PDA

View Full Version : have anyone noticed?


rhz
May 21st, 2002, 04:45 AM
Although Venus won more majors,and tournaments, but Serena is the one who play more in the Tier 1 throughout the years!

look at the tournament selection this year, Venus didn't play a Tier 1, except Miami. She supposed to play Rome, but withdraw

Serena played in Charleston, Miami, Rome and Berlin!

i think this is one of the reasons although Venus is winning a lot of tournaments, but Jen is still #1. but on the other hand it is good for Serena also, because they are trying to avoid each other, and Serena doesn't play as many tournament as Venus, so she has to enter the big ones!

what do you think?

irma
May 21st, 2002, 04:51 AM
Serena said at the start of this year that she would serious try to conquer the tennisworld this year and to do that she has to play the biggest tournaments :cool:
maybe she more hungry as Venus right now:)

Williams Rulez
May 21st, 2002, 01:14 PM
Yup... that is called smart scheduling... ;)

Ted of Teds Tennis
May 21st, 2002, 01:59 PM
What's really interesting about Serena's scheduling is that it's making it possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) that she could lose in the finals at both RG and Wimbledon, and get to #1 without holding any of the Slam titles.

She's currently less than 600 points behind Capriati, and if she were to reach the finals of both RG and W, she'd gain 326 Round Points at both, plus more quality points. Now, for this scenario to happen, she'd have to hope that:

a) Venus doesn't win Wimbledon;

b) RG and Wimbledon are won by different people.

But having said all this, I think it would be a hoot to have Serena as #1 not holding any Slams. Considering how nuts everybody went at the end of 2000 and 2001 with Hingis and Davenport as the respective #1s without holding a Slam, it would be an interesting turnabout. ;)

AjdeNate!
May 21st, 2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Ted of Teds Tennis
...I think it would be a hoot to have Serena as #1 not holding any Slams. Considering how nuts everybody went at the end of 2000 and 2001 with Hingis and Davenport as the respective #1s without holding a Slam, it would be an interesting turnabout. ;)

I agree wholheartedly!

A4
May 21st, 2002, 03:51 PM
What kind of turnabout? Everyone will go nuts again about a number one without a slam. What makes you think there'll be any different reaction this time?

AjdeNate!
May 21st, 2002, 03:54 PM
I think 'turnabout' meaning the player not the circumstance.

A4
May 21st, 2002, 08:50 PM
Sure. Thats my point. Why should anybody expect that Serena will not be held to the same standard Davenport was held to, or at least scrutinised with the same intensity? The circs are the same. The players different. I don't think anyone should be making thinly-veiled insinuations that some players are held to different standards while others will have excuses made for them. At least, lets wait till that scenario happens, which I doubt will materialise, cos Serena will win at least one slam this year.

maccardel
May 21st, 2002, 10:38 PM
Well If Serena wins Rg then she will win Wimbly and Venus will win USopen and OZ2003...That is the plan.If Serena makes it to semis of RG she will still win Wimbly...

Asmus
May 21st, 2002, 11:05 PM
I think the deal is that Serena plays in the slightly bigger tournaments, whereas Venus plays in MORE tournaments.

VS Fan
May 22nd, 2002, 12:42 AM
Uhhh...

Serena was injured early this year at Sidney.
She missed the AO, Tokyo, and Antwerp, which Venus sub'ed for her.

Without these injuries, she would have had a similar number of tourneys as Venus.

She just MIGHT have been #2 by now.

tennischick
May 22nd, 2002, 12:56 AM
yep i noticed. said so just last night in an exchange with TennisPower.

when Hingis did it, it was called "padding". but it seems to be OK for Venus.

and if she becomes and remains # 1 after winning these lesser tournies, that apparently will be quite OK. :o :o :o

like i said last night, as far as i am concerned the party is all Serena's. go Serena!!!!!!!!!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Originally posted by rhz
Although Venus won more majors,and tournaments, but Serena is the one who play more in the Tier 1 throughout the years!

look at the tournament selection this year, Venus didn't play a Tier 1, except Miami. She supposed to play Rome, but withdraw

Serena played in Charleston, Miami, Rome and Berlin!

i think this is one of the reasons although Venus is winning a lot of tournaments, but Jen is still #1. but on the other hand it is good for Serena also, because they are trying to avoid each other, and Serena doesn't play as many tournament as Venus, so she has to enter the big ones!

what do you think?

Infiniti2001
May 22nd, 2002, 01:07 AM
when Hingis did it, it was called "padding". but it seems to be OK for Venus.

How could you compare Venus of 2002 to Hingis of 2000 & 2001?? Did I miss something?? The last time I checked Venus had 2 slams under her belt :P

tennischick
May 22nd, 2002, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Infiniti2001
How could you compare Venus of 2002 to Hingis of 2000 & 2001?? Did I miss something?? The last time I checked Venus had 2 slams under her belt :P

hope you dont mind that i deleted the color in your post. it's a tad blinding. and here's my point:

In 2001, Hingis played in 4 slams, 7 (out of a possible 9) Tier I tournies, 6 Tier II tournies, and 1 Tier III tourny. she played in the sole Tier III tourny (in Doha) but only did so at the request of the WTA and for which she was given a hefty appearance fee as part of a promotion deal.

Venus on the other hand played in 4 slams, 3 Tier I tourneys and 5 Tier II tourneys.

or we could compare their careers to date:

since 1993 (when she was 13), Hingis has played in a total of 137 tournies. here is the breakdown:

Slams 29 (21.2%) (29 of 29 since her first slam in 1995)
WTA Championships 5 (3.6%) (5 of 6 she qualified for)
Tier I 44 (32.1%)
Tier II 46 (33.5%)
Tier III 2 (1.5%)
Unk. 5 (3.6%) (Essen in 1994, Oakland & Chicago in 1996, Grand Slam Cup in 1998 & 1999)
Olympics 1 (.7%)
ITF Circuit 5 (3.6%)

Since entering the tour in 1994 at age 14, Venus has played in 86 tournies. here is her breakdown:

Slams 19 (22.1%)(19 of 20 since her first slam in 1997)
WTA Championships 1 (1.2%) (1 of 3 she qualified for)
Tier I 20 (23.3%)
Tier II 36 (41.9%)
Tier III 3 (3.5%)
Unk. 6 (7%) (Oakland in 1994, 1995, 1996, Grand Slam Cup in 1998 & 1999, Hannover in 1999)
Olympics 1 (1.2%)

in your opinion, which of these two women has played at more "smaller" tournies compared to "bigger" tournies? the notion that Hingis has padded her resume with a whole slew of smaller tournies is a myth found only on tennisborads. it is simply not true.

but my real point is that Serena has played higher level tournies more consistently than her sister. it's time to separate these two in our accolades. Serena rules!!!!!!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A4
May 22nd, 2002, 04:43 AM
Are you by any chance saying Venus does the "padding"?

I hate beating up on an injured girl, but I wonder how many tournaments Hingis won in 2001, regardless of tier level.

So Venus decides to enter lower tier tournaments hoping to win those as she has no hope of winning the higher tier tournaments. In that way, she keeps the number 1 ranking. Is that what is being implied? Correct me if I'm mistaken.

tennischick
May 22nd, 2002, 12:39 PM
not at all. and i don't think Hingis did either. my point with the comparison is to show how stupid the accusation is! all players go out and play to win whatever tourny is up next that they think they can win -- depending on their health, the location of the tourny, and the # of points they stand to gain. it's called intelligent scheduling. (except Dokic whose "experiements in masochism", to quote disposablehero, simply make no sense at all). having said that, it turns out that Serena, when she is healthy, has played a seriously difficult schedule and has a wonderful winning percentage in Tier 1 events. that is more deserving of being acknowledged and highligted IMO.


Originally posted by A4
Are you by any chance saying Venus does the "padding"?

I hate beating up on an injured girl, but I wonder how many tournaments Hingis won in 2001, regardless of tier level.

So Venus decides to enter lower tier tournaments hoping to win those as she has no hope of winning the higher tier tournaments. In that way, she keeps the number 1 ranking. Is that what is being implied? Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Ted of Teds Tennis
May 22nd, 2002, 01:21 PM
I wouldn't say Venus is 'padding' her schedule; she does after all currently hold two Slams. This is the reason I mentioned the possibility of *Serena* getting to #1 without a Slam.

What would be even more interesting is if a clay-courter like Hénin won RG, somebody who likes fast courts (like Hantuchova) won Wimbledon, and a Big Babe like Clijsters won the US Open, but Williamsx2, on the strength of playing more indoor tournaments this autumn, ended up #1 and #2. Of course, this is much less likely than the relatively straightforward example of Serena getting to #1 Slamless.

(Feel free to call me a cynic.)