PDA

View Full Version : Will the Belgians return conistency of the top players in slams (20 dif. QF past 4)


Singleniacki
Feb 11th, 2010, 12:14 AM
French 09

Winner: Kuzzy
Runner up: Dina
Semifinalists: Domi and Sam
Quarter-finalists: Sori, Vika, Masha and Rena

Wimbledon 09

Winner: Rena
Runner up: Vee
Semifinalists: Dina. Lena d
Quarter-finalists: Sabine, Fran, Aga, Vika

Us Open 09

Winner: Kim
Runner up: Caro
Semifinalists: Rena, Yanina
Quarter-finalists: K bond, Na li, Oudin and Pennetta

Aus Open 10

Winner: Rena
Runner up: Henin
Semifinalists: Li, Jie
Quarter-finalists: Kiri, Vika, Vee, Nadia


Serena: 4 times
Sveta: 1 time
Dinara: 2 times
Cibulkova: 1 time
Stosur: 1 time
Sorana: 1 time
Kirilenko: 1 time
Azarenka: 3 times
Li: 2 times
Zheng: 1 time
Nadia: 1 time
Henin: 1 time
Venus: 2 times
Sharapova: 1 time
Oudin: 1 time
Flavia: 1 time
Radwanska: 1 time
Caroline: 1 time
Kateryna: 1 time
Yanina: 1 times

Vika and Serena are the only 2 to make the quarters at least 3 out of 4 times :eek:

With the Belgians return, is it likely that now that mostly the top players will reach the quarters or further in the next 4 slams?

Chakvenus
Feb 11th, 2010, 12:45 AM
hm this is interesting!
i'm gonna say that yes, they probably are going to bring back top player consistency. I'm no fan of either of them, so more me its a bummer but regardless i can easily see it happening.

The Witch-king
Feb 11th, 2010, 01:16 AM
How can you ask this when one just bombed out in the second round

Singleniacki
Feb 11th, 2010, 03:26 AM
^^ 3rd round and she did win the us open :rolleyes:

Volcana
Feb 11th, 2010, 03:39 AM
When we had the same players in the late rounds over and over and over, it was we called 'lack of depth'. All the current slam title holders are mutli-slam winners. The current runners-up ae two multi-slam winners, a former #1 and the the current #3.


So of the eight positions in the last four slam finals, six were filled by players with records of sustained excellence, and the seventh is a player who played in three of the last eight slam finals.


You could argue that things have been very consistent, we just happen to have a lot of good players around.

Singleniacki
Feb 11th, 2010, 03:48 AM
When we had the same players in the late rounds over and over and over, it was we called 'lack of depth'. All the current slam title holders are mutli-slam winners. The current runners-up ae two multi-slam winners, a former #1 and the the current #3.


So of the eight positions in the last four slam finals, six were filled by players with records of sustained excellence, and the seventh is a player who played in three of the last eight slam finals.


You could argue that things have been very consistent, we just happen to have a lot of good players around.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing for lower ranked players to reach later rounds in grandslams, i actually enjoy it and find it makes slams more exciting.

And yes there have been a lot of players who are capable of substantially high play and do not have the ranking who have gone far in slams. IMO i think we will revert back to when we had the same players go far in slams to some extent. Which again to some extent is saddening in itself.

NA-GOAT
Feb 11th, 2010, 03:55 AM
Serena, Venus, Na, Dinara Viktoria only people to reach 2 QF in last year :eek:

AcesHigh
Feb 11th, 2010, 04:11 AM
You could argue that things have been very consistent, we just happen to have a lot of good players around.

:spit: That's a joke, right?

Volcana
Feb 11th, 2010, 04:59 AM
:spit: That's a joke, right?No, it's not. I've been watching women's tennis since before the Open Era. The athleticism, the cardio, the sheer physical strength of a player ranked #40-#50 is vastly higher than it was 20 years ago. The skill level is higher. The ball travels so much faster due to advance in racket technology, the players have far less time to make decisions and execute.

People ask why so few players have an effective slice that stay low now. The ball is traveling so damn, it's almost impossible. And a ball that sits up gets killed, unless you're one of the super-elite players who can run it down.

I was against the slams going to 32 seeds, but I've since come to conclude it was the right decision. the players ranked #17-#32 are good enough to merit a level of protectiion. And, from the perspective of tournament finances, those players are good enough that I want my stars protected from them.

The Witch-king
Feb 11th, 2010, 06:56 AM
^^ 3rd round and she did win the us open :rolleyes:

oh really i didn't know that. And how is the third round that much better? And how does that answer my question?

Tennisstar86
Feb 11th, 2010, 06:58 AM
^^ 3rd round and she did win the us open :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with anything? fact is, she lost early......Had she not been in the draw Venus would have more than likely made the quarters at the US OPEN and she'd have 3.... If Henin wasnt around Lena D would have more than likely made the Quarters and had 2...

Time will tell, but with the way Henin played save for 2 matches....she looked a mess......so no I don't think anything will really change... Save for count Serena in the Quarters....And the second best moneys odds for a quarter IMO is Lena D at this point, but really outside of Serena i couldnt put money on any of them.

bandabou
Feb 11th, 2010, 08:36 AM
GO Babygirll!!