stretch on clay)
R32: Serena1/Dinara 1 (I'm counting the losses in slams at the French(Serena) and Wimbledon(Dinara) and not Dubai(Dinara) and Stuttgart(Serena) because those losses were really 1st rounds.

So before she got hurt in the semis at Miami Serena had 4 titles,a final(of a slam), 4 semis and 3 quarters. Dinara had 4 titles, 4 finals(2 ugly losses in slam final at that), 2 semifinals, 3 quarters in the previous year. They both had 1st rnd losses in the previous 52 weeks and the YEC is kinda tricky because Serena won a match(over Dinara) and Dinara didn't. There results before the injury and Serena's loosing streak on clay were comparable. It is very disingenuous of some to act as if Serana's record is 2 slams wins, a final and 15 first round losses.(The previous sentence is Hyperbole just in case some may have missed it. :))

1.We were clearly talking about results outsidethe slams
2.We're not in March anymore
3.Which injury were you talking about ? The one she got in Miami (btw we never really knew what it was exactly...), the second one she supposedly got in Madrid (knee injury which magically disappeared at FO...)? Anyway, injuries are part of the sport.
4.This thread is about the possibility of Serena holding 3 slams and still not be #1.Looking at her results outside slams, it's not that chocking and fairly understandable imo
5.This thread was pure trolling by Kworb and I'm still surprised it worked that easily :lol:

Hazel
Jun 21st, 2009, 12:21 PM
Certainly not me. We do know WS fans have issues with Safina being N1, but if Serena can't reach the spot, maybe you should blame her, because actually it's kinda pathetic to win 2 Slams and still be N2. Rankings points aren't the pb, the problem is Serena's consistency out of Slams.

I thought Serena said that Dinara deserved the No 1 ranking? In an interview at RG - Serena said Dinara deserved to be No 1 because she had won so many tournaments. Anyway, I don't think that this is what the thread was about!

Slammer7
Jun 21st, 2009, 06:40 PM
1.We were clearly talking about results outsidethe slams
2.We're not in March anymore
3.Which injury were you talking about ? The one she got in Miami (btw we never really knew what it was exactly...), the second one she supposedly got in Madrid (knee injury which magically disappeared at FO...)? Anyway, injuries are part of the sport.
4.This thread is about the possibility of Serena holding 3 slams and still not be #1.Looking at her results outside slams, it's not that chocking and fairly understandable imo
5.This thread was pure trolling by Kworb and I'm still surprised it worked that easily :lol:

I wanted to tell the full story. You actually didn't give Safina credit for what she had achieved. Since slam matter, as well as regular tournaments I listed them all. If you take slams out of anyones ranking it kills there ranking. A player can't even reach the top 3 if they miss a major since slams are so heavily weighted. I would like to see what the top ten would look like if we took everyone's slam points away. That would be fun to see that, I suspect Zvonareva and Wozniacki would both be top 5. :lol: Razzano would probably be top 15 as well.:lol: Safina may not be #1 by that standard. I have my opinion and you have yours, the season isn't over yet and we will see were we are in November. I was making the point that a month and a half long stretch wasn't a full season for either player and many had tried to judge Serena's previous 52 weeks by the results of 5 of them. If Safina has a bad summer hardcourt season and bombs out of Wimbledon(as usual) will she have bad results for the year because she had a bad 5 or 6 weeks? She had a bad 3 months between the end of January and the beginning of May and that is conveniently forgotten. I never once said Safina doesn't deserve her spot in the WTA rankings now. My point was that all of those people ragging on Serena have a skewed perspective because of the clay court season that quite honestly she never should have played with those leg problems.(which is completely Serena's fault for making that decision) Serena first injured the quad and the knee, then aggravated it by continuing to play on it. In Madrid it wasn't the original injury that was the problem, but another injury sustained from favoring the good knee. Not at all uncommon. That injury obviously was not as severe as the 1st and with 2 weeks to heal it she was OK for the FO. She did wear a brace off court. Do you think she did that for fun? The fact that she was scared and maybe overly cautious in Madrid is understandable considering she had knee surgery. Lindsay was overly cautious too on the knee she had surgery on, would you question her? I love how knee problems from a woman who has had issues with her knees since she was 16(the year she had her 1st knee scope) is some how suspicious.:lol: I don't question other players injuries, because I am not in there bodies, but you go ahead with that.:wavey:

St.Sebastian
Jun 21st, 2009, 06:48 PM
No, she's #2 cause she has the best results in slams by far.Outside slams :

F : Miami
SF : Stanford, Sydney, Paris, Dubai
QF : OG
RR : YEC
1rst or 2nd round losses (didn't win a match) : Stuttgart, Marbella, Rome, Madrid

That's hardly top5 results (actually it's barely top10 results).
Thanks, finally someone said it :bowdown:
I hope Safina shuts them up soon with a GS title

Robert-KimClijst
Jun 21st, 2009, 08:11 PM
Well, think about this as well. If you could do like Serena and just perform your best at slams and be number one, what would happen to the tour? Tournaments outside of slams would suffer greatly. They need to encourage smaller tournaments to keep the tour alive. Imagine how boring the tour would be if players were just like Serena and Venus and mainly concentrated on slams. Besides the grand slams, other tournaments just wouldn't be the slam. You cannot have the WTA Tour revolve around four tournaments a year and that be it. It may be annoying for some to see the same player week in and week out, but it's good for the tour to have the top players playing in all sorts of tournaments. And for them to do this, they need to be rewarded.

sweetpeas
Jun 21st, 2009, 08:14 PM
I'll take the three slams then and be happy about it.

Right!So would the guy on the ATP!Slam"s tells the ranking story on,the men side`

Diesel
Jun 21st, 2009, 09:37 PM
Certainly not me. We do know WS fans have issues with Safina being N1, but if Serena can't reach the spot, maybe you should blame her, because actually it's kinda pathetic to win 2 Slams and still be N2. Rankings points aren't the pb, the problem is Serena's consistency out of Slams.
We also know there are Serena fans who don't have a problem with Dinara being number one. You still fail.

Horizon
Jun 21st, 2009, 09:46 PM
Blah blah blah. Serena would then be holding 3 titles. If she had top 5 results outside slams this wouldn't be an issue. Serena's chances at #1 are in her hands.
:worship:
:worship:
:worship:
:worship:
:worship:
:worship:
:worship:
:worship:

samn
Jun 21st, 2009, 09:59 PM
I believe in 87 Navratilova held 3 of the slams yet Graf was number one.

Of course, that was a scenario that actually happened.

Not quite. Navratilova had two Slams to Graf's one. Mandlikova won the Australian beating Navratilova (Graf and Evert did not play), Graf won the French beating Navratilova, and then Martina returned the favour beating Graf to win Wimbledon and the US Open.

Graf: Boca Raton (VS of Florida), Miami (Lipton Champs), Hilton Head (Family Circle Cup), Amelia Island, Rome (Italian Open), Berlin (German Open), French Open, Los Angeles, Hamburg, Zurich, Virginia Slims Championships

Navratilova: Wimbledon, US Open, Filderstadt, Chicago

Graf's record for the year was 75-2 (lost to Navratilova in the Wimbledon and US finals).

Navratilova's record was 56-8 with losses to Mandlikova (Australian final), Graf (twice - Miami semis and Roland Garros final), Evert (twice - Houston final and Los Angeles semis), Sabatini (twice - Rome semis and WTA Championships quarters), and Sukova (Eastbourne final).

1987 was therefore one of the rather disputed years in terms of the year-end #1. Graf finished #1 on the computer, but three of the seven panelists on the TENNIS magazine panel (Peter Bodo, Judith Elian, and Alan Trengove) picked Navratilova as the #1 based on the "quality is more important than quantity" and "People only remember who won Wimbledon and the US Open" criteria.

joz
Jun 21st, 2009, 11:22 PM
I think Serena winning Wimbledon would be a good chance to show the world just how useless rankings are as a measure of ability.
Perhaps it would...But I'd add that there's also more proof that the Slams are just not that demanding and way over-valued!
As some have pointed out... the draw at Wimbledon is weak for some of the top players. To me that says the slams are no more a test of a player's ability than a one week tournament where they play a top 20 player in the first round and then top 10 players along the way to win the tournament. Maybe the slams should be limited to the top 64 players and played in one week for them to be a real "test". Too much time off between matches to really challenge a fit pro.
Look at the fight Safina's opponents put up in the first four rounds of Roland Garros... ABSOLUTELY no fight!!!... and that's against Safina... the player people say isn't that good and doesn't deserve to be number one. I say the slams are way over-rated and that the top tier I's are more a test of a player's ability... as they play a top player in every single round.

spartanfan
Jun 22nd, 2009, 12:42 AM
I seem to remember one year (2002-maybe) that Serena ended the year ranked #1 and yet had only played 13 tournaments. Serena doesn't need to play more tournaments, she just needs to play very well in those that she does play.

spartanfan
Jun 22nd, 2009, 12:48 AM
I like how you say it as though we should fault Kim for her dedication :rolleyes: As if 22 tournaments is some astronomical number, when there are women who play 30+ :rolleyes:
Some might say that it was Kim's "blind dedication" to the tour and her game that caused her to flame out so early and walk away from the game. With her game on clay courts and hard courts and grass, she should have had even more GS than Sharapova. She choked and flamed out. Classic. Underachiever.

spartanfan
Jun 22nd, 2009, 12:54 AM
I believe in 87 Navratilova held 3 of the slams yet Graf was number one.

Of course, that was a scenario that actually happened. This, again, is a theoretical situation. It could have happened at the French Open too. Slams are very important, but ultimately a 27 year old player should be able to play at a top ten level for more than 8 weeks in a year. Serena's W-L this year barring Slams = 14-6. Wozniacki's W-L excluding Slams = 38-10.
People keep forgetting that Serena's been injured for a great part of this season. She was first injured in Paris and pulled out of the semi's, and took that injury into Dubai the following week. Got injured in Miami, took that injury into Marabella, Rome, and Madrid. Give her a break.

Temporary0369
Jun 22nd, 2009, 12:59 AM
Not quite. Navratilova had two Slams to Graf's one. Mandlikova won the Australian beating Navratilova (Graf and Evert did not play), Graf won the French beating Navratilova, and then Martina returned the favour beating Graf to win Wimbledon and the US Open.

Graf: Boca Raton (VS of Florida), Miami (Lipton Champs), Hilton Head (Family Circle Cup), Amelia Island, Rome (Italian Open), Berlin (German Open), French Open, Los Angeles, Hamburg, Zurich, Virginia Slims Championships

Navratilova: Wimbledon, US Open, Filderstadt, Chicago

Graf's record for the year was 75-2 (lost to Navratilova in the Wimbledon and US finals).

Navratilova's record was 56-8 with losses to Mandlikova (Australian final), Graf (twice - Miami semis and Roland Garros final), Evert (twice - Houston final and Los Angeles semis), Sabatini (twice - Rome semis and WTA Championships quarters), and Sukova (Eastbourne final).

1987 was therefore one of the rather disputed years in terms of the year-end #1. Graf finished #1 on the computer, but three of the seven panelists on the TENNIS magazine panel (Peter Bodo, Judith Elian, and Alan Trengove) picked Navratilova as the #1 based on the "quality is more important than quantity" and "People only remember who won Wimbledon and the US Open" criteria.

Whoops, I'm sorry, I eat my words. I've always been such a dope in History.:tape:

Thkmra
Jun 22nd, 2009, 01:23 AM
I love how you both assumed that was my meaning. Kim retired too early and now is attempting a comeback because she burned herself out. A modern plague on women's tennis.:( Kim, Myskina, Hingis and Dokic led the tour in different years for matches played and tournaments entered and what do they all have in common? :scratch: Early exits from the game. My greater point,(which you both seemed to miss) was that it took Kim( a player I liked mind you) 22 tournaments to do what it took Serena 12 tournaments to do.:p And because Kim played such a heavy schedule and had consistent results she was able to challenge for a ranking that under a quality and winning percentage based ranking system she wouldn't have. Quantity doesn't and shouldn't equal quality. You do understand if Justine hadn't reached the semis of the YEC in 2003 that Kim would have ended the season #1? A season were Serena and Justine both won 2 majors, both beat Kim on the biggest stages of the sport and a year Justine won 8 titles. Come on, you can't always justify slamless #1's by saying "Serena doesn't play enough", because sometimes (shocker I know:eek:) the person who should be #1 at the time isn't Serena.:wavey:

Preach!!!!:worship::worship::worship: You are speaking that real Sh%t..make me wanna highlight,copy, laminate, and place this on my refridgerator!!:tape:

homogenius
Jun 22nd, 2009, 02:29 AM
People keep forgetting that Serena's been injured for a great part of this season. She was first injured in Paris and pulled out of the semi's, and took that injury into Dubai the following week. Got injured in Miami, took that injury into Marabella, Rome, and Madrid. Give her a break.

She wasn't injured in Paris (produced some of her best matches there and serve was ON), she just pulled out cause she was tired (who can blame her with that crazy schedule)and didn't want to take the risk to lose to Lena again.Same for Dubai : we kept hearing that she was injured after she lost the first set against Errani then nothing lol (and I watched her matches : no injury sorry).
Her only true injury was in Miami, and I believe she was still hampered in Marbella but that's it.Rome and Madrid losses(even if she retired against Schiavone lol)were not due to injuries (more like a combination of her not being prepared enough cause of the stuff she had to sell the month before that etc..., the quality of her opponents on the surface and the fact that she's never quite confident on clay, let alone if she's not in tip/top shape).She was fine the next week, playing singles AND doubles at FO.

AcesHigh
Jun 22nd, 2009, 02:36 AM
I'm wondering why this is an issue.

Safina doesnt care
Serena doesnt care
Serena fans don't care
Non-Serena fans don't care

Don't feed the trolls people!!

Serenita
Jun 22nd, 2009, 02:44 AM
I'll take the three slams then and be happy about it.

Brooks.
Jun 22nd, 2009, 05:55 AM
3 slams > #1 ranking

irma
Jun 22nd, 2009, 06:15 AM
When you take over as number 1 you have to prove that you deserve it imho.

When Steffi and Hingis became number 1, it was controversial because both Nav and Steffi's big tournaments results (slams + masters) were superior (over the last 12 months) but both proved afterwards that they definitely deserved that spot so I don't think in hinsight it was such a big deal.

Roookie
Jun 22nd, 2009, 06:16 AM
Serena doesn't care about the no.1 ranking. Its all about the Slams ;):

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3685/renasjump.gif

eugreene2
Jun 22nd, 2009, 08:20 AM
I love how you both assumed that was my meaning. Kim retired too early and now is attempting a comeback because she burned herself out. A modern plague on women's tennis.:( Kim, Myskina, Hingis and Dokic led the tour in different years for matches played and tournaments entered and what do they all have in common? :scratch: Early exits from the game. My greater point,(which you both seemed to miss) was that it took Kim( a player I liked mind you) 22 tournaments to do what it took Serena 12 tournaments to do.:p And because Kim played such a heavy schedule and had consistent results she was able to challenge for a ranking that under a quality and winning percentage based ranking system she wouldn't have. Quantity doesn't and shouldn't equal quality. You do understand if Justine hadn't reached the semis of the YEC in 2003 that Kim would have ended the season #1? A season were Serena and Justine both won 2 majors, both beat Kim on the biggest stages of the sport and a year Justine won 8 titles. Come on, you can't always justify slamless #1's by saying "Serena doesn't play enough", because sometimes (shocker I know:eek:) the person who should be #1 at the time isn't Serena.:wavey:

Extremely well said!!!

Matt01
Jun 22nd, 2009, 09:29 AM
Serena doesn't care about the no.1 ranking. Its all about the Slams ;)


No ;)

~Cherry*Blossom~
Jun 22nd, 2009, 10:08 AM
I'll take holding 3 slams over the #1 spot any day!!

Go Serena! Win Wimbledon 2009 :hug:

bandabou
Jun 22nd, 2009, 10:43 AM
It don't matter. Serena's past that no.1 thing now..it's all about legacy now. If she wins Wimbledon...would give her at least 3 titles at 3 of the 4 major events. A select group!

spartanfan
Jun 22nd, 2009, 02:22 PM
She wasn't injured in Paris (produced some of her best matches there and serve was ON), she just pulled out cause she was tired (who can blame her with that crazy schedule)and didn't want to take the risk to lose to Lena again.Same for Dubai : we kept hearing that she was injured after she lost the first set against Errani then nothing lol (and I watched her matches : no injury sorry).
Her only true injury was in Miami, and I believe she was still hampered in Marbella but that's it.Rome and Madrid losses(even if she retired against Schiavone lol)were not due to injuries (more like a combination of her not being prepared enough cause of the stuff she had to sell the month before that etc..., the quality of her opponents on the surface and the fact that she's never quite confident on clay, let alone if she's not in tip/top shape).She was fine the next week, playing singles AND doubles at FO.
Nope, she was injured.

SAEKeithSerena
Jun 22nd, 2009, 03:00 PM
well maybe if she performed better at other events this wouldn't happen. she needs to respect tournaments outside the slams and she really doesn't it seems.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jun 22nd, 2009, 04:32 PM
Serena's fans arent bothered. :shrug:


puhreach!

Matt01
Jun 22nd, 2009, 06:27 PM
Nope, she was injured.


You are her doctor?

gmokb
Jun 22nd, 2009, 06:41 PM
I can't speak for the other Serena/WS fans but I for one rather her winning the slams than being #1 and not winning another slam. I always believe that tennis is all out the slams, the other events just cosmetic. I don't hear anyone counting the muber of non-slams events won by either of the tennis greats such as Steffi, Martina, Pete, Roger, etc when talking about their greatness. So Safina can keep the #1 position for all I care and the WS keep the slams.