PDA

View Full Version : 10 active players have won slams, too many or too few?


andyjason
Dec 16th, 2012, 11:45 AM
15 Serena
7 Venus
4 Sharapova
2 Kuznetsova
1 Ivanovic,Schiavone,
LiNa,Kvitova,Stosur,Azarenka


SO far 10 active players have won slam before, Do you think it is too few or too many?

Ana'sProcess
Dec 16th, 2012, 12:38 PM
Very soon this list will be shorted. Serena, Venus, Schiavone, Li, Stosur will probably retire in next two or three years. Some of them maybe even earlier.

Royals.
Dec 16th, 2012, 12:57 PM
Very soon this list will be shorted. Serena, Venus, Schiavone, Li, Stosur will probably retire in next two or three years. Some of them maybe even earlier.

Even so.. new players will still win slams and still be active so it could increase. We will hopefully still have Azarenka, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Kvitova and new slam winners hopefully.

Jeffery
Dec 16th, 2012, 01:49 PM
I think that this show how consistent the top players can be, not giving the opportunity to the newcomers. :shrug:

Cosmic Voices
Dec 16th, 2012, 01:57 PM
Its exactly the same with the ATP tour tbh :shrug:

Mistress of Evil
Dec 16th, 2012, 02:06 PM
Serena is responsible for Schiavone & Stosur being slamchamps.
Maria for Na, Azarenka, Kvitova.
Henin for Ivanovic.

Sammo
Dec 16th, 2012, 02:12 PM
Serena is responsible for Schiavone & Stosur being slamchamps.
Maria for Na, Azarenka, Kvitova.
Henin for Ivanovic.

I'm sorry but :spit:

I could also say that Stosur is responsible for 10 of Serena's 15 GS as she didn't bring her A Serena-kicking game since the beginning :oh:

Royals.
Dec 16th, 2012, 02:17 PM
I'm sorry but :spit:

I could also say that Stosur is responsible for 10 of Serena's 15 GS as she didn't bring her A Serena-kicking game since the beginning :oh:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcexze285f1r1gulro1_500.gif

heavyhorse
Dec 16th, 2012, 02:20 PM
Totally forgot Ivanovic won the French Open.

But yeah, it's pretty similar to the ATP tour. I think more newcomers will start to win more GS titles as the big ones retire. Serena will probably retire in a year or two, I wouldn't be surprised if Venus retired next year. Kinda scary cause that means Sharapova will be the last 'diva' left and from then on it will be pretty much 100% new generation of players. I don't think that's a bad thing though; I would be excited to see Radwanska and Azarenka in a final if Radwanska improved. I just hope more younger players will start to come up at the same rate Venus, Serena and Maria did.

And I REALLY want more Hingis-esque players to appear. Tennis nowadays is getting way too general as nearly everyone is a power player. It's better if it's 50/50 cause a match between two contrasting styles of play can be so interesting, for e.g. Sharapova vs Radwanska in Istanbul.

stromatolite
Dec 16th, 2012, 02:21 PM
Serena is responsible for Schiavone & Stosur being slamchamps.
Maria for Na, Azarenka, Kvitova.
Henin for Ivanovic.

Your attempt at mental gymnastics gets you high points from the judges for difficulty, but unfortunately not such good points for execution.

Seems like you started out "Serena is responsible for Stosur being a slamchamp, Stosur for Schiavone, Schiavone for Na..." and then went "oops, that doesn't work...." :lol:

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:29 PM
I think that this show how consistent the top players can be, not giving the opportunity to the newcomers. :shrug:

Uhm, for how long have you been following tennis? That's not true at all :confused: Serena is one of the best players of all time, but aside from Sharapova no one from the previous generation of players (e.g. Jankovic, Ivanovic, Petrova, Kuznetsova) is in the top 10 anymore :shrug:

Li Na is nearly 30 but solidified herself as a top player alongisde the likes of Azarenka, Kvitova, Wozniacki and Radwanska. Same goes for Stosur. The new generation has rose for the occasion, 4 of them have already one a slam (Stosur, Li, Kvitova and Azarenka) and 3 of them have already reached a slam final (Wozniacki, Errani and Radwanska). Kerber hasn't reached a final yet, but she just broke through and managed to beat both Sharapova and Serena in the same year :shrug:

Serena and Sharapova are all time greats, but I'd say the new generation is making a great name for itself. Definitely much more honorable than the flop generation of Golovin, Szavay, Vaidisova and the likes.

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:34 PM
Regarding the OP, Schiavone should thank Stosur for that slam win until the last day of her career. Stosur should be a 2x slam winner by now. Same goes for Li (should've beaten Clijsters at the AO).

The others have earned each of their slams, and it could be argued that Sharapova should have a couple more if it weren't for the shoulder injury (would've likely won the 2008 French Open and the AO this year). But Azarenka is currently playing at slam champ levels, so I'm not sure I'd be OK with her being slamless.

JarkaFish
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:37 PM
Uhm, for how long have you been following tennis? That's not true at all :confused: Serena is one of the best players of all time, but aside from Sharapova no one from the previous generation of players (e.g. Jankovic, Ivanovic, Petrova, Kuznetsova) is in the top 10 anymore :shrug:

Li Na is nearly 30 but solidified herself as a top player alongisde the likes of Azarenka, Kvitova, Wozniacki and Radwanska. Same goes for Stosur. The new generation has rose for the occasion, 4 of them have already one a slam (Stosur, Li, Kvitova and Azarenka) and 3 of them have already reached a slam final (Wozniacki, Errani and Radwanska). Kerber hasn't reached a final yet, but she just broke through and managed to beat both Sharapova and Serena in the same year :shrug:

Serena and Sharapova are all time greats, but I'd say the new generation is making a great name for itself. Definitely much more honorable than the flop generation of Golovin, Szavay, Vaidisova and the likes.

One more so than the other..

Ana'sProcess
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:38 PM
Even so.. new players will still win slams and still be active so it could increase. We will hopefully still have Azarenka, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Kvitova and new slam winners hopefully.

I hope so. They all have potential to win more GS titles, and I hope they will do that before new generation replaces them.

NashaMasha
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:38 PM
quantity is good, quality is poor .... Multiple Slam winners are not in form(Kuzzie) / part-timers(Serena)/ going to retire soon(Venus), . From 1 Slam winners only Kvitova and Azarenka are young and have chances for 2nd Slam...

it's what is called transitional era or weak field....

Ana'sProcess
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:39 PM
Serena is responsible for Schiavone & Stosur being slamchamps.
Maria for Na, Azarenka, Kvitova.
Henin for Ivanovic.

Not.

alex.2812
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:40 PM
5 years ago, by the end of 2007 we had:
- Martina Hingis (5)
- Serena Williams (8)
- Venus Williams (6)
- Lindsay Davenport (3)
- Justine Henin (7)
- Maria Sharapova (2)
- Svetlana Kuznetsova (1)
- Amélie Mauresmo (2)

So that makes it 8 players.

10 years ago, by the end of 2002, we had:
- Monica Seles (9)
- Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (4)
- Conchita Martinez (1)
- Mary Pierce (2)
- Martina Hingis (5)
- Iva Majoli (1)
- Lindsay Davenport (3)
- Serena Williams (4)
- Venus Williams (4)
- Jennifer Capriati (3)

So that makes it 10 players.

We are currently in the average, aren't we?

JarkaFish
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:41 PM
quantity is good, quality is poor .... Multiple Slam winners are not in form(Kuzzie) / part-timers(Serena)/ going to retire soon(Venus), . From 1 Slam winners only Kvitova and Azarenka are young and have chances for 2nd Slam...

it's what is called transitional era or weak field....

It's been that way since 2007, the field this year has been by far the strongest it's been since then.

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:43 PM
It's been that way since 2007, the field this year has been by far the strongest it's been since then.

Agreed. The transitional period, to me, was 2008-2011. 2012 was a great year. I expect 2013 to be even better.

Ana'sProcess
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:43 PM
quantity is good, quality is poor .... Multiple Slam winners are not in form(Kuzzie) / part-timers(Serena)/ going to retire soon(Venus), . From 1 Slam winners only Kvitova and Azarenka are young and have chances for 2nd Slam...

it's what is called transitional era or weak field....

I know you will call me a dreamer, but I seriosly believe Ana Ivanovic is a potential for another Grand slam title. I still believe. She can make it, just has to believe in that. :)

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:46 PM
One more so than the other..

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/lander_13/Tumblr%20Gifs%20Etc/HBC-OfCourse.gif

No one in their right mind would say Maria is at Williams' level, but I still find it surprising that Williams' stans/Maria's haters are so obsessed with that as if there was still any question :shrug:

But Sharapova has been at a top level for 8 years now, and counting, bar the injury and recovery. If that's not greatness I don't know what is. So many players have come and gone and she's just completed a career grand slam and is ranked #2. Plus she beat the #1 player in her last match of 2012. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

NashaMasha
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:51 PM
Agreed. The transitional period, to me, was 2008-2011. 2012 was a great year. I expect 2013 to be even better.

2012 was great because of return of Serena/Masha . But just take some Tier 1 tournaments which were skipped by these 2 , :tape: that's what "quality" WTA tour we might have in a few years

I know you will call me a dreamer, but I seriosly believe Ana Ivanovic is a potential for another Grand slam title. I still believe. She can make it, just has to believe in that.

i won't call you a dreamer... you are a science-fiction writer

JarkaFish
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:52 PM
2012 was great because of return of Serena/Masha . But just take some Tier 1 tournaments which were skipped by these 2 , :tape: that's what "quality" WTA tour we might have in a few yearsOh yeah, that's the only reason. :rolleyes:

I guess the arrival of Azarenka, who dominated everyone not named Serena this year, and the consistency of Kerber/Radwanska had nothing to do with it.

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 03:53 PM
2012 was great because of return of Serena/Masha . But just take some Tier 1 tournaments which were skipped by these 2 , :tape: that's what "quality" WTA tour we might have in a few years

The US Open series...

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1262969_o.gif

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:09 PM
Regarding the OP, Schiavone should thank Stosur for that slam win until the last day of her career. Stosur should be a 2x slam winner by now. Same goes for Li (should've beaten Clijsters at the AO).

The others have earned each of their slams, and it could be argued that Sharapova should have a couple more if it weren't for the shoulder injury (would've likely won the 2008 French Open and the AO this year). But Azarenka is currently playing at slam champ levels, so I'm not sure I'd be OK with her being slamless.

Vozas, what does the shoulder surgery she had in 2008 have to do with the AO final 4 years later? She was already making slam semis and finals, and IIRC basically smashed everyone en route to the semis. Did her shoulder start hurting once she saw Vika across the net? especially hilarious since she's 2-4 against Vika this year, with her only two wins coming indoors, it's not like losing that final was an anomaly or something :lol:

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:15 PM
Vozas, what does the shoulder surgery she had in 2008 have to do with the AO final 4 years later? She was already making slam semis and finals, and IIRC basically smashed everyone en route to the semis. Did her shoulder start hurting once she saw Vika across the net? especially hilarious since she's 2-4 against Vika this year, with her only two wins coming indoors, it's not like losing that final was an anomaly or something :lol:

What's Vozas? Maybe I didn't phrase myself correctly, the injury has nothing to do with her loss to Azarenka this year at the AO. Actually, her serve improved immensely during the offseason and throughout this year (next year should be even better :drool:), but Maria was embarrassing in that final. She did nothing and completely froze. Had she brought her average level to that match, she would've at the very least won a set. Conditions at the AO are perfect for Sharapova and she had the game to win her 2nd major at Melbourne. Shame she didn't, but Azarenka fully deserved that title regardless of Maria's cringeworthy tennis.

Royals.
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:17 PM
quantity is good, quality is poor .... Multiple Slam winners are not in form(Kuzzie) / part-timers(Serena)/ going to retire soon(Venus), . From 1 Slam winners only Kvitova and Azarenka are young and have chances for 2nd Slam...

it's what is called transitional era or weak field....

OMG. NashaMasha are you really going there? :tape: :tape:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maq36dXk9n1rfipsho1_500.gif

NashaMasha
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:38 PM
Oh yeah, that's the only reason. :rolleyes:

I guess the arrival of Azarenka, who dominated everyone not named Serena this year, and the consistency of Kerber/Radwanska had nothing to do with it.

you might be still proud of Wozniacki dominating in WTA with her great consistency :lol:

NashaMasha
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Vozas, what does the shoulder surgery she had in 2008 have to do with the AO final 4 years later? She was already making slam semis and finals, and IIRC basically smashed everyone en route to the semis. Did her shoulder start hurting once she saw Vika across the net? especially hilarious since she's 2-4 against Vika this year, with her only two wins coming indoors, it's not like losing that final was an anomaly or something :lol:

she still can't serve wide in Ad court , it's one of the "effect" of her injury She doesn't have as good second serve as she used to before injury .... in 2009-part of 2010 she played almost without serve in the tour. 2012 was a turning point in her "second career" , she started to play closer to her real potential , but it doesn't refer to her AO or IW(beginning of the season), where she played pretty poor vs top 20 players.

englando08
Dec 16th, 2012, 05:31 PM
Venus and Serena wont retire until at least Rio 2016. And even then I think Serena will play a little longer after that. And Venus will stick around for doubles. They will probably stay around for doubles for a while.

Anyway doe, back to the subject, honestly the list is fine.

blistering
Dec 16th, 2012, 05:33 PM
she still can't serve wide in Ad court , it's one of the "effect" of her injury She doesn't have as good second serve as she used to before injury .... in 2009-part of 2010 she played almost without serve in the tour. 2012 was a turning point in her "second career" , she started to play closer to her real potential , but it doesn't refer to her AO or IW(beginning of the season), where she played pretty poor vs top 20 players.

She served really well to the AD court during the clay season, especially the kicker out wide. But it's MIA since she won Roland Garros. She'll definitely need to work on it; it's the main reason why her serve games always get to deuce. Her Deuce serve is very near its best on the other hand.

Natural Joe
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:51 PM
Its exactly the same with the ATP tour tbh :shrug:

There are even fewer active GS champions: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Hewitt (only 6).

Cosmic Voices
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:57 PM
I agree about whats been said about 2012 being a great season because it really has, the top players clearing up the slams - consistently reaching latter stages of tournaments - with transitional players like robson/watson emerging - vikas winning streak - mashas clay glory - the return of vee - renas second half dominance - a legitimate top 3/4 - a great YEC

pretty sure 2013 will be great - if not greater than this year

18majors
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:19 PM
Petra will be back to top 4 in 2013.

Olórin
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:32 PM
Serena is responsible for Schiavone & Stosur being slamchamps.
Maria for Na, Azarenka, Kvitova.
Henin for Ivanovic.

Serena really is despicable for her messiness :lol:

mboyle
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:40 PM
After Wimbledon 2004, I would have thought Maria would win more slams by now than she has.

JarkaFish
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:55 PM
After Wimbledon 2004, I would have thought Maria would win more slams by now than she has.

So true.

When you win a slam at such an early age like that you're expected to do a bit more than win a couple more spread out over 2-4 year periods.

I guess it should've been obvious to anyone just looking at her game from an objective perspective, she's just too limited as a player and athlete to truly dominate the tour no matter the field.

Pump-it-UP
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:10 PM
It's about average. :shrug: We had 11 (Williams x2, Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Davenport, Pierce, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Myskina, Kuznetsova) by the end of 2006.

NashaMasha
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:25 PM
So true.

When you win a slam at such an early age like that you're expected to do a bit more than win a couple more spread out over 2-4 year periods.

I guess it should've been obvious to anyone just looking at her game from an objective perspective, she's just too limited as a player and athlete to truly dominate the tour no matter the field.

and what's about Hingis? she finished with 5 Slams , winning all of them being a teenager and didn't manage to win a Slam after 1999 despite playing 21 majors after her last win at AO 1999. We can also discuss Davenport or even Justine Henin, who also could have won more

Sharapova might have won more Slams unless her health problems , even in 2007 she was struggling with her shoulder injury. 2004-2005-2006 and 2012 are probably seasons in which Sharapova managed to avoid struggling with injuries. It's not that much really. Let's hope she will stay away from serious injuries in the next years and her 5th or maybe 6th Major will be just a matter of time

Craig.
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:44 PM
So true.

When you win a slam at such an early age like that you're expected to do a bit more than win a couple more spread out over 2-4 year periods.

I guess it should've been obvious to anyone just looking at her game from an objective perspective, she's just too limited as a player and athlete to truly dominate the tour no matter the field.

We get it. Jesus.

AnnieIWillKnow
Dec 16th, 2012, 10:08 PM
If one of only 10 women to ever win a Career Slam is "too limited", I dread to think what everyone else is.

SymphonyX
Dec 17th, 2012, 03:49 AM
Argh. I don't think Maria alone can fend off the likes of Azarenka, Radwandska and co. I hope Serena can stay two more years to keep the flame alive. I'd hate for Maria to be the last one left -- a vanguard of the previous generation. It's like being the only adult in a McDonald's kiddie party.

A few years back I was counting on Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, Safina and the other in-betweeners of the generation to stick it with Sharapova and make the first half of 2010-2020 a challenge for the newgens. Sigh.

After Wimbledon 2004, I would have thought Maria would win more slams by now than she has.

Maria isn't special. She isn't athletic nor does she have deft hands. It's miraculous she's even won her slams. She's just that really hard-working, persistent person that refuses to die. The type that smart and talented, but lazy kids loathe because he/she is successful despite being just ordinary in most cases. Maria is supremely confident and motivated. She just keeps coming back and back.

Or perhaps in a sense, that is what she has special. You can probably combine the confidence and motivation Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, Safina, Chakvetadze and her other generational stablemates has and all that still amounts to less than what Maria alone has.

Aryman3
Dec 17th, 2012, 04:52 AM
The list won't be shortened because of Radwanska sisters

Stonerpova
Dec 17th, 2012, 05:07 AM
So true.

When you win a slam at such an early age like that you're expected to do a bit more than win a couple more spread out over 2-4 year periods.

I guess it should've been obvious to anyone just looking at her game from an objective perspective, she's just too limited as a player and athlete to truly dominate the tour no matter the field.

Not every teenage slam champ grows up to be Serena Williams.

Besides, Maria and her "limited game" haven't done too poorly.

NashaMasha
Dec 17th, 2012, 04:35 PM
Maria isn't special. She isn't athletic nor does she have deft hands. It's miraculous she's even won her slams. She's just that really hard-working, persistent person that refuses to die. The type that smart and talented, but lazy kids loathe because he/she is successful despite being just ordinary in most cases. Maria is supremely confident and motivated. She just keeps coming back and back.

Or perhaps in a sense, that is what she has special. You can probably combine the confidence and motivation Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, Safina, Chakvetadze and her other generational stablemates has and all that still amounts to less than what Maria alone has.

just hard-working players are not winning Wimbledon at 17 y.o backing it up with YEC trophy the same year. All the rest of your post is absolutely and utterly delusional

miffedmax
Dec 17th, 2012, 04:45 PM
5 years ago, by the end of 2007 we had:
- Martina Hingis (5)
- Serena Williams (8)
- Venus Williams (6)
- Lindsay Davenport (3)
- Justine Henin (7)
- Maria Sharapova (2)
- Svetlana Kuznetsova (1)
- Amélie Mauresmo (2)

So that makes it 8 players.

10 years ago, by the end of 2002, we had:
- Monica Seles (9)
- Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (4)
- Conchita Martinez (1)
- Mary Pierce (2)
- Martina Hingis (5)
- Iva Majoli (1)
- Lindsay Davenport (3)
- Serena Williams (4)
- Venus Williams (4)
- Jennifer Capriati (3)

So that makes it 10 players.

We are currently in the average, aren't we?

The question is meaningless without context. I suspect that your are correct and we usually have something in the low double digits as current active slam champs. Historically, there have usually been one or two dominant players (Court, Martina/Chrissie, Graf, Serena) a challenger or two (King, Goolagong, Seles, Henin/Wiliams) and a slew of near-greats and one-hit wonders (the two classes not always being mutually exclusive). At any given time you have a few of the older generation cycling out, the current generation, and some up-and-comers.

The current situation with the girls, where the slams are changing hands every tournament, would be a bit of concern as it could be construed as reflective of excessive parity caused by a dip in quality. But I don't expect that to hold true as the women get older. Vika and Petra are from that pack and have clearly separated themselves from the pack.

Roookie
Dec 17th, 2012, 05:08 PM
Too many

Crater718
Dec 17th, 2012, 05:31 PM
Not every teenage slam champ grows up to be Serena Williams.

I think most expected her to have more than 4 slams, not 10+. Like a Henin or Venus career.

EDIT: However, she does have plenty of time if she doesn't retire in the next three years.

iWill
Dec 17th, 2012, 06:50 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcexze285f1r1gulro1_500.gif

AHHH! LMAO!

Sam Stosur got the luxury of playing an emotional Serena Williams on the 10 year anniversary of 9/11. This was a very somber day across the country and I think much like the 2004 Wimbledon Final Serena got into the match when it was too late. :angel:

erschloy214
Dec 17th, 2012, 07:08 PM
I think it is what it is honestly. The list would be even better if Clijsters and Henin were still around. I really think what the tour needs are more stars. My fav times watching tennis were when everyone in the top 10 could compete heavily with each other and you might not know who would win (early 2000s for example). Honestly though, I think tennis will be in great shape going forward and you'll see more slam champions and stars in the next few seasons.

Vincey!
Dec 17th, 2012, 07:37 PM
I don't think it's too many global players as we're crossing 2 generations right now. I do think tho there are too many players with only 1 GS.

mikepails
Dec 17th, 2012, 07:40 PM
Too many. Too many players who arent really slam caliber like Na, Stosur, Schiavone, winning slams.

MrProdigy555
Dec 17th, 2012, 08:07 PM
Too many. Too many players who arent really slam caliber like Na, Stosur, Schiavone, winning slams.
Na is a slam caliber player.

mikepails
Dec 17th, 2012, 08:08 PM
Na a B-level ball basher who makes tons of errors, is fragile mentally, doesnt have a big serve, and was a tour journeywomen until 29. That is slam caliber?

JarkaFish
Dec 17th, 2012, 08:10 PM
Na is a slam caliber player.

:lol:

MrProdigy555
Dec 17th, 2012, 09:30 PM
When Na is playing well she can beat anyone not named Serena Williams. She has shown this.

JarkaFish
Dec 17th, 2012, 09:35 PM
When Na is playing well she can beat anyone not named Serena Williams. She has shown this.

Obviously when a ball basher is painting the lines they can beat anyone, that's not very surprising. :shrug:

MrProdigy555
Dec 17th, 2012, 09:57 PM
Obviously when a ball basher is painting the lines they can beat anyone, that's not very surprising. :shrug:
By your standards, 80% of the tour bashes the ball.

And Na isn't simply a ball basher. She does employ tactic sometimes. Look at her match against Kerber this year.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Dec 17th, 2012, 10:58 PM
There are too many active one-slam winners and the list keeps on growing every year. When was the last time there were 6 active one-slammers at the end of a season?

MrProdigy555
Dec 18th, 2012, 12:21 AM
There are too many active one-slam winners and the list keeps on growing every year. When was the last time there were 6 active one-slammers at the end of a season?
This is a serious question, if Steffi was taken out of the game (when she was dominating) for a year or so, how many of her opponents would feel as if this is their one shot to strike? In a sense, that's the situation 2010/2011 seasons were left in.

Hardiansf
Dec 18th, 2012, 12:50 AM
Na a B-level ball basher who makes tons of errors, is fragile mentally, doesnt have a big serve, and was a tour journeywomen until 29. That is slam caliber?
Yes, she is. And she proof it. With her titles and her wins over top players

faboozadoo15
Dec 18th, 2012, 04:14 AM
Na a B-level ball basher who makes tons of errors, is fragile mentally, doesnt have a big serve, and was a tour journeywomen until 29. That is slam caliber?

Li Na serves pretty huge many times. check her serve stats when she won RG. Impeccable.

asdas
Dec 18th, 2012, 04:58 AM
quantity is good, quality is poor .... Multiple Slam winners are not in form(Kuzzie) / part-timers(Serena)/ going to retire soon(Venus), . From 1 Slam winners only Kvitova and Azarenka are young and have chances for 2nd Slam...

it's what is called transitional era or weak field....

sad but true. :sad:
that's why random winner pops up here and there.

andyjason
Dec 18th, 2012, 06:19 AM
Maybe six 1 slam winners are too many???:confused::confused:

asdas
Dec 18th, 2012, 12:52 PM
Maybe six 1 slam winners are too many???:confused::confused:
Indeed.
Too random. :rolleyes: