PDA

View Full Version : One Slam Wonders


The_Pov
May 7th, 2006, 12:18 PM
Who will never win another slam?

rhz
May 7th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Did you mean ONE ?

G~Playa
May 7th, 2006, 12:21 PM
Myskina...

vince du chesnay
May 7th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Yes it's true

lee station
May 7th, 2006, 12:27 PM
Myskina is leading

azmad_88
May 7th, 2006, 12:29 PM
Myskina and Majoli(i dont think she is playing anymore)

Viktymise
May 7th, 2006, 12:33 PM
Since kim plans to retire next year i cant see her winning another in that timeframe, with the others you never know

Beny
May 7th, 2006, 12:54 PM
Amelie...the way she`s won her first slam..hmmm

Thauron
May 7th, 2006, 02:17 PM
All will have their chances. Only the future knows who will take them.

FrenchY52
May 7th, 2006, 02:18 PM
Myskina OF COURSE

Craigy
May 7th, 2006, 02:29 PM
Myskina

santhuruu
May 7th, 2006, 02:33 PM
All of them:p

-jenks-
May 7th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Myskina and Kuznetsova

Martian KC
May 7th, 2006, 02:35 PM
:angel:

lucashg
May 7th, 2006, 02:43 PM
Myskina won't win.

Sharapova and Kuznetsova will win more IMO, but it could be as soon as this year or take a few years more.

Kim and Amélie are definitely in the TOP mix right now, and I really think they should be able to win at least 2 more GS before their respective retirements.

Andrew..
May 7th, 2006, 03:47 PM
I can't even think of Myskina winning another one right now. She's so far away from the top players at this point.

The WTA is going to remain really unpredictable for the next few years. I think Maria will win Wimbledon again in the next few years, but I think she'll continue to fall in the later rounds of the other slams. Kim is probably the de facto favorite at the US Open this year, but with her talk of retirement, who knows how many more chances she's going to get. If Amelie plays more often like she did in the AO final, I think she can pick up more AO titles, and maybe win Wimbledon.

Kuznetsova puzzles me. She has the game to win any slam, but her shot selection and focus in the big moments is just.... out there. She'll win another one at some point, but right now she needs to just mature more.

TeaMMashA
May 7th, 2006, 03:53 PM
Myskina in my opinion but i have noticed the people who have voted for the stronger candidates to actaully win a slam again havent mentioned that they have voted for them all replys apart from 2 have been Myskina. Do they really believe they will be one slam wonders?

JoeB_UK
May 7th, 2006, 03:55 PM
This is really a question with only one possible answer; myskina!!!!

Il Primo!
May 7th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Myskina :sad: and Momo

SAEKeithSerena
May 7th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Myskina in my opinion but i have noticed the people who have voted for the stronger candidates to actaully win a slam again havent mentioned that they have voted for them all replys apart from 2 have been Myskina. Do they really believe they will be one slam wonders?


i agree. as much as i love all of those players, i'd say myskina. maria sharapova and svetlana kuznetsova will win their fair share of more

selyoink
May 7th, 2006, 05:22 PM
I can't fathom Myskina winning another slam at this point unfortunately.

I also don't see Mauresmo winning another one. I think her best chance is probably at Wimbledon. She is getting pretty old by womens tennis standards so her time is probably running out. I say if she hasn't won another won by the end of 2007 she will end her career with just 1 slam title.

Same goes for Clijsters but I think she gets one more slam.

morningglory
May 7th, 2006, 05:30 PM
Kim's retiring to be a Mom so I'd have to say her... the others still have several years left

urock34
May 7th, 2006, 07:41 PM
i think myskina might win wimbledon. i just saw her match against jankovic at wimbledon and she is a tremendous grass court player if she is on her game

Carmen Mairena
May 7th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Maria S.

rik du chesnay
May 7th, 2006, 08:14 PM
I hope I'm wrong but I think Myskina.Sorry for her but she can win a slam

DarkchildSwiss
May 7th, 2006, 08:18 PM
I think Anastasia Myskina.

BUBI
May 7th, 2006, 08:25 PM
Sveta.

Jum_p_Over
May 7th, 2006, 08:45 PM
Myskina is definately in the lead for not winning another slam... this is a no-brainer

Lulu.
May 7th, 2006, 09:21 PM
All of them ;)

Task
May 8th, 2006, 01:58 PM
If a poll had been conducted two years ago with the same list of players, but asked;

"Which of these players will never win a grand slam?", Myskina would have been winning that poll too.

Yet she won a slam. Don't write her off yet.

October
May 8th, 2006, 02:12 PM
If a poll had been conducted two years ago with the same list of players, but asked;

"Which of these players will never win a grand slam?", Myskina would have been winning that poll too.

Yet she won a slam. Don't write her off yet.

:wavey: Very well said!!

saki
May 8th, 2006, 02:14 PM
I think they all have the potential to win another. But I think the least likely to are, paradoxially, the two who are looking pretty good at the moment: Amelie and Kim. Amelie is running out of time - she's, what, 27? Probably has two more years of good tennis in her. Kim has a firm retirement date and doesn't play well on grass and doesn't like playing on clay. Both could still win another one or two but time is running out for both and competition is fierce.

Unless something really horrible happens injury-wise, Maria and Sveta are both winning more. They're young and talented.

Myskina is a bit of an enigma to me but I wouldn't write off her chances just yet either.

Foot's Fingers
May 8th, 2006, 03:33 PM
Kim Clijsters :devil:

Foot's Fingers
May 8th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Myskina in my opinion but i have noticed the people who have voted for the stronger candidates to actaully win a slam again havent mentioned that they have voted for them all replys apart from 2 have been Myskina. Do they really believe they will be one slam wonders?


:worship:

Solitaire
May 8th, 2006, 03:41 PM
Myskina....I know no one really thought she'd win the FO and she did but out of these girls she's my pick

fifiricci
May 8th, 2006, 03:55 PM
I really like Nastya and would love it if she won a second slam, but I really do think she is the runt of the litter in this particular poll :o

Ceze
May 8th, 2006, 04:05 PM
there should be a "none of those" option :o

Yasmine
May 8th, 2006, 04:21 PM
there should be a "none of those" option :o I was thinking the same;)

FrenchY52
May 8th, 2006, 04:33 PM
52 Idiots :(

LH2HBH
May 8th, 2006, 04:37 PM
I picked 3 that thought might not. Gotta love multiple answer polls.

ToeTag
May 8th, 2006, 05:34 PM
Who won't win another slam
Everyone on there except Sharapova. Sorry, Amelie.

Danči Dementia
May 8th, 2006, 05:50 PM
All of them:p
I voted for Sharapova but I also think that none of them
exepting momoshe will win another one or two or three or four ;)

ivan88
May 8th, 2006, 05:51 PM
Anastasia Myskina

frenchie
May 8th, 2006, 06:00 PM
This poll is shit!!! :rolleyes:
I hate the expression "one slam wonder"..... Why is it bad to win one slam in your career? Winning a slam is the biggest accomplishment in a tennis career even if you can't repeat it :o

AsGoodAsNew
May 8th, 2006, 06:23 PM
52 Idiots :(
54 now!

I think it's going to be difficult for 3 of them: Anastasia; Kim; and Amelie. But I voted for Anastasia.

AsGoodAsNew
May 8th, 2006, 06:24 PM
This poll is shit!!! :rolleyes:
I hate the expression "one slam wonder"..... Why is it bad to win one slam in your career? Winning a slam is the biggest accomplishment in a tennis career even if you can't repeat it :o
I agree to some extent - think of all the players who NEVER win a slam. But it's fun to have a guess!

smiler
May 8th, 2006, 06:28 PM
I'm happy to see Sveta is loosing this poll! :)

Aquanetta
May 8th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Myskina because she seems less motivated than the others.

The_Pov
May 8th, 2006, 08:14 PM
This poll is shit!!! :rolleyes:
I hate the expression "one slam wonder"..... Why is it bad to win one slam in your career? Winning a slam is the biggest accomplishment in a tennis career even if you can't repeat it :o

Just cos nearly everyone has voted for Myskina, I bet if she had the least ammount of votes you wouldn't be complaining.

vwfan
May 9th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I wouldn't expect any of them in the next year or so, unless you get another depleted field like at Aus Open 2006, U.S.Open 2003, 2004. They are all one slam wonders for a reason!

Brooklyn90
May 9th, 2006, 03:52 AM
out of everyone on the list i say myskina, but i still think she has a chance to win another french in a couple of years if she could start playing more consistant. I think sharapova will probally win 3 or 4 slams in her carrer. Sveta will win 1 more, Ameilie will win 2 more, kim probally 1 more since shes retiring soon

Dan23
May 9th, 2006, 03:58 AM
I wouldn't expect any of them in the next year or so, unless you get another depleted field like at Aus Open 2006, U.S.Open 2003, 2004. They are all one slam wonders for a reason!
:lol: what a load of :bs: what was wrong with the field at the AO this year? The winners cant help other 'top' players being dismissed in the first few rounds. Those players around in the finals are the ones playing the best quality tennis. Having your own favourite players in or out of a tournament doesnt lessen its worth or the value of a slam title, and when some of these players go on and win more slams it will throw your reasoning out the window.

xin_hui
May 9th, 2006, 04:50 AM
I wouldn't expect any of them in the next year or so, unless you get another depleted field like at Aus Open 2006, U.S.Open 2003, 2004. They are all one slam wonders for a reason!

the AO field this year WAS NOT depleted :rolleyes: some sisters losing early doesnt make it depleted. AO had a great lineup.

and amelie and kim just happened to win the last two slams, and they are "one slam wonders for a reason". what intelligence :rolleyes:

KoOlMaNsEaN
May 9th, 2006, 05:35 AM
Definitely Myskina I reluctantly didnt click on mauresmo

greenfunkTHREE.
May 9th, 2006, 06:16 AM
although myskina is my favourite. it's kinda obvious. she's like the weakest amongst the rest listed. but if she does win another slam then it would be great!

LucasArg
May 9th, 2006, 06:25 AM
Myskina

vwfan
May 9th, 2006, 02:05 PM
:lol: what a load of :bs: what was wrong with the field at the AO this year? The winners cant help other 'top' players being dismissed in the first few rounds. Those players around in the finals are the ones playing the best quality tennis. Having your own favourite players in or out of a tournament doesnt lessen its worth or the value of a slam title, and when some of these players go on and win more slams it will throw your reasoning out the window.When the was the last time in recent memory that the Grand Slam champion faced an injured player in the SF (a heavy favorite to win) and the withdrawal of a former champion! Yes, that is the typical way to win a slam. And you think my post is bullshit! :lol:

vwfan
May 9th, 2006, 02:18 PM
and amelie and kim just happened to win the last two slams, and they are "one slam wonders for a reason". what intelligence C'mon now. Don't make this so easy!
There were serious doubts that either Kim or Amelie had what it takes to win a slam. Amelie has been in two slam finals her entire career! She won the it facing an injured SF opponent and final opponent who retired. The tour has several multiple slam champions all of whom lead Amelie in h2hs. Even Kim, with her one slam, leads Amelie. Therefore the odds are against her!
And while Kim has been in more GS finals, she has been owned by Justine, Venus, Serena, and lately Davenport in matches that would even give her chance at even getting a chance at lifting the trophy. Hell, she almost lost to Venus in the QF who had limited to no matchplay and after she had three warm-up events, playing in-form tennis, and being the heavy favorite.
In both cases, there are simply players that are better than them both, particularly when it comes to slam competition. Now, one can assume that the stars will align again in their favor, but if that is what is required, then one slam wonders is an appropriate descriptor. Ok?!

xin_hui
May 9th, 2006, 02:43 PM
C'mon now. Don't make this so easy!
There were serious doubts that either Kim or Amelie had what it takes to win a slam. Amelie has been in two slam finals her entire career! She won the it facing an injured SF opponent and final opponent who retired. The tour has several multiple slam champions all of whom lead Amelie in h2hs. Even Kim, with her one slam, leads Amelie. Therefore the odds are against her!
And while Kim has been in more GS finals, she has been owned by Justine, Venus, Serena, and lately Davenport in matches that would even give her chance at even getting a chance at lifting the trophy. Hell, she almost lost to Venus in the QF who had limited to no matchplay and after she had three warm-up events, playing in-form tennis, and being the heavy favorite.
In both cases, there are simply players that are better than them both, particularly when it comes to slam competition. Now, one can assume that the stars will align again in their favor, but if that is what is required, then one slam wonders is an appropriate descriptor. Ok?!

whatever reasons u want to dig up for their GS wins, they won, period. and all the top players were in the fields. and they are 1 and 2 in the world.

re amelie: so what if many top players lead their H2Hs against amelie. that means nothing. if amelie delivers on that day, she wins.
re kim: please check who won kim's last match against justine and venus, and lindsay actually. you want to talk serena, let's talk when she actually gets back to the tour. it doesnt matter if kim "almost lost" against venus, she won. who's fault was it that venus didnt have the stamina to last three sets.

you call them a one slam wonder when just one slam has passed from kim's win, and zero from amelie's win?

vwfan
May 9th, 2006, 03:19 PM
whatever reasons u want to dig up for their GS wins, they won, period. and all the top players were in the fields. and they are 1 and 2 in the world.
re amelie: so what if many top players lead their H2Hs against amelie. that means nothing. if amelie delivers on that day, she wins.
re kim: please check who won kim's last match against justine and venus, and lindsay actually. you want to talk serena, let's talk when she actually gets back to the tour. it doesnt matter if kim "almost lost" against venus, she won. who's fault was it that venus didnt have the stamina to last three sets.

you call them a one slam wonder when just one slam has passed from kim's win, and zero from amelie's win?I can call them one slam wonders because that is what they are until they win the second one. :lol:
If Kim doesn't win RG (and I don't see her doing that if Davenport can beat her on clay), she has very little chance at Wimbledon and then will have to defend her slam--a postion she has never been in before and pretty tough to do.
As for Amelie, we all know what a headcase Amelie is in Paris and she's never even been in a final there and she has much better grass court players than she is to take out to win Wimbledon; one SF at U.S. Open hardly makes her a favorite there.
Bottom line, if you are going to win multiple slams, it is generally easier to do them in quick sequence, i.e. you're hot and the rest of the field believes you are capable.
Much, much harder to do it once time has passed. Just ask Maria, Myskina, and Kutzie--the latter two, losing early in the defence of their titles.

xin_hui
May 9th, 2006, 03:21 PM
I can call them one slam wonders because that is what they are until they win the second one. :lol:
If Kim doesn't win RG (and I don't see her doing that if Davenport can beat her on clay), she has very little chance at Wimbledon and then will have to defend her slam--a postion she has never been in before and pretty tough to do.
As for Amelie, we all know what a headcase Amelie is in Paris and she's never even been in a final there and she has much better grass court players than she is to take out to win Wimbledon; one SF at U.S. Open hardly makes her a favorite there.
Bottom line, if you are going to win multiple slams, it is generally easier to do them in quick sequence, i.e. you're hot and the rest of the field believes you are capable.
Much, much harder to do it once time has passed. Just ask Maria, Myskina, and Kutzie--the latter two, losing early in the defence of their titles.

yeah, i'm sure serena did hers in quick sequence:tape:

and u might want to check out the reason for myskina's 1st round loss at RG last year :rolleyes:

The_Pov
May 9th, 2006, 04:09 PM
C'mon now. Don't make this so easy!
There were serious doubts that either Kim or Amelie had what it takes to win a slam. Amelie has been in two slam finals her entire career! She won the it facing an injured SF opponent and final opponent who retired. The tour has several multiple slam champions all of whom lead Amelie in h2hs. Even Kim, with her one slam, leads Amelie. Therefore the odds are against her!
And while Kim has been in more GS finals, she has been owned by Justine, Venus, Serena, and lately Davenport in matches that would even give her chance at even getting a chance at lifting the trophy. Hell, she almost lost to Venus in the QF who had limited to no matchplay and after she had three warm-up events, playing in-form tennis, and being the heavy favorite.
In both cases, there are simply players that are better than them both, particularly when it comes to slam competition. Now, one can assume that the stars will align again in their favor, but if that is what is required, then one slam wonders is an appropriate descriptor. Ok?!

So does that mean that Sharapova, Myskina and Kuzzy all deserve their titles less? they've only been in one slam final...but all managed to convert them into wins.

saki
May 9th, 2006, 04:39 PM
So does that mean that Sharapova, Myskina and Kuzzy all deserve their titles less? they've only been in one slam final...but all managed to convert them into wins.

Personally, I'm more impressed by winning your first slam in your first slam final appearance than I am by final appearances followed by an eventual win. I think it bodes better for the future of those players too.

vwfan
May 9th, 2006, 04:49 PM
So does that mean that Sharapova, Myskina and Kuzzy all deserve their titles less? they've only been in one slam final...but all managed to convert them into wins.What are you getting defensive about? I never said that they didn't deserve their titles. Whoever wins them deserves them. Period. Sharapova took out the defending Champion and played incredible tennis. ok? feel better, now.

My point is that Amelie has been on tour as a top player a long time--way longer that Maria and Kutzie who have the best chances because they have youth on their sides.

In the time she's been on tour, she's had two final appearances, while her peers and the likely contenders in the next couple of years have all had multiple slam final wins and appearances. They have more experience to draw on. So Amelie has a handicap in any matchup against them and they all have beaten her on multiple ocassions in route to the final or victory. I know she is already probably taking pepto bismo for her stomach and the draw is not even out in Paris.

vwfan
May 9th, 2006, 04:56 PM
Personally, I'm more impressed by winning your first slam in your first slam final appearance than I am by final appearances followed by an eventual win. I think it bodes better for the future of those players too.It may be more impressive, but if you don't capitalize on the momentum with another strong slam performance or win shortly after, it is much harder to get in the final circle again. Just ask Serena. It took her three+ years to lift a slam trophy again and she's considered one of the best ever.

Players themselves start to think it was a fluke. If you have built up through multiple finals and consistently good showings, then you have more confidence that it is just a matter of time. Kutzie, Maria, and Myskina came out of no where to win these tournaments. They know it and so does everyone else, so until they back it up with a repeat performance, it will mess with their heads and make it tougher to win again.

Denise4925
May 9th, 2006, 04:58 PM
As much as I like Ana, I don't think she'll win another one.

Denise4925
May 9th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Myskina because she seems less motivated than the others.
I agree

saki
May 9th, 2006, 05:47 PM
It may be more impressive, but if you don't capitalize on the momentum with another strong slam performance or win shortly after, it is much harder to get in the final circle again. Just ask Serena. It took her three+ years to lift a slam trophy again and she's considered one of the best ever.

Players themselves start to think it was a fluke. If you have built up through multiple finals and consistently good showings, then you have more confidence that it is just a matter of time. Kutzie, Maria, and Myskina came out of no where to win these tournaments. They know it and so does everyone else, so until they back it up with a repeat performance, it will mess with their heads and make it tougher to win again.

No, I'd agree with that but Sveta and Maria both have time on their sides. When (and, yes, I do think it's when and not if) they reach their second GS final, they're going to remember the fearlessness with which they both went out to their first. Both of them were very impressive in their slam titles. It can work both ways - when you've been in finals but lost them, I think it messes with your head more than if you haven't. Take Kim, for example, went out and played a fearless first GS final, was only two points from winning it, lost it and then lost another three before she got her head back together.

Helen Lawson
May 9th, 2006, 06:08 PM
I said Myskina, but really, after you've won one, who cares. I don't see Liz or me getting any more Oscar nominations, but that doesn't tarnish past wins.

Barrie_Dude
May 9th, 2006, 07:02 PM
Myskina...I have to agree

SilK
May 9th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Of those on that list, Myskina won't win another one.

And if Clijsters ends her carreer next year, I doubt she'll win another one.

AsGoodAsNew
May 9th, 2006, 07:38 PM
I said Myskina, but really, after you've won one, who cares. I don't see Liz or me getting any more Oscar nominations, but that doesn't tarnish past wins.
Get yourself a ddecent part in a decent movie and you never know!

cartmancop
May 9th, 2006, 08:02 PM
@ this point I would say that Anastasia is the least likely to win a slam. She hasn't shown her best tennis in a while, but a turnaround is always possible.

Also Kim has pretty much said that she's only playing 2 more years, so her chances are shorter than the others... I think she could win another USO or an AO, but the others I don't see happening.

I think Amelie will win a Wimbledon.

Maria & Svetlana are still young & will for sure both win at least one more slam if they remain healthy & focused.

manu32
May 9th, 2006, 08:07 PM
ok but myskina is so.......

The_Pov
May 11th, 2006, 10:02 AM
I said Myskina, but really, after you've won one, who cares. I don't see Liz or me getting any more Oscar nominations, but that doesn't tarnish past wins.

Very true, achieveing a Grand Slam win is a huge feat. in itself.

esquímaux
May 11th, 2006, 12:36 PM
Amelie wil wen anudda wun, yule c :)

schris
May 11th, 2006, 01:13 PM
Myskina

CanIGetAWhat
Jul 13th, 2006, 06:51 PM
72 for Amelie :tape:

améliemomo
Jul 13th, 2006, 06:55 PM
Myskina :sad: and Momo

you were wrong! :p :cool:

shirley
Jul 13th, 2006, 06:59 PM
Anastasia Myskina

timafi
Jul 13th, 2006, 07:10 PM
:devil: :devil: :devil: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Il Primo!
Jul 13th, 2006, 07:13 PM
you were wrong! :p :cool:

like 71 other posters :ras:

Milito22
Jul 13th, 2006, 10:06 PM
MISKINA
MARIA S
AMELIE
KIM :o

spencercarlos
Jul 13th, 2006, 11:58 PM
C'mon now. Don't make this so easy!
There were serious doubts that either Kim or Amelie had what it takes to win a slam. Amelie has been in two slam finals her entire career! She won the it facing an injured SF opponent and final opponent who retired. The tour has several multiple slam champions all of whom lead Amelie in h2hs. Even Kim, with her one slam, leads Amelie. Therefore the odds are against her!
And while Kim has been in more GS finals, she has been owned by Justine, Venus, Serena, and lately Davenport in matches that would even give her chance at even getting a chance at lifting the trophy. Hell, she almost lost to Venus in the QF who had limited to no matchplay and after she had three warm-up events, playing in-form tennis, and being the heavy favorite.
In both cases, there are simply players that are better than them both, particularly when it comes to slam competition. Now, one can assume that the stars will align again in their favor, but if that is what is required, then one slam wonders is an appropriate descriptor. Ok?!
Your usual shitty stuff :rolleyes:
I could accept you if this comment would be related to Myskina, who despite winning a slam, she did it without being brilliant, or impressive, she was just consistent the whole two weeks and did not self destruct like her oponnents from the Quarterfinals.
But all others have won slams while playing their very best tennis, with impressive performances along the way.

I hope Kim or Sveta repeats at the Open, or Amelie :p