PDA

View Full Version : Besides Slam count and #1, what else is there to differentiate players?


DefyingGravity
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:06 AM
I know this is a weird title, but here's what I found out during the Clijsters and where does she fit debate:

Besides Grand Slam tournaments won and weeks and #1 and finishing #1, people seem to have different sliding scales on what could legitimize "placing" someone ahead of another in terms of decade greats, for example:

Clijsters being ahead of Sharapova because of 2 extra YEC championships, however Maria DID win 3 different Slams (Wimb, USO, and AO). Kim also has 4 slam finalist places (2001 RG, 2003 RG, 2003 USO, 2004 AO) compared to Maria's other one (AO 2007). So while people could use that to raise Kim up above Sharapova, it could also be skewed in another direction due to percentages of Slams won in ratio to slam finals played.

Titles are also another big thing, because placing someone like Sharapova ahead of Clijsters could mean that we'd be placing someone with more tour titles behind someone with one more slam and 3 less finals in slams.

It gets kind of weird trying to quantify these, so I am curious to see your reasoning as well and see what else weighs the most besides Slams and #1 and potentially YEC

-jenks-
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Grand slam titles > Weeks at No. 1 > Number of titles

Uranium
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:19 AM
I am not a big fan of the #1 ranking stats. With the constantly changing system and the "free" 8-10 weeks for getting the YE #1. For instance, spencercarlos once said that Sabatini with the current system would have gotten to #1 or something, maybe he said Martinez. But that doesn't change my point that players might have or players might not have gotten to #1 because of the system they use at a certain point.

I would love to see the #1 player's weeks at #1 with those free weeks taken off.

Anyways, I also like to include Doubles because Doubles is a part of tennis. YEC, titles, the usual:p

Olórin
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:29 AM
Weeks at number one or even year ends aren't that useful these days. Not to mention the fact that players like Court played before the computerised system and probably would have had 100's of weeks at number one.

I used to think the fact that you had been number one at all was the important thing - but even that is starting to be ruined now. :rolleyes:

You really have to consider a variety of factors. Slams - then everything else is secondary, highest rank, other titles (Olympics, YEC Miami), doubles, H2Hs, caliber of wins at tournaments/slams, even gamestyle if you're struggling that much.

There's no real way. I have my own personal tiering system in which I rank players - but within tiers you can change the order on any given day.

Sam L
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:40 AM
No. 1 ranking is useless for reasons given above.

Evert used to skip Australian Opens and French Opens in the 70s to play WTT (which back then was very prestigious and lucrative) so even slam count is shaky to completely rely on.

I'd say slam count (singles, doubles and mixed) alone but within historical context and remembering factors like the pro tour (for the men), world team tennis, Davis Cup and other factors.

Like history, it's a dicussion not a statistical comparison.

Stamp Paid
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:49 AM
It always depends on what your favorite player has most of.

miffedmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:17 AM
Like I said in the thread about Kim, I think we're entering into a time when it's more difficult than ever to compare because the nature of the tour has changed so much.

In the old days, the tour was largely limited to North America and Europe, and it really was a tour--you toured from city to city in an almost leisurely fashion (at least compared to now). The player with the most slams almost invariably logged the most tour wins, the most weeks at #1, the most tour titles, etc. They had the whole package.

That's not the case any more. I'm not going to rehash all of my old post, but I think with the massive travel schedules with all the new events and the utter lack of rhyme and reason as to when events are played, we've basically seen the emergence of two tracks, a slam track and a tour track. Some players excel at the slam track, some at the slam track. Bascially, if the current trend continues, get used to having a lot of slamless #1s, and a lot of slam winners who don't do jack on the tour the rest of the year.

It's an ugly situation, but that's how I see it. I think it's going to get harder, not easier to differentiate players. Right now, because it's easier to count slams, people are going with those and #1 and tour titles are being devalued--too much IMHO. But I think we may see the slams start to lose value, too, if the current trend continues and that's not going to be good for tennis. Something needs to be done to get schedules, rankings and slams back into some sort of alignment because right now all are being debased.

trufanjay
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:25 AM
I would say....

Grand Slam Titles > Number of Titles > Weeks at #1

DragonFlame
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:41 AM
Quickly out of my head this is how i rank it in the statistics i do.

Singles:

-Amount of slams
-Diversity of slams/Careerslam/Calendar Grandslam
-Olympics/YEC
-Year-End No.1
----------------------
-Amount of Other titles
(definetly taking Tier1/superpremier,2/premier etc in consideration)
-Weeks @ no.1
-Career Win/loss
(-Doubles)
----------------------
Other Stats:
-Amount of Slamfinals
-Non-Win results outside of Slamfinals(Slam SF, QF ETC)
-Top10 record
-H2H



I treat doubles as a completely seperate entity, if i have to rate it to compare it with singles it would end up as lowest in the 2nd category. If i'm forgetting something(i'm doing this quick right now) don't hesitate to comment.

moby
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:44 AM
Olympics singles, then number of French Open titles, then weeks at number one. Yeah.

AnomyBC
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:48 AM
Personally, I rank players by these criteria:

1. GS Titles
2. Total Titles
3. Highest Rank/Weeks at #1
4. General Looks/Attractiveness
5. Career Win/Loss Ratio
6. Total Earnings (Winnings + Endorsements)
7. Number of Men's Magazine Photo Shoots
8. Friendliness to Fans/Willingness to Pose for Pictures with Me
9. General Personality/Sense of Humor
10. Sexiness of Tennis Outfits
11. Frequency of Practices Wearing Sports Bra
12. Breast Size

I actually have some other criteria as well, but that's the gist of my system. I've used it for a few years now and it seems to work pretty well :)

PS - Just to clarify, my system only considers singles. Doubles doesn't count for anything.

trufanjay
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:53 AM
Like I said in the thread about Kim, I think we're entering into a time when it's more difficult than ever to compare because the nature of the tour has changed so much.

In the old days, the tour was largely limited to North America and Europe, and it really was a tour--you toured from city to city in an almost leisurely fashion (at least compared to now). The player with the most slams almost invariably logged the most tour wins, the most weeks at #1, the most tour titles, etc. They had the whole package.

That's not the case any more. I'm not going to rehash all of my old post, but I think with the massive travel schedules with all the new events and the utter lack of rhyme and reason as to when events are played, we've basically seen the emergence of two tracks, a slam track and a tour track. Some players excel at the slam track, some at the slam track. Bascially, if the current trend continues, get used to having a lot of slamless #1s, and a lot of slam winners who don't do jack on the tour the rest of the year.

It's an ugly situation, but that's how I see it. I think it's going to get harder, not easier to differentiate players. Right now, because it's easier to count slams, people are going with those and #1 and tour titles are being devalued--too much IMHO. But I think we may see the slams start to lose value, too, if the current trend continues and that's not going to be good for tennis. Something needs to be done to get schedules, rankings and slams back into some sort of alignment because right now all are being debased.
I agree with most of your post but I don't think grand slams will ever lose value. With the physical change of the game and the many tournaments its harder for players to dominate like they did 20 years ago. I think a lot of top players are not as concerned with winning non-grand slam tournaments as they were in the past. Like you said, that is just the turn that the tour has taken.

I think the number of injuries on the women's tour contributes to this also.

Sund7101
Feb 16th, 2010, 02:33 AM
Success in both singles and doubles is something I think should differentiate players. Navratilova, Williams x2, Hingis, Davenport,and Sanchez Vicario are all multiple slam winners in singles and in doubles. I think that is a great stat!

Vartan
Feb 16th, 2010, 02:40 AM
Personally, I rank players by these criteria:

1. GS Titles
2. Total Titles
3. Highest Rank/Weeks at #1
4. General Looks/Attractiveness
5. Career Win/Loss Ratio
6. Total Earnings (Winnings + Endorsements)
7. Number of Men's Magazine Photo Shoots
8. Friendliness to Fans/Willingness to Pose for Pictures with Me
9. General Personality/Sense of Humor
10. Sexiness of Tennis Outfits
11. Frequency of Practices Wearing Sports Bra
12. Breast Size

I actually have some other criteria as well, but that's the gist of my system. I've used it for a few years now and it seems to work pretty well :)

PS - Just to clarify, my system only considers singles. Doubles doesn't count for anything.

Why not, you could add it how hot do they look next to their doubles partner :lol:

thegreendestiny
Feb 16th, 2010, 03:08 AM
Class. Elena Dementieva for example.

omoruyi
Feb 16th, 2010, 03:28 AM
-THE Grandslam
-majors titles
-tour titles
-major finals
-career grandslam
-the end!!!!

all the other stats are minor compared to the above, like win % & head to head, etc.

personally, i dont value olympics, weeks at #1 or doubles at all...and since the YEC aint a major, its 'just' another title...

kiwifan
Feb 16th, 2010, 04:47 AM
I hear that players actually play against other players and one of them tends to win...perhaps the one who wins more times might be a fun and interesting way to "differentiate" between players. :p

But really Slams and Head to Head are all I really care about...everything else is just filler so the players can make some $$$ and work on their games...:shrug:

Caralenko
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:11 AM
What the fuck is all this "Number 1 doesn't count for anything" bullshit?

A player who wins enough consistently and performs at her best will gain enough points to hit the #1 ranking. You don't like the system? I don't see you coming up with a better one. It's logical - the player who does the best, is the best. This system will show who performs at the highest level for a stretch of time. If they are placed ahead of another player who has won more titles on bigger stages then all it means is that the second player either doesn't play enough, or isn't as consistent as the first over this particular time period. Grow some balls and deal with it, this is a professional sport and they know what they're doing. If you reach #1 then you are a skilled tennis player who was the best/most consistent at one particular time.

It is very relevant to this discussion.

This is a tour, not the Sony Ericsson Four Grand Slam Events and Miami. And this is from a Safina/WS fan.

Donny
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:15 AM
What the fuck is all this "Number 1 doesn't count for anything" bullshit?

A player who wins enough consistently and performs at her best will gain enough points to hit the #1 ranking. You don't like the system? I don't see you coming up with a better one. It's logical - the player who does the best, is the best. This system will show who performs at the highest level for a stretch of time. If they are placed ahead of another player who has won more titles on bigger stages then all it means is that the second player either doesn't play enough, or isn't as consistent as the first over this particular time period. Grow some balls and deal with it, this is a professional sport and they know what they're doing. If you reach #1 then you are a skilled tennis player who was the best/most consistent at one particular time.

It is very relevant to this discussion.

This is a tour, not the Sony Ericsson Four Grand Slam Events and Miami. And this is from a Safina/WS fan.

Actually, several poster on this forum have.

At any rate, the number one ranking shows who accumulates the most points based on a point system devised by the WTA. Nothing more nothing less. It's no more objective that what you and I think.

Ksenia.
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:15 AM
It always depends on what your favorite player has most of.

So true.

Caralenko
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:34 AM
Actually, several poster on this forum have.

At any rate, the number one ranking shows who accumulates the most points based on a point system devised by the WTA. Nothing more nothing less. It's no more objective that what you and I think.

I'm not saying it isn't objective, but they play on the WTA tour and they are ranked by the WTA. Why is it that most fans consider the #1 ranking something to discard when it comes to greatness, but there was a collective orgasm on TF when Serena got her rank back up?

Because it does count.

Volcana
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:37 AM
Limiting it to where people rank as singles players (Hingism for example, would be ahead of Henin overall, but behind Henin if you limit it to singles) ....

Slam singles titles
Total singles
Being clearly the best player on tour at some point in your career
Longevity - Being a top player for a long time is better than being a top player for a short time


NOTE:Given that ranking systems change every couple years, weeks-at-#1 is meaningless. HIngis in 2001 being a good example. ALso Jankovic and Safina.

moby
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:49 AM
Limiting it to where people rank as singles players (Hingism for example, would be ahead of Henin overall, but behind Henin if you limit it to singles) ....Is "Hingism" the orgasm Martina fans get when she hits the perfect dropshot-lob combo? :drool:

As in, "OMG, I just had a Hingism. That was a perfectly measured topspin lob by Martina."

Zauber
Feb 16th, 2010, 06:19 AM
ranking any outstanding athlete is difficult. However I use the largest competions in any sport rather than than the day to day grind. To me excellence is more important in sports than day to day grind. Sport should be about excellence and not going to work.
Therefore I consider mainly the competions in which all the best player in a sport show up and are being prepared seriously. (not just attracted by money bonues as in exhibitions and near exhibitions and some ordinary events in any sport)
So you really only have to look to the olympics and world championships in any sports to find the greats in any sport. Nothing else really matters for the best.
In tennis i would say look at how often some one wins a grand slam. Is runner up in a grand slam and maybe quarter-finalist. This will give you an almost fail safe list.
however if you compare two players and they come very close. I would look at their head to head.
Why are the Olympics and the world championships sooo very important and nothing else?
Because only at those events do you have alllll the best athletes show up in the best shape that they can be.
To me that is what sports is all about competing against the best when everyone is prepared and it really matters to everyone.
In tennis it is the Grand Slam Tournaments.

Zauber
Feb 16th, 2010, 06:24 AM
doubles obiously is a different competion................
anyone not understanding that does not understand sports.
Being good at two sports is wonderful and admirable but it does not make you better in one of the sports.

Zauber
Feb 16th, 2010, 06:31 AM
however if you think doubles the the same sport as singles
that is your prevledge. I n my above post i was too harsh.
however to me they are separate. Even Mcenroe thinks so who loved to play doubles.
he would love to use it to elevate himself above lendl but he does not.
in the men's the argument is never used.
I dont know why its used for women and on this board another crazy idiocycrocy of this group.

Zauber
Feb 16th, 2010, 06:36 AM
however if you think doubles the the same sport as singles
that is your prevledge. I n my above post i was too harsh.
however to me they are separate. Even Mcenroe thinks so who loved to play doubles.
he would love to use it to elevate himself above lendl but he does not.
in the men's the argument is never used.
I dont know why its used for women and on this board another crazy idiocycrocy of this group.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 07:10 AM
For a lot of people- skin colour

Sam L
Feb 16th, 2010, 08:01 AM
Limiting it to where people rank as singles players (Hingism for example, would be ahead of Henin overall, but behind Henin if you limit it to singles) ....

Slam singles titles
Total singles
Being clearly the best player on tour at some point in your career
Longevity - Being a top player for a long time is better than being a top player for a short time


NOTE:Given that ranking systems change every couple years, weeks-at-#1 is meaningless. HIngis in 2001 being a good example. ALso Jankovic and Safina.

Volcana, I remember you starting a thread about chess and I think mentioned rankings. I was talking to a friend of mine who plays chess and is ranked and he was commenting how ridiculous the tennis ranking system is because it doesn't measure your skills but how much you play and when and how much you win. I play chess but casually and I'm not really familiar with that ranking system. And he's not a tennis player but knew how the rankings worked but he wouldn't know the ins and outs of tennis.

I know it's a completely different sport and won't be workable but it does give food for thought, doesn't it? I mean a system like that is the ultimate in comparison between players.

Svetlana)))
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:16 AM
What the fuck is all this "Number 1 doesn't count for anything" bullshit?

A player who wins enough consistently and performs at her best will gain enough points to hit the #1 ranking. You don't like the system? I don't see you coming up with a better one. It's logical - the player who does the best, is the best. This system will show who performs at the highest level for a stretch of time. If they are placed ahead of another player who has won more titles on bigger stages then all it means is that the second player either doesn't play enough, or isn't as consistent as the first over this particular time period. Grow some balls and deal with it, this is a professional sport and they know what they're doing. If you reach #1 then you are a skilled tennis player who was the best/most consistent at one particular time.

It is very relevant to this discussion.

This is a tour, not the Sony Ericsson Four Grand Slam Events. And this is from a Safina/WS fan.

There.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:21 AM
Quickly out of my head this is how i rank it in the statistics i do.

Singles:

-Amount of slams
-Diversity of slams/Careerslam/Calendar Grandslam
-Olympics/YEC
-Year-End No.1
----------------------
-Amount of Other titles
(definetly taking Tier1/superpremier,2/premier etc in consideration)
-Weeks @ no.1
-Career Win/loss
(-Doubles)
----------------------
Other Stats:
-Amount of Slamfinals
-Non-Win results outside of Slamfinals(Slam SF, QF ETC)
-Top10 record
-H2H



I treat doubles as a completely seperate entity, if i have to rate it to compare it with singles it would end up as lowest in the 2nd category. If i'm forgetting something(i'm doing this quick right now) don't hesitate to comment.

i find rating year end #1 over weeks at #1 stupid. so a player with say 9 weeks #1 but the year end #1 included in that, has better stats than someone with say 35 weeks at number 1 but non of them being the year end #1.

miffedmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:32 AM
The tour rankings systems change, but it's not like the quality of the fields at slams or the difficulty of winning one is a constant either. Top players don't show up because of injury, or play hurt, or simply have a bad day at the office and suddenly somebody has a cakewalk. Some players benefit tremendously from a home court advantage, or these days with such a short grass season because his or her game is particularly suited to grass.

Pretending that slams are somehow the one legitimate gold standard is pretty iffy, too. Again, they're a huge accomplishment, but easily overrated, especially in the case of players with one or two of them (now, yes, when you start amassing them six or seven or more, you're probably pretty good, but like I said before at that point you've probably got a #1 ranking to go with them). But increasingly, in this day and age, I am as suspect of a player who can win a few slams but can't do anything else as I am of a player who can't win a slam. There are simply too many intrinsic structural weaknesses in the tour right now.

miffedmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:37 AM
I agree with most of your post but I don't think grand slams will ever lose value. With the physical change of the game and the many tournaments its harder for players to dominate like they did 20 years ago. I think a lot of top players are not as concerned with winning non-grand slam tournaments as they were in the past. Like you said, that is just the turn that the tour has taken.

I think the number of injuries on the women's tour contributes to this also.

Not yet, maybe. But I am seriously postulating a scenario down the road where we have slam winners how have never been #1. Or close to it. Not a given, but if the disconnect between rankings and slam wins continues as the tour and the slams becomes bigger and bigger, I think it could happen. There have been times in the past when the tours and the slams nearly split and the slams did become much less important than they are now.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:45 AM
For a lot of people- skin colour

I agree. Anyone who doesn't think that Serena is the undisputed queen of the universe is clearly a hideous racist.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:45 AM
doubles obiously is a different competion................
anyone not understanding that does not understand sports.
Being good at two sports is wonderful and admirable but it does not make you better in one of the sports.

Tennis- One sport, but 3 disciplines (singles, doubles, and mixed). If you are able to master more than one it makes you a better player of the sport than a person who only can master 1.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:49 AM
Tennis- One sport, but 3 disciplines. If you are able to master more thant one it makes you a better player than a person who only can master 1.

Sorry, but doubles is simply the same sport but without the majority of top players. Liezel Huber and Cara Black just aren't in the same talent pool as the Williamses, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova etc. ANY two top singles players who teamed up on a regular basis could win doubles slams - but they choose not to because doubles is now considered irrelevant, and that's just the way it is.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:52 AM
I agree. Anyone who doesn't think that Serena is the undisputed queen of the universe is clearly a hideous racist.

You need to get out more.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:53 AM
Sorry, but doubles is simply the same sport but without the majority of top players. Liezel Huber and Cara Black just aren't in the same talent pool as the Williamses, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova etc. ANY two top singles players who teamed up on a regular basis could win doubles slams - but they choose not to because doubles is now considered irrelevant, and that's just the way it is.

that would make sense if Henin and Sharapova et al had actually gone out and easily won doubles slams in the past. They haven't so yours is just an unfounded (&biased) OPINION

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:53 AM
You need to get out more.

LOL. Sorry, but you can't say that when apparently you're the one who's so paranoid that you think any Williams "hater" is racist.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:55 AM
Tennis- One sport, but 3 disciplines (singles, doubles, and mixed). If you are able to master more than one it makes you a better player of the sport than a person who only can master 1.

i was wondering where he got off thinking doubles is a different sport :lol: if you are able to dominate all disciplines of your ONE sport then you should be lauded for it...if not then they would not have a doubles tour which is run the same way as the singles...

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:55 AM
that would make sense if Henin and Sharapova et al had actually gone out and won doubles slams. They haven't so yours is just an unfounded (&biased) OPINION

They haven't done it because doubles is irrelevant. :shrug: What basis do you have to say that it IS relevant? Is it solely because it's played at a Grand Slam? In that case, do you think we should give another Slam to Navratilova because she won the invitational event at the AO?

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:55 AM
Sorry, but doubles is simply the same sport but without the majority of top players. Liezel Huber and Cara Black just aren't in the same talent pool as the Williamses, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova etc. ANY two top singles players who teamed up on a regular basis could win doubles slams - but they choose not to because doubles is now considered irrelevant, and that's just the way it is.

It is not irrelevant, as some players get into the Hall of Fame on their doubles career alone. Also, if it is such a waste land of talent, why don't other big names compete and win on the regular. Safina was a world number 1 and she did not win anything major on the double circuit IIRC. Similar situation for Sveta/Azarenka. Maybe it is not as easy as people think.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:56 AM
LOL. Sorry, but you can't say that when apparently you're the one who's so paranoid that you think any Williams "hater" is racist.

Please tell me when I ever said that? Really, I'd love to know.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:56 AM
It is not irrelevant, as some players get into the Hall of Fame on their doubles career alone. Also, if it is such a waste land of talent, why don't other big names compete and win on the regular. Safina was a world number 1 and she did not win anything major on the double circuit IIRC. Similar situation for Sveta/Azarenka. Maybe it is not as easy as people think.

exactly....

eta: mauresmo, lindsay, kim, hingis, annak have all played doubles and singles...and none of them do i ever recall saying that doubles was a walk in the park and not important, especially since they all played regular tour events AND slams AND at some point the YEC...so apparently the tennis HOF AND the players themselves know less about what counts in tennis than a few people on a forum

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:57 AM
i was wondering where he got off thinking doubles is a different sport :lol: if you are able to dominate all disciplines of your ONE sport then you should be lauded for it...if not then they would not have a doubles tour which is run the same way as the singles...

The doubles tour mainly exists these days to give struggling singles players some form of revenue.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 11:58 AM
Also, if it is such a waste land of talent, why don't other big names compete and win on the regular.

Because it's so irrelevant that most don't see the point.

(Although, fyi, Safina won a doubles Slam - and then gave it up when she hit the big time in singles.)

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:00 PM
They haven't done it because doubles is irrelevant. :shrug: What basis do you have to say that it IS relevant? Is it solely because it's played at a Grand Slam? In that case, do you think we should give another Slam to Navratilova because she won the invitational event at the AO?

why is doubles relevant? The prize money, the ranking points, the tournaments, the television coverage, the fact that some people actually live off a career based entirely on it... I could go on.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it irrelevant. Tell the fans posting in the doubles forum that it is irrelevant, tell Cara and Liezel, Venus and Serena, daniela, vika, sveta etc ...

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:01 PM
Please tell me when I ever said that? Really, I'd love to know.

It was implied by your comment. You said some people consider skin colour a factor in determining greatness. But, considering I've never seen any commments on here disparaging Serena on the basis of her skin colour, that means you're basing your opinion is offensive and ignorant.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Because it's so irrelevant that most don't see the point.

(Although, fyi, Safina won a doubles Slam - and then gave it up when she hit the big time in singles.)

Ok, well I am done with this, because I have my opinion and you have yours. You can't change an already determined mind, so continuing this discussion would be futile, and I have other things to do with my time.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:02 PM
. Maybe it is not as easy as people think.

great players make sport look easy. Maybe he sees the Williams playing well and winning easily and thinks "hey anyone can do that!"

Olórin
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:04 PM
I really regret not logging on before posting these days because there ignore list doesn't work and there is always a high chance of seeing one of Dsander's ignorant posts, on a number of topics (at least he's branching out).

Seriously, clearly quite new to the game, very opinionated and lacking the grasp of many of the finer elements of what makes tennis what it is. Stop posting :o

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:04 PM
why is doubles relevant? The prize money, the ranking points, the tournaments, the television coverage, the fact that some people actually live off a career based entirely on it... I could go on.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it irrelevant. Tell the fans posting in the doubles forum that it is irrelevant, tell Cara and Liezel, Venus and Serena, daniela, vika, sveta etc ...

Well, Wimbledon pays the least out of all the Slams, yet I'm pretty sure you were one of the ones arguing Wimbledon was the most "prestigious" and thus most important a few months ago, which shows you don't have a consistent view on prize money.
Ranking points is irrelevant since the points are only compared to other doubles points anyway.
And doubles gets very little television coverage, which proves my point more than it does yours.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:06 PM
great players make sport look easy. Maybe he sees the Williams playing well and winning easily and thinks "hey anyone can do that!"

I mainly base it on the fact a near-50-year-old Navratilova was still one of the top doubles players.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:06 PM
some go tweet sveta, vika, caro, serena or bjk....tell them doubles is irrelevant because a few people on this forum think so, so that they can retweet it to each other and stop that meaningless part of their careers....

also tell the tennis HOF to take off the doubles off the records of every HOFer since it is meaningless...guess Pam Shriver is now out :awww:

Olórin
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:07 PM
Ok, well I am done with this, because I have my opinion and you have yours. You can't change an already determined mind, so continuing this discussion would be futile, and I have other things to do with my time.

As if Safina was struggling for cash before she hit big time in singles :lol: Her brother is Marat Safin.
She very likely gave it up because she couldn't handle mentally or physically going deep in singles and doubles slams.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:07 PM
I really regret not logging on before posting these days because there ignore list doesn't work and there is always a high chance of seeing one of Dsander's ignorant posts, on a number of topics (at least he's branching out).

Seriously, clearly quite new to the game, very opinionated and lacking the grasp of many of the finer elements of what makes tennis what it is. Stop posting :o

Sorry.

gO Ree Ree, u da best, show dem racist hatazzzzz and win all the slams!!!!111ONE!!1

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:09 PM
some go tweet sveta, vika, caro, serena or bjk....tell them doubles is irrelevant because a few people on this forum think so, so that they can retweet it to each other and stop that meaningless part of their careers....

Go and tweet Sharapova, Safina, Henin, Clijsters, Ivanovic, Graf, Seles, Pierce, Capriati, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Sampras and Agassi and tell them that it IS relevant.

Olórin
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:10 PM
I mainly base it on the fact a near-50-year-old Navratilova was still one of the top doubles players.

Ahh so you're hinging your entire premise of doubles being pointless on one player. It's nice to have this insight into the feebleness of your logic.

Navratilova: the woman with most Doubles Slams and titles and bascially all the other doubles records of all time, is some what of an exception, one would think.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:10 PM
It was implied by your comment. You said some people consider skin colour a factor in determining greatness. But, considering I've never seen any commments on here disparaging Serena on the basis of her skin colour, that means you're basing your opinion is offensive and ignorant.

one thing i've noticed from my interactions with you dsanders, and i'm saying this from a purely positive and helpful place, is that you make A LOT of assumptions and you read into stuff that isn't actually said, talking about how things are "implied" etc. If you want to have constructive discussions with others you really have to let go of this part of your personality because it really detracts from any argument you are attempting to make. Alternatively, try asking questions to clarify matters before you jump on the gun. :)

One small example- you assume my post was in relation to Serena or what people on this forum say about her which was Not true.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:11 PM
the decline of doubles has happened, and it is becoming more and more irrelevant. no player will ever make HOF status on doubles alone anymore. federer is widely known as the greatest player ever, yet he has never won a doubles slam, if it was relevant there is no way someone with no doubles slam could be labeled the greatest ever.

WS fans still value it because their faves are the last top singles players to bother playing it (which is more down to the fact that they can play with their sister, you never see them play with anyone else, so if it was really important they would). once the WS are gone that will be it for singles and doubles combined players. the WS are old school brought up in the 90's when doubles still had meaning, sadly that time is long past.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Ahh so you're hinging your entire premise of doubles being pointless on one player. It's nice to have this insight into the feebleness of your logic.

Navratilova: the woman with most Doubles Slams and titles and bascially all the other doubles records of all time, is some what of an exception, one would think.

I didn't say entirely, I said mainly.

And I definitely stand by that a 45-year-old is never near the top of a respectable sport. That's commonsense.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Ahh so you're hinging your entire premise of doubles being pointless on one player. It's nice to have this insight into the feebleness of your logic.

Navratilova: the woman with most Doubles Slams and titles and bascially all the other doubles records of all time, is some what of an exception, one would think.

As they say the last thing to go are the hands.......She could still be very competitive because she had excellent hands at the net. The different disciplines require a different set of skills. Some players are unable to adapt their games and so are limited.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Well, Wimbledon pays the least out of all the Slams, yet I'm pretty sure you were one of the ones arguing Wimbledon was the most "prestigious" and thus most important a few months ago, which shows you don't have a consistent view on prize money.
Ranking points is irrelevant since the points are only compared to other doubles points anyway.
And doubles gets very little television coverage, which proves my point more than it does yours.

see what i mean regarding assumptions :lol: and you base your entire argument on the assumption that i think that Wimbledon is the most prestigious. If i told you i think the USO is the best, what would you say? :)

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:16 PM
one thing i've noticed from my interactions with you dsanders, and i'm saying this from a purely positive and helpful place, is that you make A LOT of assumptions and you read into stuff that isn't actually said, talking about how things are "implied" etc. If you want to have constructive discussions with others you really have to let go of this part of your personality because it really detracts from any argument you are attempting to make. Alternatively, try asking questions to clarify matters before you jump on the gun. :)

One small example- you assume my post was in relation to Serena or what people on this forum say about her which was Not true.

OK, then please explain and what you meant by your "skin colour" comment, and specify which posters use skin colour as a factor, and what evidence you have of that.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:17 PM
the decline of doubles has happened, and it is becoming more and more irrelevant. no player will ever make HOF status on doubles alone anymore. federer is widely known as the greatest player ever, yet he has never won a doubles slam, if it was relevant there is no way someone with no doubles slam could be labeled the greatest ever.

WS fans still value it because their faves are the last top singles players to bother playing it (which is more down to the fact that they can play with their sister, you never see them play with anyone else, so if it was really important they would). once the WS are gone that will be it for singles and doubles combined players. the WS are old school brought up in the 90's when doubles still had meaning, sadly that time is long past.


What about the Woodies.....

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:17 PM
I didn't say entirely, I said mainly.

And I definitely stand by that a 45-year-old is never near the top of a respectable sport. That's commonsense.

i dont understand how the age of competitors affects the relevance of a sport.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:17 PM
As they say the last thing to go are the hands.......She could still be very competitive because she had excellent hands at the net. The different disciplines require a different set of skills. Some players are unable to adapt their games and so are limited.

Reactions start to deteriate after the age of 40.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:18 PM
i dont understand how the age of competitors affects the relevance of a sport.

LOL.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:19 PM
What about the Woodies.....

and they last competed together when?

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:20 PM
the decline of doubles has happened, and it is becoming more and more irrelevant. no player will ever make HOF status on doubles alone anymore. federer is widely known as the greatest player ever, yet he has never won a doubles slam, if it was relevant there is no way someone with no doubles slam could be labeled the greatest ever.

WS fans still value it because their faves are the last top singles players to bother playing it (which is more down to the fact that they can play with their sister, you never see them play with anyone else, so if it was really important they would). once the WS are gone that will be it for singles and doubles combined players. the WS are old school brought up in the 90's when doubles still had meaning, sadly that time is long past.

the decline of tennis on a whole has happened....so should we start devaluing women's singles as well since it doesn't rake in the fans in the stands as it once did?? of course not...

call me when the players and the HOF decide doubles is meaningless...not fans who think it is...and clearly not ONLY ws fans think doubles is relevant (but since that's the only argument people can put forward) since there is a doubles forum here with posters OUTSIDE of ws fans

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:22 PM
oh and why should doubles be irrelevant because sisters play together??? pam and nav weren't sisters and were more successful...maybe, just MAYBE, they are actually good at what is needed to succeed in doubles?

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:26 PM
LOL.
nice! Very endearing.

I guess men's tennis was irrelevant when mid 30s agassi was near the top.
OK, then please explain and what you meant by your "skin colour" comment, and specify which posters use skin colour as a factor, and what evidence you have of that.

i didn't have specific posters in mind (don't see why i should). It was based on my own observation of the people in the media/commentators placing certain players above others based on colour. Or insinuating that certain players have physical advantages. That typa thing

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:27 PM
the decline of tennis on a whole has happened....so should we start devaluing women's singles as well since it doesn't rake in the fans in the stands as it once did?? of course not...

call me when the players and the HOF decide doubles is meaningless...not fans who think it is...and clearly not ONLY ws fans think doubles is relevant (but since that's the only argument people can put forward) since there is a doubles forum here with posters OUTSIDE of ws fans

that shows how weak your point is, take out the WS fans posts and the doubles forum is dead. over on the mens side where the top men have completely stopped playing doubles it is even worse. in 5 years the womens will be exactly the same.

90% of the players already think doubles is meaningless, bar some extra cash and a hit and giggle with a friend.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:28 PM
Reactions start to deteriate after the age of 40.

You know I was not going to respond to you, but I can't leave this ignorance unchallenged. Reaction time does drop later in life but it is not a sudden drop.....Think of it more as a bell curve, in which after you reach your peak reaction time, you begin the slow descent downward. Her reaction time was so good at the net, even a small loss of reaction time is better than what most tennis players currently have. She was no fool either, as she surrounded herself with excellent doubles partners that could compensate for her loss of skills.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:29 PM
The Hall of Fame inducts pretty much anyone who can get a serve in, seriously. That's never been used as any kind of indicator of greatness.

Seriously, on what basis is doubles important? Prize money isn't an argument, because in that case, we'd have to say a US Open title is worth more than a Wimbledon title.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:29 PM
oh and why should doubles be irrelevant because sisters play together??? pam and nav weren't sisters and were more successful...maybe, just MAYBE, they are actually good at what is needed to succeed in doubles?

:hug: at you for not being able to understand, if doubles was important, why didn't venus or serena play with other partners when either one was injured?

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:29 PM
and they last competed together when?

Your point being,what?

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:30 PM
I guess men's tennis was irrelevant when mid 30s agassi was near the top.

No, because mid-30s isn't mid-40s.


i didn't have specific posters in mind (don't see why i should). It was based on my own observation of the people in the media/commentators placing certain players above others based on colour.

Examples?

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:30 PM
:hug: at you for not being able to understand, if doubles was important, why didn't venus or serena play with other partners when either one was injured?

Serena has played with Alexandra Stevenson and Martina Navratilova.....funny though she won with Alex and loss with Martina.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:31 PM
Your point being,what?

the decline is a recentish thing, thus woodies are not of this generation that doesn't value doubles.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:32 PM
The Hall of Fame inducts pretty much anyone who can get a serve in, seriously. That's never been used as any kind of indicator of greatness.

Seriously, on what basis is doubles important? Prize money isn't an argument, because in that case, we'd have to say a US Open title is worth more than a Wimbledon title.

the fact that they are paid at all.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:33 PM
Serena has played with Alexandra Stevenson and Martina Navratilova.....funny though she won with Alex and loss with Martina.

for fun, and that is 2 in the hundereds of tournaments she has played. name a slam she played doubles in without venus? exactly, so obviously winning doubles slams is only relevant if done with ones sister.

Feyd
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:33 PM
call me when the players and the HOF decide doubles is meaningless...

Hall of Fame is even more irrelevant than doubles. Its founding goal was not to promote tennis interests but to preserve a historic building. All those years, they accepted ridiculous amount of US players and ignored other countries (as if tennis was not being played elsewhere). It just looks like a cheap imitation of NBA and NFL HOFs.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:33 PM
:hug: at you for not being able to understand, if doubles was important, why didn't venus or serena play with other partners when either one was injured?

why do they have to??? why break a working formula??? so that ya'll can be pleased and say it counts? i understand perfectly what you're saying: doubles doesn't count because i say so, and the ws win easily because they are sisters....

and fyi: the ws stopped playing doubles in that injury stretch because their bodies were breaking down easily...from 03-07 the were both suffering from one injury or the other...if they got other partners what difference would it have made?? then when they withdrew you'd hear how classless they are because they have no respect for their partners :rolleyes:

again...call me when HOF and the players decide doubles is irrelevant...your thinking so doesn't make it irrelevant

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:33 PM
No, because mid-30s isn't mid-40s.




Examples?

i'll send you a pm when i can get on a computer later ok? :hug:

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:34 PM
the fact that they are paid at all.

So are the linesmen. So do we also have to start evaluating which linesmen figure in the GOAT stakes?

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Hall of Fame is even more irrelevant than doubles. Its founding goal was not to promote tennis interests but to preserve a historic building. All those years, they accepted ridiculous amount of US players and ignored other countries (as if tennis was not being played elsewhere). It just looks like a cheap imitation of NBA and NFL HOFs.

doesn't matter if it is to promote tennis...the fact that it has criteria for you to get in speaks volumes when the HOF takes into consideration: doubles....you think players don't care if they get into the HOF??? why is such a big deal made here when players get into the HOF??? but then disregard their criteria once you don't agree

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Serena has played with Alexandra Stevenson and Martina Navratilova.....funny though she won with Alex and loss with Martina.

it's called not knowing the players you try to be so "objective" about

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:37 PM
again...call me when HOF and the players decide doubles is irrelevant...your thinking so doesn't make it irrelevant

Well, we've already established the HOF is irrelevant, and most of the top 10 evidently do consider doubles irrelevant seeing as most of them never play it, so expect that phonecall anytime now.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:38 PM
it's called not knowing the players you try to be so "objective" about

erm i knew that, but the exception proves my point, theres no reason for serena or venus to not play doubles with any other player at all tournaments, but they choose not to because unless they are doing it with each other they really don't care.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:38 PM
the decline is a recentish thing, thus woodies are not of this generation that doesn't value doubles.

Well then if this decline is as pervasive as you say, then the Hall of Fame would start to modify its criteria for induction. Since they haven't been inducted yet, and there is this decline in doubles, then I guess it is safe to assume they never will. I guess we will see won't we.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:40 PM
doesn't matter if it is to promote tennis...the fact that it has criteria for you to get in speaks volumes when the HOF takes into consideration: doubles....you think players don't care if they get into the HOF??? why is such a big deal made here when players get into the HOF??? but then disregard their criteria once you don't agree

Players don't really care. And I haven't been on this forum that long, but on another big tennis forum I used to frequent, the HoF was rarely mentioned. Seriously, you realise the HoF isn't endorsed by the ITF/WTA/ATP or anyone? It has no objective voice at all. It's no more relevant than if I posted a thread of my Hall of Fame.

The Witch-king
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:41 PM
So are the linesmen. So do we also have to start evaluating which linesmen figure in the GOAT stakes?

i don't understand your logic. For one, linespeople are not tennis players. Two, you surely don't believe they are irrelevant to the game? They are a necessary part of tennis and are paid as such so... I'm just not sure how this furthers your point.

If you don't mind me asking dsanders how old are you?

Feyd
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:42 PM
doesn't matter if it is to promote tennis...the fact that it has criteria for you to get in speaks volumes when the HOF takes into consideration: doubles....you think players don't care if they get into the HOF??? why is such a big deal made here when players get into the HOF??? but then disregard their criteria once you don't agree

You don't get it. Hof of Tennis has no major historical credibility or importance in tennis world. Most tennis fans are not even aware of its existence (unlike NFL and NBA HOFs which are highly respected). Just because they make a big fanfare when they are about to induct someone famous does not make them relevant.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:43 PM
Well then if this decline is as pervasive as you say, then the Hall of Fame would start to modify its criteria for induction. Since they haven't been inducted yet, and there is this decline in doubles, then I guess it is safe to assume they never will. I guess we will see won't we.

why bother changing criteria, they have inducted seles ect, so they are obviously already fine with putting people in on singles results alone and will continue doing so (maybe a doubles/singles player in a very slow year).

brickhousesupporter
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:44 PM
for fun, and that is 2 in the hundereds of tournaments she has played. name a slam she played doubles in without venus? exactly, so obviously winning doubles slams is only relevant if done with ones sister.

Why didn't Zvonereva/Fernandez, Flach/Segusso, McEnroe/Flemming, and Navratilova/Shriver not break up their successful partnership during their success? I don't know maybe, because if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.:shrug: Maybe the sisters both want to have their Major double career be the same. There are so many more better possibilities other than doubles being irrelevant.:shrug:

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:46 PM
You don't get it. Hof of Tennis has no major historical credibility or importance in tennis world. Most tennis fans are not even aware of its existence (unlike NFL and NBA HOFs which are highly respected). Just because they make a big fanfare when they are about to induct someone famous does not make them relevant.

Exactly. I've never known anyone even attempt to use the Hall of Fame as an argument before this thread. I thought everyone knew it was a nice but ultimately irrelevant bit of fluff.

sammy01
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:47 PM
Why didn't Zvonereva/Fernandez, Flach/Segusso, McEnroe/Flemming, and Navratilova/Shriver not break up their successful partnership during their success? I don't know maybe, because if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.:shrug: Maybe the sisters both want to have their Major double career be the same. There are so many more correct possibilities other than doubles being irrelevant.:shrug:

because they all played the same tournaments, and they all moved on and played with other players when they had to/needed to.

madmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:50 PM
You don't get it. Hof of Tennis has no major historical credibility or importance in tennis world. Most tennis fans are not even aware of its existence (unlike NFL and NBA HOFs which are highly respected). Just because they make a big fanfare when they are about to induct someone famous does not make them relevant.

exactly...the recent example of tennis HOF lack of credibility was shown on the men's side, when Olympic champion and 2-time Grand Slam champion Kafelnikov was not included in it, while he clearly deserves it. That list is clearly pro - western and pro-american, as it tends to ignore great players from the Eastern parts of the world:fiery:

miffedmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:51 PM
So are the linesmen. So do we also have to start evaluating which linesmen figure in the GOAT stakes?

Actually, officials get evaluated, ranked and win awards for their contributions to the game just like players do.:ras:

While I've never worked at the pro level, I can tell you it takes a lot of time and dedication to be able to do so.

Like the old "I Love Lucy" show sketch says, "Nobody loves the Ump," but try putting on a tournament without us. Yeah, I just froze my nuts off for 9 hours this weekend working a juniors in 34 F. weather. The players got to go home and warm up between matches. I didn't have any "between matches."

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 12:54 PM
Actually, officials get evaluated, ranked and win awards for their contributions to the game just like players do.:ras:

While I've never worked at the pro level, I can tell you it takes a lot of time and dedication to be able to do so.

Like the old "I Love Lucy" show sketch says, "Nobody loves the Ump," but try putting on a tournament without us. Yeah, I just froze my nuts off for 9 hours this weekend working a juniors in 34 F. weather. The players got to go home and warm up between matches. I didn't have any "between matches."

I wasn't dismissing the officials' contribution in a general sense. :p I was pointing out that the linesmen aren't relevant to tennis history in the same way top players are, thus refuting the assertion that getting paid makes it relevant.

EDIT: Reading this back, it doesn't really make sense... but I'm tired and I know what I meant. :)

miffedmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 01:46 PM
I wasn't dismissing the officials' contribution in a general sense. :p I was pointing out that the linesmen aren't relevant to tennis history in the same way top players are, thus refuting the assertion that getting paid makes it relevant.

EDIT: Reading this back, it doesn't really make sense... but I'm tired and I know what I meant. :)

I wasn't being a total jerk about your post either...but I bet even a lot of the hardcore tennis fans around here didn't know officials get awards, too. :yeah:

Volcana
Feb 16th, 2010, 02:19 PM
I didn't say entirely, I said mainly.

And I definitely stand by that a 45-year-old is never near the top of a respectable sport. That's commonsense.Rand Couture woon the UFC heavyweight championship at 44 year old. I beleive two years ago. And mma is definitely a 'respectable' sport. I grant you, that is an unusual circumstance not likely to be repated. The guy is a bit of a genetic freak. But so is Navratiova.
ANY two top singles players who teamed up on a regular basis could win doubles slamsTHat simply isn't true. The decision making in doubles is quite different. There is also that matter of practice time, havign to co-ordinate schedules to get that practice time, and match play. Venus and Serena Williams grew up togethe, have played with and against each other all their lives AND are both elite tennis players with big serves. ANd one of them is VERY tall.
They can play doubles together only four times a year and be successful, because of their history. You wouldn't get the same result with two of the other top players right now.

I think, if Davenport and Hingis came back right now and trid it, they might be able to. They both won mutilpe doubles slams with different partners. But when would they practice?

miffedmax
Feb 16th, 2010, 02:36 PM
There have been genetic freaks in other sports. Sir Stanley Matthews, for example, was still playing in the English First Division (now the EPL) well into his 40s. Any 'merican kid who grew up in the '60s and '70s remembers George Blanda of the Oakland Raiders (albeit mostly a kicker, but still playing QB on occasion) in his 40s. Nolan Ryan pitched into his 40s. Didn't Gordie Howe play hockey until he was 50?

Some people are just blessed with amazing genes--and an outrageous work ethic, one has to believe, as well. There's a reason Martina was able to come back and compete in her 40s and, with all due respect, her old partner Pam couldn't.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 16th, 2010, 03:06 PM
You don't get it. Hof of Tennis has no major historical credibility or importance in tennis world. Most tennis fans are not even aware of its existence (unlike NFL and NBA HOFs which are highly respected). Just because they make a big fanfare when they are about to induct someone famous does not make them relevant.

really??? and people here don't make a big fanfare?? like when seles got in??? please...most tennis fans ARE aware of the HOF just like the are of doubles....and guess what...THE PLAYERS are aware of it and feel honoured to get into it....


AGAIN...call me when players and the HOF say something is irrelevant, since THEY are the ones in the sport...until i hear the top players themselves say:

i think doubles is totally irrelevant and HOF is not respectable because it isn't like the NBA's etc, so we aren't considering it etc, THEN you can talk about what is relevant and have a legit argument....

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 04:08 PM
So a question to the doubles fanboys: do you think Pam Shriver, Natasha Zvereva and Gigi Fernandez are part of the GOAT debate? For all of Zvereva's 14 doubles slams, she's still most remembered for getting demolished by Graf in a French Open final.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Rand Couture woon the UFC heavyweight championship at 44 year old. I beleive two years ago. And mma is definitely a 'respectable' sport. I grant you, that is an unusual circumstance not likely to be repated. The guy is a bit of a genetic freak. But so is Navratiova.
THat simply isn't true. The decision making in doubles is quite different. There is also that matter of practice time, havign to co-ordinate schedules to get that practice time, and match play.

Jelena Jankovic and Andy Murray met for the first time at the beginning of Wimbledon 2007, and practiced together for the first time half an hour before their first-round match. They went on to win the title.

Federer and Wawrinka, playing together for the first time, won the Olympic Gold (the biggest prize on offer in doubles), defeating the top-ranked doubles team en route.

Safina and Kuznetsova, playing doubles together for one of the first times, made the quarters at the Olympics, and came very close to beating former doubles Slam champs Zheng/Yan, just a couple of hours after Safina had played a three-hour singles match.

Donny
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:00 PM
Jelena Jankovic and Andy Murray met for the first time at the beginning of Wimbledon 2007, and practiced together for the first time half an hour before their first-round match. They went on to win the title.

Federer and Wawrinka, playing together for the first time, won the Olympic Gold (the biggest prize on offer in doubles), defeating the top-ranked doubles team en route.

Safina and Kuznetsova, playing doubles together for one of the first times, made the quarters at the Olympics, and came very close to beating former doubles Slam champs Zheng/Yan, just a couple of hours after Safina had played a three-hour singles match.

Wrong sibling.

Donny
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:08 PM
I didn't say entirely, I said mainly.

And I definitely stand by that a 45-year-old is never near the top of a respectable sport. That's commonsense.

Jeff Feagle made the pro bowl at the age of 42.

Volcana
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:20 PM
There have been genetic freaks in other sports. Sir Stanley Matthews, for example, was still playing in the English First Division (now the EPL) well into his 40s. Any 'merican kid who grew up in the '60s and '70s remembers George Blanda of the Oakland Raiders (albeit mostly a kicker, but still playing QB on occasion) in his 40s. Nolan Ryan pitched into his 40s. Didn't Gordie Howe play hockey until he was 50?

Some people are just blessed with amazing genes--and an outrageous work ethic, one has to believe, as well. There's a reason Martina was able to come back and compete in her 40s and, with all due respect, her old partner Pam couldn't.Well said all 'round.

dsanders06
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:23 PM
Wrong sibling.

LOL quite.


Jeff Feagle made the pro bowl at the age of 42.

Is he considered one of the top five players in the sport?

Donny
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:27 PM
LOL quite.




Is he considered one of the top five players in the sport?

That year he was. He was, imo (taken with a grain of salt, because I'm a Giants fan) the best punter in the NFC. He was a large reason as to why the Giants won the Super Bowl that year.

Volcana
Feb 16th, 2010, 05:34 PM
Jelena Jankovic and Andy Murray met for the first time at the beginning of Wimbledon 2007, and practiced together for the first time half an hour before their first-round match. They went on to win the title.Mixed isan unusual case because they only play it at the slams. You never face a team that plays together regularly. There IS no 'regularly.Federer and Wawrinka, playing together for the first time, won the Olympic Gold (the biggest prize on offer in doubles), defeating the top-ranked doubles team en route.While this IS a good example to back up your point, first of all, they had Federer. He happens to have all the skills you need to be a great doubles player, and he's smart enough that he can run around without a coach. Very much not the normal case.Safina and Kuznetsova, playing doubles together for one of the first times, made the quarters at the Olympics, and came very close to beating former doubles Slam champs Zheng/Yan, just a couple of hours after Safina had played a three-hour singles match.Safina's singes match is irrelevant to the discussin. We see that these players have the cardio to tat frenquently. However, look at the outcome. Two top five singles players, one of whom used to be Navratilova's partner, so she learned from the best, and they still lost. Quite possibly because they were playing an actual doubles team.

And if you stick to the WTA, you'll see the same thing in almost every case. The Williams sisters are a very bad example. Let's take them out of the equation. Which other two top ten players could only play the slams this year and win a title? (While playing singles, incidentally.)

omoruyi
Feb 16th, 2010, 10:15 PM
wow, this thread really got rolling...in determining greatness of accomplishment, doubles titles obv. 'count'...

Re: what else is there to differentiate players?

^ but to betermine the above, doubles is useless isnt it? to determine skill & ability or greatness of a 'player', has it any additional athletic skills required to play it?( in spite of todays game being pre-dominated by baseliners :p )?

rather, isnt it just a less athletic version of 'real' tennis which is proudly akin to boxing, fencing, greco-roman wrestling & other 1 vs 1 sports?
and i dont buy that it is a different discipline; it is still the same sport & rules, but it is a separate competition, one that never has or will determined a players merits. Pam shriver aint on Kim Clijsters level :lol:

doubles has a rich history maybe?..but 'it is what it is' and should remain so. Filler. Filler that was inspired by?..(i dont know; ask a historian :p
even if its competitions return to their past glory it is secondary...

DefyingGravity
Feb 16th, 2010, 10:23 PM
I feel as though you need a great set of skills for doubles, and if someone is able to do both well, it should really be taken into consideration.

omoruyi
Feb 20th, 2010, 06:58 PM
should it be considered because it is good for the tours visibility/promotion ?

Great singles players excelling in doubles; whats the signifigance? while it adds to their resume & shows more committment (maybe?), it doesnt elevate a players abilities or skill level...the skill-set is the same for both competitions in theory.

thrust
Feb 20th, 2010, 10:11 PM
I feel as though you need a great set of skills for doubles, and if someone is able to do both well, it should really be taken into consideration.

The problem is that since the Navratilova era, most top singles players do not play doubles. Martina an all time great and Shriver a top 10 player usually played 2nd or 3rd tier singles players in their doubles matches. Naturally, they are going to win most of the time. The Williams, two all time great singles players are also are playing second or third rate singles players in their doubles competition. They also usually win whenever they compete. Court, King, Cassals, Bueno, Wade, Jones, Turner, Richey, all top singles players of their era also competed in doubles Therefore, the doubles competition was much tougher then. The same is true of the du Pont, Brough, Hart, Fry, Betz, Palfrey era.

Dave.
Feb 20th, 2010, 11:03 PM
So a question to the doubles fanboys: do you think Pam Shriver, Natasha Zvereva and Gigi Fernandez are part of the GOAT debate? For all of Zvereva's 14 doubles slams, she's still most remembered for getting demolished by Graf in a French Open final.

Of course they are.


Safina and Kuznetsova, playing doubles together for one of the first times, made the quarters at the Olympics, and came very close to beating former doubles Slam champs Zheng/Yan, just a couple of hours after Safina had played a three-hour singles match.

What's so odd about 2 Grand Slam doubles champions taking another pair of Grand Slam doubles champions to three sets in a doubles match?

The problem is that since the Navratilova era, most top singles players do not play doubles. Martina an all time great and Shriver a top 10 player usually played 2nd or 3rd tier singles players in their doubles matches. Naturally, they are going to win most of the time. The Williams, two all time great singles players are also are playing second or third rate singles players in their doubles competition. They also usually win whenever they compete. Court, King, Cassals, Bueno, Wade, Jones, Turner, Richey, all top singles players of their era also competed in doubles Therefore, the doubles competition was much tougher then. The same is true of the du Pont, Brough, Hart, Fry, Betz, Palfrey era.

7 of the top 10 (including 5 of the top 6) singles players competed in the women's doubles at this year's AO.

dsanders06
Feb 20th, 2010, 11:09 PM
Of course they are.

Just to clarify, you think Gigi Fernandez is a greater player than Monica Seles?

Dave.
Feb 20th, 2010, 11:23 PM
Just to clarify, you think Gigi Fernandez is a greater player than Monica Seles?

Yes. Of course, unfortunately, Monica is a unique case when it comes to these type of debates. :sad:

dsanders06
Feb 20th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Yes.

Well, we're always going to very much disagree on this point.

Knizzle
Feb 20th, 2010, 11:40 PM
I think wins over other Top players.