PDA

View Full Version : Who is greater: Schiavone or Jankovic?


Lucemferre
Jun 9th, 2010, 02:51 PM
:weirdo:

Daruma.
Jun 9th, 2010, 02:54 PM
Being a Jankovic fan, I might sound biased. But I think it is Jankovic who is greater in all aspects.

TeamUla
Jun 9th, 2010, 02:54 PM
Jesus Christ, people. Can't you stop creating such useless threads?
Thank you.

Umberella
Jun 9th, 2010, 02:55 PM
Jankovic, easily. She hasn't won a slam yet, but she's been consistently higher ranked for a long time.

SoClose
Jun 9th, 2010, 02:56 PM
1GS > 0GS
Schiavone > Jankovic

Volcana
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:01 PM
Schiavone is 'greater'. Jankovic is a more effective tennis player.

Lucemferre
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:02 PM
After these responses it's clear nobody understands the concept of being greater.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:14 PM
For me its Jankovic.

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:32 PM
JJ has actually been ranked #1 in the world.

While the title of #1 in the world has been somewhat sullied in recent months, it's still an amazing accomplishment, and there have still been far fewer #1s than there have been slam winners.

For most of the the '70s, the '80s, and well into the '90s, being #1 was much more highly regarded than winning a slam. This "slams are the end-all and be all" mentality is fairly recent, and it may not outlast the Sampras/Williams era.

A good two weeks does not outweight a good five years. I can only imagine the howls of protest if that sort of standard were applied at your workplace or school.

"Yeah, I know you had the highest grades all through high school, but Mary did really, really well on ONE project, so we're going to let her be valedictorian."

Yeah, right.

Ferg
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:33 PM
Being a Jankovic fan, I might sound biased. But I think it is Jankovic who is greater in all aspects.

Even in Slam winning aspects???

Lucemferre
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:41 PM
This is another easy one actually. Jankovic is greater by far,just like Dementieva.

@danieln1
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:41 PM
If you consider the number 1 ranking more important, then Jankovic

If you consider a grand slam more important, then Francesca

Something like 99,9% of the players think a slam is more worthy than the number 1 ranking, therefore Francesca, so far, is the greater player, because if Jelena dosn´t win a slam, she´ll always be remembered as the "worst number 1" or "the slamless number 1" etc.

Miccor
Jun 9th, 2010, 03:48 PM
First of all, I'm getting a little bit tired of all those non-threads about who's greater. :o And second, I don't see the benefit of such threads when the players in question are still active... I think you can only judge and compare them after they announced their retirements. Only then you can say something useful about their carreers.

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:02 PM
If you consider the number 1 ranking more important, then Jankovic

If you consider a grand slam more important, then Francesca

Something like 99,9% of the players think a slam is more worthy than the number 1 ranking, therefore Francesca, so far, is the greater player, because if Jelena dosn´t win a slam, she´ll always be remembered as the "worst number 1" or "the slamless number 1" etc.

99.9%. Really?

Even Serena seems to suddenly be taking being #1 seriously.

tonybotz
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:04 PM
at this point Schiavone. history shines a kind light on Champions of Major events.

JackFrost
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:04 PM
Sometimes grand slam wins don´t have something to do with greatness, but the ability to be on the right place to the right time.
It´s not always the case, that you have to beat the best of the world to win a slam.
So, slams are very overrated today. Personally I consider player greater, who are consistent in the top 10 or top 5 (Jankovic, Dementieva, MJ Fernandez, etc.) that any one slam wonder.

Lucemferre
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:06 PM
If you consider the number 1 ranking more important, then Jankovic

If you consider a grand slam more important, then Francesca

Something like 99,9% of the players think a slam is more worthy than the number 1 ranking, therefore Francesca, so far, is the greater player, because if Jelena dosn´t win a slam, she´ll always be remembered as the "worst number 1" or "the slamless number 1" etc.

Again zero brain.This is not a situation where you can take only their biggest wins and determine who's greater.Jankovic is miles ahead of schiavone career wise and one major isn't enough to fill that gap. IF their careers were close then yes one major would be the tie breaker but schiavone's career doesn't compare to jankovic.

cellardoor
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:45 PM
I think franny is a better player and it has nothing to do with the GS. she's more intelligent and more versatile. in terms of accomplishments, jankovic wins that, at least on consistency alone.


franny also has a greater, more annoying grunt.

narutos
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:47 PM
JJ has actually been ranked #1 in the world.

Don't remind me.

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:48 PM
at this point Schiavone. history shines a kind light on Champions of Major events.

Yeah, because "one-slam wonder" is always a compliment, and never meant in the sense of "How the fucking hell did she/he EVER win anything, let alone a major?":weirdo:

@danieln1
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:48 PM
99.9%. Really?

Even Serena seems to suddenly be taking being #1 seriously.

She always said it was a bonus that she was number 1, that she focuses in winning tournaments... but obviously, the majority of the players would like to win a slam over the number 1 ranking

Joe.
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:49 PM
I personally can't see Jankovic winning a slam unless her game becomes more attacking.
Therefore, RG> no RG. Schiavone>Jankovic.

Serenita
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:50 PM
at this point Schiavone. history shines a kind light on Champions of Major events.

this

dsanders06
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:50 PM
Jankovic hands down.

Madoka
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:52 PM
Schiavone has a nicer tennis to watch...

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 04:53 PM
A majority is a far cry from 99.9%.

And, as I've already pointed out, that's a perspective that has changed over time and may change again.

It's also slightly different when you're Serena Williams and have multiple majors, more than 30 tour wins and have dozens of weeks at number one. Realistically, 90% of the tour would love to win ANY title, or crack the top 20.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:03 PM
Schiavone

Slam > No slam

terjw
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:08 PM
Cannot believe the mentality of those thinking Fran is.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Schiavone had one chance for greatness and she grabbed it with both hands. Jankovic has had about a half dozen opportunities and she has fallen short each time. Schiavone gets my nod.

Slutiana
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Schiavone

Slam > No slam
Yup.

madmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:20 PM
Franny has a slam, so that's a no brainer for me:shrug:

Lucemferre
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:23 PM
Can't believe how many people are idiots:tape::lol: This makes me wonder why the hell there was even a discussion with Serena and henin in 2007. If one major makes a crappy player like schiavone greater than Jankovic :shrug:

SoClose
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:39 PM
Schiavone . Schiavone . Schiavone .Schiavone :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::b ounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce: :bigwave::bigwave::rocker::rocker:

SoClose
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:39 PM
Schiavone

Slam > No slam

:yeah:

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:51 PM
Lol, why is Dementieva beating Schiavone handily in their poll but Fran is beating Jankovic in this one? Dementieva is way overrated by TF. You would think she was a near-GOAT instead of a perpetual bridesmaid.

I voted for Fran btw. I always judge on who has the most Slams. I'm not going to stop just because Fran won one and we entered the Twilight Zone.

Volcana
Jun 9th, 2010, 05:55 PM
After these responses it's clear nobody understands the concept of being greater.So explain it for us.

Madoka
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:08 PM
Can't believe how many people are idiots:tape::lol: This makes me wonder why the hell there was even a discussion with Serena and henin in 2007. If one major makes a crappy player like schiavone greater than Jankovic :shrug:

yuo are cappy.

Volcana
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:09 PM
For most of the the '70s, the '80s, and well into the '90s, being #1 was much more highly regarded than winning a slam. Maybe 'much more highly regarded' by YOU, but what's you evidence that that was any kind of universal sentiment?

The #1 ranked player, til this last decade, was a multi-slam winner. (Tracy Austin might be an exception.) Being #1 wasn't more highly regarded than being a slam winner. If you were even in contention for #1, you WERE a slam winner. Then came 2001, when VEnus won 2 slams, JenCap won two slams, and Martina Hingis was #1 all year. And the world was forced to actually decide which was more illustrious.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:14 PM
Lol, why is Dementieva beating Schiavone handily in their poll but Fran is beating Jankovic in this one? Dementieva is way overrated by TF. You would think she was a near-GOAT instead of a perpetual bridesmaid.

I voted for Fran btw. I always judge on who has the most Slams. I'm not going to stop just because Fran won one and we entered the Twilight Zone.

Elena is more popular than Jelena clearly.

Personally I do think a bit of consistency should be applied by people. It is hard to argue Schiavone is better the Elena but not Jelena or vice versa. Either she is better than both of them or neither of them. One simply can not apply the 1 slam > 0 slam argument against Jankovic but not against Dementieva. I can accept arguments both ways but to suggest Schiavone is better than Jelena but not Elena doesn't ring true.

Speaking personally I have Fran over both. But I can accept others making a case that both Elena and Jelena belong above Fran on the basis of their overall careers.

Serenita
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Schiavone

Slam > No slam
;)

faboozadoo15
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:21 PM
Jelena, not by a lot though. Getting to #1 and winning all the big titles she's won is greater than 2 weeks of awesomeness.

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:27 PM
Maybe 'much more highly regarded' by YOU, but what's you evidence that that was any kind of universal sentiment?

The #1 ranked player, til this last decade, was a multi-slam winner. (Tracy Austin might be an exception.) Being #1 wasn't more highly regarded than being a slam winner. If you were even in contention for #1, you WERE a slam winner. Then came 2001, when VEnus won 2 slams, JenCap won two slams, and Martina Hingis was #1 all year. And the world was forced to actually decide which was more illustrious.

I'm basing my statement by remarks made by players at the time--no sorry, I can't cite them all for everybody--and the fact that top players used to routinely skip slams, especially in the '70s and '80s.

The idea that slams have always been the most important thing in tennis is revisionist history. They may be considered as such now, but the trend of chasing slams for slams sake really only goes back as far as Sampras and the Williams sisters.

Lucemferre
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:30 PM
So explain it for us.

Jankovic: 1 major final,18 weeks at no1,175 weeks in top 10, year end no1 and ITF player of year in 2008. 12 titles, 6 of them tier one. Best major results sf sf rd4 f. Titles on all surfaces. Win percentage 67%. 34-52 top 10 record 40%.

Schiavone: 1 major win, in her first week in top 10 at age 29, 4 titles, 3 MM, one fluke major. Best major results rd4 w qf qf. Titles on hard and clay. Win percentage 60%. 25-65 top ten record 28%.


Jankovic hasbeen at the top for much longer and her statistics are much better. One major isn't enough to compensate this.

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Schiavone had one chance for greatness and she grabbed it with both hands. Jankovic has had about a half dozen opportunities and she has fallen short each time. Schiavone gets my nod.


Jankovic took the opportunity when she had it and got to #1 - Fran never even had a chance to come near that.

Jankovic.

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Jankovic took the opportunity when she had it and got to #1 - Fran never even had a chance to come near that.

Jankovic.

Jelena actually had multiple chances in 2008 to get No.1 before she did, and she lost and missed them all. :lol: She ended up getting it 'cause Ana lost her game. Even that she couldn't take her opportunities with.

Some people like miffedmax have good points, but the way I look at it Fran had one chance. She took it. How many chances have Elena and Jelena had put together to win Slams? And they missed them all. That's a big blight on their record. If they are remembered at all they will be remembered as the girls who got close but didn't have the game/mind to take any of the chances presented to them.

meteor
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Elena is more popular than Jelena clearly.

Personally I do think a bit of consistency should be applied by people. It is hard to argue Schiavone is better the Elena but not Jelena or vice versa. Either she is better than both of them or neither of them. One simply can not apply the 1 slam > 0 slam argument against Jankovic but not against Dementieva. I can accept arguments both ways but to suggest Schiavone is better than Jelena but not Elena doesn't ring true.

Speaking personally I have Fran over both. But I can accept others making a case that both Elena and Jelena belong above Fran on the basis of their overall careers.

i understand your point but, i must admit, i listed schiavone as being better than elena, but i have jelena as better than schiavone. my logic for this is simple: elena has been disappointing people for much longer, and on more occasions than jelena, who has only one slam final and, i'm sure, less semis than elena. so, at least for me, this is not a coontradiction.

Optima
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:40 PM
Call me cheesy, but I would rather have Jelena's 12 titles over Fran's RG title. There is more to tennis than just the slams, otherwise, the slams wouldn't be nearly as prestigious as they are. However, creating memories all around the world, winning in multiple different countries, playing so many finals, even thought you haven't won all of them...that is the real prize.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:44 PM
Making analogy with an ATP:

Question: Who is greater Rios or Johansson?
Answer:Rios.

Same about WTA. Jankovic>>>Schiavone

_marial_
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:46 PM
Jankovic.

Serenita
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:48 PM
Call me cheesy, but I would rather have Jelena's 12 titles over Fran's RG title. There is more to tennis than just the slams, otherwise, the slams wouldn't be nearly as prestigious as they are. However, creating memories all around the world, winning in multiple different countries...that is the real prize.

I guess settling for less is just your thing. I rather be THE bride then a forever bridesmaid. :)

Optima
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:51 PM
I guess settling for less is just your thing. I rather be THE bride then a forever bridesmaid. :)

I mean, I guess. You don't need a slam to be happy. But that's not the important thing in tennis, right? If she wins a slam, she does. If she doesn't, she doesn't. She will still have been a goddamn great player who beat many of the game's greats.

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:58 PM
Jelena actually had multiple chances in 2008 to get No.1 before she did, and she lost and missed them all. :lol: She ended up getting it 'cause Ana lost her game. Even that she couldn't take her opportunities with.


That is what happens so often. One player takes advantage when another player loses her game or gets injured. Fran, to some degree, also won RG cause Stosur lost her game in the final. No offense but I take that just as an excuse.

Caillou
Jun 9th, 2010, 06:59 PM
Yea, I agree with others, these types of threads are useless while players are still active. Jelena is pretty young and could very well win a major. Even still, all things considered, I consider Jelena to be the greater player.

Elenarulez
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:00 PM
Schiavone

Slam > No slam

:tape:

delicatecutter
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:00 PM
1 Major > back to back Roma titles

Caillou
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:01 PM
That is what happens so often. One player takes advantage when another player loses her game or gets injured. Fran, to some degree, also won RG cause Stosur lost her game in the final. No offense but I take that just as an excuse.

For once, it's not just you. That's the name of the game. Jelena earned her number one ranking, no doubt about it.

Caillou
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:02 PM
1 Major > back to back Roma titles

Umm were you planning on factoring in number 1 ranking, top 10 wins, major final, semifinals, several quarter finals, weeks in top 10, tour titles ETC?

delicatecutter
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:04 PM
Umm were you planning on factoring in number 1 ranking, top 10 wins, major final, semifinals, several quarter finals, weeks in top 10, tour titles ETC?

No. :p

Serenita
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:04 PM
I mean, I guess. You don't need a slam to be happy. But that's not the important thing in tennis, right? If she wins a slam, she does. If she doesn't, she doesn't. She will still have been a goddamn great player who beat many of the game's greats.

Happiness has nothing to do with greatness. Franny is the greater player in my eyes she has won the Title every tennis player dreams of. As of yet JJ has not. Who knows what will happen in months /years to come. As it stands now Franny is the greater.

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:06 PM
That is what happens so often. One player takes advantage when another player loses her game or gets injured. Fran, to some degree, also won RG cause Stosur lost her game in the final. No offense but I take that just as an excuse.

The way Fran and Jelena reacted in these situations are completely different. Jankovic pretty much literally lost her way to No.1. She got much better after it was handed to her. Schiavone grabbed the RG title, she raised her level in the biggest moment and became a champion.

Caillou
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:06 PM
No. :p

ha. okay no problem, just checking ;)

Optima
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:08 PM
Happiness has nothing to do with greatness. Franny is the greater player in my eyes she has won the Title every tennis player dreams of. As of yet JJ has not. Who knows what will happen in months /years to come. As it stands now Franny is the greater.

Greatness as a term is so subjective, there should be a thread on what defines it. I'd still take JJ's career over Fran's.

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:16 PM
The way Fran and Jelena reacted in these situations are completely different. Jankovic pretty much literally lost her way to No.1. She got much better after it was handed to her. Schiavone grabbed the RG title, she raised her level in the biggest moment and became a champion.


So I guess Ana handed the #1 to Jelena on the silver platter? That's really nice of her.

Bruno71
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:21 PM
As much as I love Fran and this past fortnight, RG proved that fluking a slam isn't out of the realm of possibility. She beat a few players that aren't great on clay (Li, Wozniacki), a lower ranked player than herself (Kirilenko), received a retirement from an injured top 5 player (Dementieva), and then played extremely well against a completely and suddenly off-her-game finalist (Stosur). It was a great run, but JJ's run in Cincinnati last year was more impressive to me in pure terms of wins. Two weeks do not a career make, but Fran is awesome anyway.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Great, another thread ... :help:

Mistress of Evil
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:25 PM
Schiavone H2H with the great and some other top10 players : :tape:

Conchita Martínez 1–2 Jelena Janković 1–3 Justine Henin 1–7
Jelena Dokić 0–2 Mary Pierce 0–2 Monica Seles 0–2
Martina Hingis 0–3 Ana Ivanović 0–3 Serena Williams 2–4
Anastasia Myskina 0–3 Maria Sharapova 0–3 Svetlana Kuznetsova 4–8
Jennifer Capriati 0–4 Lindsay Davenport 0–5 Amanda Coetzer 3–0
Venus Williams 0–7 Vera Zvonareva 0–9 Kim Clijsters 0–11
Amélie Mauresmo 5–4 Nadia Petrova 4–2 Elena Dementieva 5–6
Daniela Hantuchová 4–2 Patty Schnyder 5–4 Samantha Stosur 2–4

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:25 PM
Jankovic: 1 major final,18 weeks at no1,175 weeks in top 10, year end no1 and ITF player of year in 2008. 12 titles, 6 of them tier one. Best major results sf sf rd4 f. Titles on all surfaces. Win percentage 67%. 34-52 top 10 record 40%.

Schiavone: 1 major win, in her first week in top 10 at age 29, 4 titles, 3 MM, one fluke major. Best major results rd4 w qf qf. Titles on hard and clay. Win percentage 60%. 25-65 top ten record 28%.


Jankovic hasbeen at the top for much longer and her statistics are much better. One major isn't enough to compensate this.

Especially if it's the major that has a somewhat justified reputation for producing "one-slam wonders."

Seriously, by the logic of some people, if slams are all that matter, then Barbara Jordan = Sabitini and O'Neill = Myskina.

Optima
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:25 PM
As much as I love Fran and this past fortnight, RG proved that fluking a slam isn't out of the realm of possibility. She beat a few players that aren't great on clay (Li, Wozniacki), a lower ranked player than herself (Kirilenko), received a retirement from an injured top 5 player (Dementieva), and then played extremely well against a completely and suddenly off-her-game finalist (Stosur). It was a great run, but JJ's run in Cincinnati last year was more impressive to me in pure terms of wins. Two weeks do not a career make, but Fran is awesome anyway.

:worship:

You always know how to say things.

dsanders06
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:33 PM
Seriously, by the logic of some people, if slams are all that matter, then Barbara Jordan = Sabitini and O'Neill = Myskina.

And Kuznetsova is greater than Sabatini, Capriati is equal with Davenport (even though Davenport has literally 5 times as many titles... but it's ALL about the Slams right?). It's just madness.

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:36 PM
And Kuznetsova is greater than Sabatini, Capriati is equal with Davenport (even though Davenport has literally 5 times as many titles... but it's ALL about the Slams right?). It's just madness.


Slams are simply overrated on this forum. Not sure why that is :p

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:37 PM
As much as I love Fran and this past fortnight, RG proved that fluking a slam isn't out of the realm of possibility. She beat a few players that aren't great on clay (Li, Wozniacki), a lower ranked player than herself (Kirilenko), received a retirement from an injured top 5 player (Dementieva), and then played extremely well against a completely and suddenly off-her-game finalist (Stosur). It was a great run, but JJ's run in Cincinnati last year was more impressive to me in pure terms of wins. Two weeks do not a career make, but Fran is awesome anyway.

And to say that slams are not the end all and be all does nothing to diminish Fran's achievement, or change the fact her standing as a tennis player has skyrocketed as a result of winning a slam.

But ONE tournament, even a big one, is still ONE tournament.

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:38 PM
Schiavone H2H with the great and some other top10 players : :tape:

Conchita Martínez 1–2 Jelena Janković 1–3 Justine Henin 1–7
Jelena Dokić 0–2 Mary Pierce 0–2 Monica Seles 0–2
Martina Hingis 0–3 Ana Ivanović 0–3 Serena Williams 2–4
Anastasia Myskina 0–3 Maria Sharapova 0–3
Jennifer Capriati 0–4 Lindsay Davenport 0–5
Venus Williams 0–7 Vera Zvonareva 0–9 Kim Clijsters 0–11

Why did you omit Schiavone's records against Mauresmo, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Petrova, Hantuchova, Schnyder, Coetzer and others?
I mean, I do believe Jankovic is the greater player but I can come up with H2Hs like these:
Jankovic - Henin - 0-10
Jankovic - Clijsters - 1-6
Jankovic - Mauresmo - 1-5
Jankovic - Myskina - 0-3
Jankovic - Sharapova - 1-3
etc.

AcesHigh
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:39 PM
It's not ONLY about slams.. but ONE slam is definitely better than ZERO.

There's a big difference between achieving the pinnacle of a sport and NEVER achieving it.
It's like comparing John Stockton and Isiah Thomas. Stockton is one of the greatest point guards ever but there is a big glaring 0 for NBA championships.

Same for Peyton Manning who had all the stats and accolades in the NFL that meant little until he won the Superbowl.

Who was greater? Jeter or Bonds? Jeter was/is a champion.. Bonds was not.

This case is an extreme scenario so I understand people saying JJ. However saying it's ridiculous to vote for Fran is ignorant.

Ferg
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:40 PM
As much as I love Fran and this past fortnight, RG proved that fluking a slam isn't out of the realm of possibility. She beat a few players that aren't great on clay (Li, Wozniacki), a lower ranked player than herself (Kirilenko), received a retirement from an injured top 5 player (Dementieva), and then played extremely well against a completely and suddenly off-her-game finalist (Stosur). It was a great run, but JJ's run in Cincinnati last year was more impressive to me in pure terms of wins. Two weeks do not a career make, but Fran is awesome anyway.

She was lucky in the first round, but she thrashed Wozniacki with a brilliant display, she would have beaten Dementieva anyway since there was clearly nothing wrong with her, and she didnt let Sam play her game by actually using TACTICS, something never used on the WTA. She didnt fluke it.

Goddamn, a player actually plays well to win a Slam and its called a fluke. If this was JJ who won with this draw Im sure you wouldnt call it a fluke.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Why did you omit Schiavone's records against Mauresmo, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Petrova, Hantuchova, Schnyder, Coetzer and others?
I mean, I do believe Jankovic is the greater player but I can come up with H2Hs like these:
Jankovic - Henin - 0-10
Jankovic - Clijsters - 1-6
Jankovic - Mauresmo - 1-5
Jankovic - Myskina - 0-3
Jankovic - Sharapova - 1-3
etc.

Not any special reason I just got tired of copying and pasting.Hantuchova + Schnyder do not worth adding.

Edit: Go and check again. Happy now:wavey:

Bruno71
Jun 9th, 2010, 07:53 PM
She was lucky in the first round, but she thrashed Wozniacki with a brilliant display, she would have beaten Dementieva anyway since there was clearly nothing wrong with her, and she didnt let Sam play her game by actually using TACTICS, something never used on the WTA. She didnt fluke it.

Goddamn, a player actually plays well to win a Slam and its called a fluke. If this was JJ who won with this draw Im sure you wouldnt call it a fluke.


If it were JJ who won with any draw I'd call it a miracle.

Madoka
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:12 PM
Call me cheesy, but I would rather have Jelena's 12 titles over Fran's RG title.

would you bet that JJ would exchange all her titles with the RG of Schiavone?

or

Would you bet that JJ would exchange her number 1 ranking with Kuznetsova US or RG title?

i think JJ would make a change rite now,and Francesca and Svetlana would never...

but thats my opinion i may be wrong ^^

JJ Expres
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:14 PM
almost all who cheer for WS or AI said 1 grand slam>0 grand slam...just don't argue with them there is no point.
cause we know when you compare justine with serena they always say SERENA HAS MORE GS and it's all about that.
half of them didn't watch 3 matches with schiavone so you can ignore them.

saint2
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:17 PM
Jankovic and not even close...I mean, man, it was one tournament...If, lets say, Elena Vesnina will win Wimbledon, she'll be greater than Jankovic as well (despite never been top20 player) ?

brickhousesupporter
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:27 PM
I'm basing my statement by remarks made by players at the time--no sorry, I can't cite them all for everybody--and the fact that top players used to routinely skip slams, especially in the '70s and '80s.

The idea that slams have always been the most important thing in tennis is revisionist history. They may be considered as such now, but the trend of chasing slams for slams sake really only goes back as far as Sampras and the Williams sisters.
You are being a little disingenuous here. You know that not all slams were thought to be equal in the past and players did not want to prepare for the big haul all the way down to Australia. Remember travel was not as convienient then. The players that skipped Wimbledon were the dirtballers (not top players) that would rather enter another clay court tournament and win some matches than loose first round in Wimbledon. For the most part most top players showed up to the French, Wimbledon and the UsOpen. Borg being the exception and that is why his greatness is being questioned.

Now that all the Majors are updated and running smoothley players all want to play them.

Hian
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:33 PM
Stupid polls created by stupid people.
They are both great players.
These stupid people should drink more milk.

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:35 PM
So I guess Ana handed the #1 to Jelena on the silver platter? That's really nice of her.

Actually, yes. :lol: I seriously doubt any reasonable Jelena fan would say Jelena wasn't aided greatly by Ana's turn to suckitude. Jelena might have become No.1 without Ana's help, but the fact there's not much to be proud of in the way she got it. Jelena missed multiple chances, Ana lost LA points, then voila, Jelena was No.1.

Jelena actually played pretty well as No.1 until early 08, but the fact still remains Jelena didn't really earn the top spot like Fran earned her Slam. Surely you can see the difference between how Fran held her nerve and Jelena couldn't?

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:36 PM
Not any special reason I just got tired of copying and pasting.Hantuchova + Schnyder do not worth adding.

And Dokic and Zvonareva do?
Let me guess. It's because they have winning record over Schiavone, right?

Slutiana
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Actually, yes. :lol: I seriously doubt any reasonable Jelena fan would say Jelena wasn't aided greatly by Ana's turn to suckitude. Jelena might have become No.1 without Ana's help, but the fact there's not much to be proud of in the way she got it. Jelena missed multiple chances, Ana lost LA points, then voila, Jelena was No.1.

Jelena actually played pretty well as No.1 until early 08, but the fact still remains Jelena didn't really earn the top spot like Fran earned her Slam. Surely you can see the difference between how Fran held her nerve and Jelena couldn't?
Gurk, it's not like Ana's way of getting to number one was tha tmuch more impressive. Tati speaks the truth.

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:44 PM
Gurk, it's not like Ana's way of getting to number one was tha tmuch more impressive. Tati speaks the truth.

Psshah! I don't pretend Ana was a very good No.1, she was pretty awful. But I do say she earned it and her Slam, similiar to Fran. She raised her level in the SF and F and grabbed her opportunity.

And also, Jelena had the same chance for the No.1 spot and a Slam as Ana did in the RG SF. But it was Ana hitting out and Jelena getting tight at the end. When situations similiar to this plague you for as long as they have Jelena and Elena, you have to factor it in when you assess their legacy.

dsanders06
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:50 PM
Actually, yes. :lol: I seriously doubt any reasonable Jelena fan would say Jelena wasn't aided greatly by Ana's turn to suckitude. Jelena might have become No.1 without Ana's help, but the fact there's not much to be proud of in the way she got it. Jelena missed multiple chances, Ana lost LA points, then voila, Jelena was No.1.

Jelena actually played pretty well as No.1 until early 08, but the fact still remains Jelena didn't really earn the top spot like Fran earned her Slam. Surely you can see the difference between how Fran held her nerve and Jelena couldn't?

Jankovic won three straight tournaments to secure the year-end #1 in 2008. :shrug:

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:52 PM
You are being a little disingenuous here. You know that not all slams were thought to be equal in the past and players did not want to prepare for the big haul all the way down to Australia. Remember travel was not as convienient then. The players that skipped Wimbledon were the dirtballers (not top players) that would rather enter another clay court tournament and win some matches than loose first round in Wimbledon. For the most part most top players showed up to the French, Wimbledon and the UsOpen. Borg being the exception and that is why his greatness is being questioned.

Now that all the Majors are updated and running smoothley players all want to play them.

That's an essential part (though not the whole) of my point, though. People treat slams like they're some sort of immutable constant with which to measure a player's worth. My point is they aren't, and I also concede that's true of the #1 ranking.

Even with all slams being somehow "equal" the fact is the FO, historically, has produced more one slam wonders on the women's side than the AO, the Championships or the USO. The bottom line is that the sport is too complex and there are too many factors in play to reduce a player's standing to ONE factor, be it slams, or ranking, or h2h.

Bobisa
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:53 PM
Jelena Jankovic by faaaaaaaaaaaaaar

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 08:57 PM
Jankovic won three straight tournaments to secure the year-end #1 in 2008. :shrug:

Yes, I said she improved greatly once she got to No.1. But she still had to be handed it to begin with, because she clearly wasn't able to handle the pressure and actually earn it herself. All credit to her for handling being No.1 better than many other girls have, but it's still not the same as what Fran did. If something gets handed to you, you lose the pressure of ever having to improve yourself and to hold your nerve to obtain it.

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:01 PM
Jankovic won three straight tournaments to secure the year-end #1 in 2008. :shrug:

Actually, IIRC, she played against a tall blonde who shall remain nameless at the US Open with the #1 ranking on the line and ...

suddenly, my mind has gone blank.

meteor
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:04 PM
Actually, IIRC, she played against a tall blonde who shall remain nameless at the US Open with the #1 ranking on the line and ...

suddenly, my mind has gone blank.

masochist much, max :lol:?

tievae
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:06 PM
Jankovic because she has earned $10,906,900 in prize money to Schiavone's $6,395,986, and as we all know, money rules all. :devil: Plus, Jelena lives in that capital of hot coolness, Dubai. :awww:

brickhousesupporter
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:06 PM
That's an essential part (though not the whole) of my point, though. People treat slams like they're some sort of immutable constant with which to measure a player's worth. My point is they aren't, and I also concede that's true of the #1 ranking.

Even with all slams being somehow "equal" the fact is the FO, historically, has produced more one slam wonders on the women's side than the AO, the Championships or the USO. The bottom line is that the sport is too complex and there are too many factors in play to reduce a player's standing to ONE factor, be it slams, or ranking, or h2h.
It is all part of the selection process and though I am more open to a subjective ranking of greatness, I can't fault posters for their objective ranking. For some it goes like this. Start with the Majors. The person with the highest major tally is the greatest. If the number of majors is equal you look at tour titles (tier 1,2, OG and MM) and continue along until you can seperate the players. Is that not an objective way of looking at greatness?

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:07 PM
Actually, IIRC, she played against a tall blonde who shall remain nameless at the US Open with the #1 ranking on the line and ...

suddenly, my mind has gone blank.

I'll refresh your memory, Max :p

... and Serena ended up being #1 after the US Open.

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:28 PM
Yes, I said she improved greatly once she got to No.1. But she still had to be handed it to begin with, because she clearly wasn't able to handle the pressure and actually earn it herself. All credit to her for handling being No.1 better than many other girls have, but it's still not the same as what Fran did. If something gets handed to you, you lose the pressure of ever having to improve yourself and to hold your nerve to obtain it.


I looked at Jelena's results in 2008 and they are really not that bad...you make it sound like she had some terrible 1st round losses when she had the chance to become #1...she never lost before the quarters from L.A. until Zurich. Her only real bad (only loss against non-Top 10) loss was too Cibulkova in Montreal, her earliest loss was to Kuznetsova in Tokyo in an extremely close match. Oh, and in between she reached a Slam final for God's sake :rolleyes:

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:35 PM
I looked at Jelena's results in 2008 and they are really not that bad...you make it sound like she had some terrible 1st round losses when she had the chance to become #1...she never lost before the quarters from L.A. until Zurich. Her only real bad (only loss against non-Top 10) loss was too Cibulkova in Montreal, her earliest loss was to Kuznetsova in Tokyo in an extremely close match. Oh, and in between she reached a Slam final for God's sake :rolleyes:

You really don't get what I'm saying at all, do you? When I say Jelena lost her way to No.1 I mean in the sense that from RG to the end of the USO series she had three chances to be No.1. She lost them all, getting tight against Ana at RG, losing to Cibulkova in Montreal, and then losing to Safina the Olympics. Then then got No.1, not so much based on a string of great results, but because Ana lost LA points.

I said this to begin with because you suggested Jelena "won" the No.1 spot, and that was somehow comparable to what Fran did when she won RG. Jelena had to be handed the No.1 spot before she started to play with any freedom at all. The pressure of winning a Slam and getting to No.1 was clearly too much for her before that.

Have I explained it clearly enough? Because I am losing patience in trying to explain something you're clearly not quite grasping.

miffedmax
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:36 PM
It is all part of the selection process and though I am more open to a subjective ranking of greatness, I can't fault posters for their objective ranking. For some it goes like this. Start with the Majors. The person with the highest major tally is the greatest. If the number of majors is equal you look at tour titles (tier 1,2, OG and MM) and continue along until you can seperate the players. Is that not an objective way of looking at greatness?

No, because it still assumes that all majors are created equal and constant without taking into account draws, injuries to opponents, quality of opposition, bad calls, and a host of other variables, and it assumes that a major is automatically worth more than an infinite number of other titles, which means one must then reject the rankings system, and indeed, the very idea of a tour. In the case where a player has just one--or even two slams--you could be talking about a significant chance factor. It's not statistically all that significant that one title happens to be a slam.

Does anyone really believe that winning a French Open title over Elena Dementieva carries the exact same weight historically as winning one over Chris Evert? Martina Hingis? Sanchez-Vicario? Steffi Graff? Players often have to beat more highly ranked players (as opposed to more players) to win Premier/Tier I events than they do to win majors.

Grand Slams have big prize money, loads of history and tradition and the challenges of making it through a two week time period to set them apart from other titles. But those factors don't make them subjective measures of greatness, certainly not when you've only won one of them.

It's like my old boss used to say about reviewing portfolios. "Anyone can have ONE good idea. Show me two, and maybe I'll start to take you seriously."

Winning one slam is neither objectively or statistically valid as a measure of greatness.

(Do it 7 or 12 times, then maybe you're on to something).

spiritedenergy
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:49 PM
1 slam > 0 slams = Schiavone

:worship:

Vlover
Jun 9th, 2010, 09:57 PM
It's like my old boss used to say about reviewing portfolios. "Anyone can have ONE good idea. Show me two, and maybe I'll start to take you seriously."

Winning one slam is neither objectively or statistically valid as a measure of greatness.

(Do it 7 or 12 times, then maybe you're on to something).
I think you are on to something Max...;)

dybbuk
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:00 PM
Does anyone really believe that winning a French Open title over Elena Dementieva carries the exact same weight historically as winning one over Chris Evert? Martina Hingis? Sanchez-Vicario? Steffi Graff? Players often have to beat more highly ranked players (as opposed to more players) to win Premier/Tier I events than they do to win majors.


No, because now you're getting into the ever sticky field of comparing eras, which can't be done.

But you can look objectively at all Elena's and Jelena's chances for Slams, and then Fran's chance. They had fairly comparable draws to Fran's. Elena's RG '04 for example, but for some reason she couldn't hold up under the pressure. Jelena had the '08 RG. That's what the people saying Fran base their argument on: that Dementieva and Jankovic had comparable chances for Slams that not only they didn't take, but simply couldn't handle the pressure of. Fran had one chance, knowing she doubtfully would get it again, and not only did she take it, she raised her game to a completely different level to win it.

That's what most sports fans judge players on, in the highest pressure situation of their particular sport, how did they hold up.

And your last point is fallacious, because that leaves out the added pressure of being in a Slam, which is often more difficult than the actually opponent you're facing.

Donny
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:01 PM
No, because it still assumes that all majors are created equal and constant without taking into account draws, injuries to opponents, quality of opposition, bad calls, and a host of other variables, and it assumes that a major is automatically worth more than an infinite number of other titles, which means one must then reject the rankings system, and indeed, the very idea of a tour. In the case where a player has just one--or even two slams--you could be talking about a significant chance factor. It's not statistically all that significant that one title happens to be a slam.

Does anyone really believe that winning a French Open title over Elena Dementieva carries the exact same weight historically as winning one over Chris Evert? Martina Hingis? Sanchez-Vicario? Steffi Graff? Players often have to beat more highly ranked players (as opposed to more players) to win Premier/Tier I events than they do to win majors.

Grand Slams have big prize money, loads of history and tradition and the challenges of making it through a two week time period to set them apart from other titles. But those factors don't make them subjective measures of greatness, certainly not when you've only won one of them.

It's like my old boss used to say about reviewing portfolios. "Anyone can have ONE good idea. Show me two, and maybe I'll start to take you seriously."

Winning one slam is neither objectively or statistically valid as a measure of greatness.

(Do it 7 or 12 times, then maybe you're on to something).

I feel the exact same way about the number one ranking. In fact, I remember a LOT of people who felt that way at the time.

Furthermore, when Jankovic first rose to number one in the world, Henin should have still had enough points in the rankings system to remain number one, right? As far as I'm concerned, the rankings immediately after Henin retired are a sham, akin to fixing the rankings.

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:04 PM
Jelena had to be handed the No.1 spot before she started to play with any freedom at all. The pressure of winning a Slam and getting to No.1 was clearly too much for her before that.


And I explained to you above that that was clearly not the case at all. But you apparently did not grasp that. Bye.

Donny
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:05 PM
And I explained to you above that that was clearly not the case at all. But you apparently did not grasp that. Bye.

You're leaving?

Matt01
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:07 PM
You're leaving?


You already miss me?

Donny
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:08 PM
You already miss me?

Nah, I just didn't want to get my hopes up.

brickhousesupporter
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:16 PM
No, because it still assumes that all majors are created equal and constant without taking into account draws, injuries to opponents, quality of opposition, bad calls, and a host of other variables, and it assumes that a major is automatically worth more than an infinite number of other titles, which means one must then reject the rankings system, and indeed, the very idea of a tour. In the case where a player has just one--or even two slams--you could be talking about a significant chance factor. It's not statistically all that significant that one title happens to be a slam.
How is these thing any different at a regualar tournament. Are you saying that flukes can not occur on the Premier level. The draw is the draw, it is what it is. It is statistically harder for you to win 7 matches in a row than it is to win 5.


Does anyone really believe that winning a French Open title over Elena Dementieva carries the exact same weight historically as winning one over Chris Evert? Martina Hingis? Sanchez-Vicario? Steffi Graff? Players often have to beat more highly ranked players (as opposed to more players) to win Premier/Tier I events than they do to win majors.
Hold on give me a moment....I had to find my balance as I almost fell off that slippery slope.

Grand Slams have big prize money, loads of history and tradition and the challenges of making it through a two week time period to set them apart from other titles. But those factors don't make them subjective measures of greatness, certainly not when you've only won one of them.

It's like my old boss used to say about reviewing portfolios. "Anyone can have ONE good idea. Show me two, and maybe I'll start to take you seriously."

Winning one slam is neither objectively or statistically valid as a measure of greatness.

(Do it 7 or 12 times, then maybe you're on to something).
The world is full of people who made it big and became rich and successful off of one really good idea. It is not about how many ideas you have, but what you did with the idea you had.

Setsuna.
Jun 9th, 2010, 10:18 PM
Schiavone had one chance for greatness and she grabbed it with both hands. Jankovic has had about a half dozen opportunities and she has fallen short each time. Schiavone gets my nod.

this.
Franny wins.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jun 9th, 2010, 11:43 PM
Jankovic and it is not even close

miffedmax
Jun 10th, 2010, 02:56 AM
How is these thing any different at a regualar tournament. Are you saying that flukes can not occur on the Premier level. The draw is the draw, it is what it is. It is statistically harder for you to win 7 matches in a row than it is to win 5.


Hold on give me a moment....I had to find my balance as I almost fell off that slippery slope.

The world is full of people who made it big and became rich and successful off of one really good idea. It is not about how many ideas you have, but what you did with the idea you had.

I didn't know slams paid royalties.

And yes, all those things happen at regular tournaments, too. Which is why you don't see me advocating a straight up tournament count either. If one was to go with a SINGLE option, my recommendation would be lifetime winning percentage, which statistically does the most to even out all the variables because it covers the widest possible amount of data. But I'll concede even it is flawed because, unlike other sports, a high winning percentage does not necessarily equate to a large number of championships due to the tournament structure and, in the end, winning tournaments, not single matches is what tennis is about. Which is why I refuse to only consider one factor when ranking players.

However, to argue that someone who is succesful 1 in 46 tries is somehow fantastically more successful that somebody who is 0 for 40 tries--as one more or less doing by arguing that winning 1 slam automatically leapfrogs a player over one who as one 4 or 5 times as many nonslams--is pretty feeble logic.

To use your analogy, is it better to have one great idea that made $100 million, or 10 pretty good ideas that each made $20 million?

miffedmax
Jun 10th, 2010, 03:08 AM
No, because now you're getting into the ever sticky field of comparing eras, which can't be done.

But you can look objectively at all Elena's and Jelena's chances for Slams, and then Fran's chance. They had fairly comparable draws to Fran's. Elena's RG '04 for example, but for some reason she couldn't hold up under the pressure. Jelena had the '08 RG. That's what the people saying Fran base their argument on: that Dementieva and Jankovic had comparable chances for Slams that not only they didn't take, but simply couldn't handle the pressure of. Fran had one chance, knowing she doubtfully would get it again, and not only did she take it, she raised her game to a completely different level to win it.

That's what most sports fans judge players on, in the highest pressure situation of their particular sport, how did they hold up.

And your last point is fallacious, because that leaves out the added pressure of being in a Slam, which is often more difficult than the actually opponent you're facing.

Okay. So beating Dementieva in a final in '04 is the same as being Serena Williams in a final in '04?

The fact remains that within eras, within years even, slams are not constants and using them a sole means of judging players is not even remotely statistically or logically valid.

You last point is...pointless. I am not arguing that it's not harder to win slam than a regular tournament.. I am arguing that using them as the sole means of comparing two players is hopelessly invalid.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jun 10th, 2010, 03:16 AM
No, because now you're getting into the ever sticky field of comparing eras, which can't be done.

But you can look objectively at all Elena's and Jelena's chances for Slams, and then Fran's chance. They had fairly comparable draws to Fran's. Elena's RG '04 for example, but for some reason she couldn't hold up under the pressure. Jelena had the '08 RG. That's what the people saying Fran base their argument on: that Dementieva and Jankovic had comparable chances for Slams that not only they didn't take, but simply couldn't handle the pressure of. Fran had one chance, knowing she doubtfully would get it again, and not only did she take it, she raised her game to a completely different level to win it.

That's what most sports fans judge players on, in the highest pressure situation of their particular sport, how did they hold up.

And your last point is fallacious, because that leaves out the added pressure of being in a Slam, which is often more difficult than the actually opponent you're facing.

I'm sick of the argument, Schiavone unlike Dementieva or Jankovic took advantage of her only chance in a Grand Slam . You must consider that Dementieva and Jankovic played against better players than Schiavone in their finals

Myskina - Kuznetsova and mainly Serena are way better and more experienced players than Stosur

MB.
Jun 10th, 2010, 03:16 AM
Jankovic and it is not even close

I thought this whole poll was a joke, apparently not.

Jankovic. By an infinitely far margin.

Caillou
Jun 10th, 2010, 04:33 AM
I am one of the furthest things from a Jelena fan, yet I have the sense to say she is greater. This whole 1 slam > 0 slam is bull. Ppl that are saying otherwise are haterz of Jelena, or fans of Schiavone in denial.

Drimal
Jun 10th, 2010, 06:01 AM
Jelena Jankovic by far


Grand Slams are so overrated on this board it´s not even funny

MaBaker
Jun 10th, 2010, 08:07 AM
Steffi Graf = Serena > Schiavone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jelena.

Jajaloo
Jun 10th, 2010, 08:44 AM
Jankovic by far.

Schiavone's grand slam was some Rezai Madrid fluke. Schiavone is 22-11 for the year. And JJ is 29-11 for the year.

Schiavone career win/loss: 436/296
Jankovic career win/loss: 405/201

Those numbers don't tell you which one has won a slam (only reaching the QF 3 times, and going past the QF once). And which one has made 1 slam final, 5 semi finals and a QF.

JJ has 12 titles and 12 finals. Schiavone has 4 titles and 10 finals - never won a Tier I or Tier II or Premier 5 or Premier Mandatory. Schiavone has also never played at the YEC.

JJ leader their H2H 3-1. Winning their last two meetings, when she was in her slump.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 10th, 2010, 03:10 PM
And Dokic and Zvonareva do?
Let me guess. It's because they have winning record over Schiavone, right?

Well, I guess I can add them too in order to restore the order as you wished.:)

Any other??? Maybe Radwanska.

meteor
Jun 10th, 2010, 03:41 PM
Steffi Graf = Serena > Schiavone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jelena.

okay, now you're just being plain silly.

Olórin
Jun 10th, 2010, 03:43 PM
Steffi Graf = Serena > Schiavone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jelena.

Agreed.

OneSlamWonder
Jun 10th, 2010, 04:07 PM
Grand Slams are so overrated on this board it´s not even funny

I agree 100%. I mean really, it's only because of slamless No.1 ones and Lena Ds failures of 2004. Really, really, if Safina, Jelena and Lena had slams I think this board's attitude would be much different. But anyway they don't :(

Also I think it's a bit different for Schiavone, cause she was never a favorite for a slam and she could use her good form to achieve it. Congrats on that, and I hope she can do it again. For Jelena, she is playing well for some time, she even kept herself in top 10 since I don't know, Feb 2007 or so. From her, people expect greatness and obviously she doesn't deal well with it, at least for now. No one can deny that she is much better in last few years than Schiavone, and that this is the only moment where Schiavone was actually making something HUGE in comparison to JJ. At this current moment we can say Schiavone is better maybe, but JJ is greater. I really hope for Clijsters/Mauresmo story to happen to her (also would be nice for Lena and Safina).

To conclude, JJ is greater.

PS joke: This wta IS CRAZY, maybe Fran is one some kind of slam frenzy :p

Hian
Jun 10th, 2010, 04:45 PM
Please drink more milk

hectopascal
Jun 11th, 2010, 01:31 AM
Steffi Graf = Serena > Schiavone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jelena.

20+ slams = 10+ slams > 1 slam >>>> 0 slam Jankovic and 0 slam Clay Venus

Therefore Schiavone > Jankovic
And Clay Schiavone > Clay Venus

Hmmmm kinda makes sense except for the 20 = 10 bit. :lol:

But if you take Fran's whole career results and titles into account, it's clear to see that this RG title is an "outlier" (in statistical terms). Fran had an amazing 2 weeks, whereas Jankovic has been #1 for 4 months!

Conclusion:
4 months > 2 weeks
Jankovic > Schiavone

supergrunt
Jun 11th, 2010, 01:44 AM
since grand slams define your worth and a player and a person in the tennis world, schiavone :p

ZODIAC
Jun 11th, 2010, 02:33 AM
Schiavone is the queen of clay and no one can take that away from her,I am sure Jankovic wishes she is Schiavone right now.