PDA

View Full Version : Another pseudo-slam?


Andy T
May 11th, 2004, 09:21 PM
Now we know that one - maybe more -of the quartet consisting of Serena, Justine, Venus and Kim will not be playing at Roland Garros, does this mean the tournament has as much (or as little, depending on how you want to look at it) value/significance as the Oz Open in January and the US Open last year?

Dava
May 11th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Well the French always kicks up some funky results anyway, and hopefully Mauresmo,Serena and Capriati can stay fit. Also with some of the young Russians lurking around in the draw, it could be very exciting if they could get through. Hopefulyl Justine and Venus will be healthy will be ready in time. Really I dont think anything can get worse then the Aus Open this year, its was the worst slam in my opinion for years, mayve thats cos all my faves did crap though, appart from patty LOL

Kart
May 11th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Now we know that one - maybe more -of the quartet consisting of Serena, Justine, Venus and Kim will not be playing at Roland Garros, does this mean the tournament has as much (or as little, depending on how you want to look at it) value/significance as the Oz Open in January and the US Open last year?
Not if Monica plays :banana:.

Seriously though, you can only put so many asterisks on tournaments before accepting that this is the way it's going to be from now on.

sartrista7
May 11th, 2004, 09:47 PM
It's part of a professional athlete's job to maintain their health... just as they have to maintain their technique, their mentality, their fitness etc. If they can't do one or more of these things... tough shit.

"If Elena D has better service technique she'd have more success"
"If Kim was stronger mentally she'd have more success"
"If Monica had been anything approaching thin since '96 she'd have had more success"
"If Venus wasn't injured as much she'd have more success"

All the same thing. Thus, no asterisks.

Greenout
May 12th, 2004, 12:10 AM
I think we'll just have to understand that the game is different now.
The standards are tougher. In the past many players were playing
grand slams with injuries and illness because the lower ranked
competition were incompetant.

Nowadays...7 matches are tough, and a high seed/star/top 10 player
can't afford to expect to come out as a winner or more injured than
they were when they entered the grand slam.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 12:12 AM
Not if Venus, Serena or Justine win cause it's not like Kim was beating them at slams anyway.

Volcana
May 12th, 2004, 01:09 AM
Now we know that one - maybe more -of the quartet consisting of Serena, Justine, Venus and Kim will not be playing at Roland Garros, does this mean the tournament has as much (or as little, depending on how you want to look at it) value/significance as the Oz Open in January and the US Open last year?Yes. And as much significance as Aus Open 2003, 2002, 2001 and US 2002, 2001, 2000. History doesn't care who you play, It only cares if you win.

You want 'psuedo-slam'? Try the 1973 Wimbledon men's draw. Or any men's slam from '63, '64. '65, '66 or '67. And if you don't know why I picked those dates and those slams, that tells you all you need to know about the significance of who DOESN'T play.

Gowza
May 12th, 2004, 01:55 AM
if they dont play then in terms of significance no it wont. its not the fact that they are top players that would be missing if say players ranked from 11-20 didnt play then it also wouldnt be as significant. its the fact that players who should be there (due to rank) wont be which makes it less significant to me personally. quality may not be as high but these sort of draws can be a good thing because it allows young players to make a stride further along there tennis career by going a bit further in the event. however imo without those players in the draw imo it would actually be more exciting. those players basically never lose unless its to each other. the players below them can lose to a lot more players and the fact that they wont be in the draw will give everyone more confidence and would make it more competitive i think.

but lets not get ahead of ourselves here they havent all withdrawn yet. and whats wrong serena? she's not injured is she?

venusfan
May 12th, 2004, 02:05 AM
Not if Venus, Serena or Justine win cause it's not like Kim was beating them at slams anyway.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Mr_Molik
May 12th, 2004, 02:08 AM
History doesn't care who you play, It only cares if you win.



what about all this shit margaret court gets 4 winning 11 AO titles

Andy T
May 12th, 2004, 10:01 AM
Not if Venus, Serena or Justine win cause it's not like Kim was beating them at slams anyway.

It's difficult to beat players who either aren't playing or lose early to the likes of Zvonareva or Raymond.

justine&coria
May 12th, 2004, 10:04 AM
If only Kim doesn't take part, then it's not a "pseudo-slam". Because she never seemed to be able to win one !

hingis-seles
May 12th, 2004, 10:44 AM
It's difficult to beat players who either aren't playing or lose early to the likes of Zvonareva or Raymond.
:lol: :worship:

Brαm
May 12th, 2004, 10:49 AM
If only Kim doesn't take part, then it's not a "pseudo-slam". Because she never seemed to be able to win one !
What if Majoli didn't play the French? Would it be a pseudo-slam then? After all, she's won a slam before.

Andy T
May 12th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Yes. And as much significance as Aus Open 2003, 2002, 2001 and US 2002, 2001, 2000. History doesn't care who you play, It only cares if you win.

You want 'psuedo-slam'? Try the 1973 Wimbledon men's draw. Or any men's slam from '63, '64. '65, '66 or '67. And if you don't know why I picked those dates and those slams, that tells you all you need to know about the significance of who DOESN'T play.

Chill out Volcana - I deliberately asked the question in total neutrality "as much or as little, depending...." because I didn't want to suggest that I personally thought it would be a pseudo-slam. On these threads, there is constantly the war about whether a slam without Serena or Justine or Venus counts as much as one with and I just wanted to see what these people thought BEFORE we know the winner, so that it wasn't a case of one set of fans against the others.

By the way, I have no idea why you picked 63-67. It is totally illogical - why just refer to the absence of Laver and not Rosewall, Hoad or Pancho Gonzales in 62 and the years before, and so on back in time.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 06:24 PM
It's difficult to beat players who either aren't playing or lose early to the likes of Zvonareva or Raymond.
What happened at OZ, French, Wimby and US Open?? Lost to Serena, Justine, Venus and Justine again. Game, Set, Match.

Paneru
May 12th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Not if Venus, Serena or Justine win cause it's not like Kim was beating them at slams anyway.

I have to agree there! :cool:

I think one of these three
will win it and all three will atleast
make it to the QF's.