PDA

View Full Version : Slams at given age- Chris, Martina, Serena


Marty-Dom
Jul 5th, 2010, 03:16 PM
Serena's prognosis is not that bad based on the comparison to Martina and Chris. She had very good start to her career- like Chris, and is trending steeply in her later years- like Martina.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6349/slamsatage.png

Helen Lawson
Jul 5th, 2010, 03:45 PM
Great chart! My first thought was she has no chance, she's too old, but she might be able to. Twice now Roland Garros has been handed to her on a plate and she's blown it, but 5 in 5 years is doable.

BarsonlyOne
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:46 PM
I think when it is all said and done, she will surpass Chris and Martina. But my biggest hope is that she surpasses Steffi. 9 Slams in 5 years to tie her is not soO out of reach. Thats 2 a year. And we all know that she is always a favorite 3 out of the 4 slams, and when shes learned her past mistakes at Roland Garros, she might add atleast 1 or 2 more. But if you think about, if she never wins another Roland Garros title, one of the many probablities of her other titles to reach Steffi would be:

Aussie 7 titles
French 1 title
Wimbledon 7 titles
US OPen 7 Titles

Of course you can mix and match all the numbers, but can you just imagine if she achieves these kinds of numbers? I cheer Serena for the player that she is, and what shes already accomplished, and also for the historical legacy she may achieve. Respect.:worship:

Pureracket
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:49 PM
It would be interesting to see if Serena maintains this level of focus, intensity, and fitness, though. I thin this current level is a mixture of her blunder in RG, the return of 2 of her main rivals, and a few things going on in her personal life. The least bit of complaceny, especially on hard courts, could spell trouble for any of the top players.

moby
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:50 PM
Good job. It would be nice to see graphs for Graf, Seles, etc.

faboozadoo15
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:54 PM
Good job. It would be nice to see graphs for Graf, Seles, etc.

Or BJK and Court.

Marty-Dom
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:44 PM
Good job. It would be nice to see graphs for Graf, Seles, etc.

It gets a bit crowded, but you should see the trends. Monica started out every bit as impressive as Steffi.

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8760/slamsatage2.png

moby
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:56 PM
Thanks. I'm pretty sure you made a mistake with Monica though? She won her first slam at 16, and the stabbing occurred when she was 19.

serenafan08
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:57 PM
Wow, great work! Maybe it's not so far fetched for Serena to reach Martina and Chris after all...but honestly I think that even if she were to not win another Slam, she'd be happy where she's at. And I loved what she said about BJK...BJ told her to pass her, and Serena said that's what she wants to do for the next great champion - okay you go farther than I did. How cool would it be to have Serena Williams pushing you to be greater than she is!? A champion for sure. :worship: :yeah:

Marty-Dom
Jul 5th, 2010, 06:10 PM
Thanks. I'm pretty sure you made a mistake with Monica though? She won her first slam at 16, and the stabbing occurred when she was 19.

Yes, I shifted one year on the spreadsheet. she was 16.5 not 17.5 when she won her first slam. I'll fix it.

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8760/slamsatage2.png

metamorpha
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:07 PM
Seles has the highest "peaks" from 16-19 and after that it's over (flat) like dying heart signal and then cut short. People who don't know her will ask what happened looking at this chart.

Evert has the most balanced and consistent career despite being bullied by Navratilova in early 80's. Her "peaks" and "valleys" are well balanced.

Navratilova was very impressive to be able to catch up with Chrissie. She peaked significantly from 25-29.

Graf was simply the most dominant throughout her career. A lot of high "peaks" but still a bit bothered by her relatively small "valleys".

Serena's chart looks strange :lol: as if she's lazy and suddenly turns on before it's too late.

LightWarrior
Jul 5th, 2010, 08:48 PM
I think when it is all said and done, she will surpass Chris and Martina.


I wouldn't be so sure. Most tennis greats peak at their late 20s. And look what's happening to Federer, same age as Serena. It would be great to see Serena join Martina and Chris though. It's feasible but she's definitely in a race against time.

Gdsimmons
Jul 5th, 2010, 08:52 PM
Its such a damn shame about that stabbing. Monica really was gonna be such a force!!
But all those graphs are really impressive

Vlover
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Serena's chart looks strange :lol: as if she's lazy and suddenly turns on before it's too late.
Serena LIVED her life while playing tennis, plus she had to deal with injuries, surgery and the tragic death of her sister. Considering all these factors, I think it is even more remarkable that she has achieved such success even though she was not as myopic as the rest.

Anyway for me 18 total is the "ligitimate" benchmark because if Chris and Martina were "true" rivals. After Seles got stabbed everything was just smooth sailing for Steffi without any true rival. It was like Federer without Nadal.:tape:

Tennis is not for the swift but for those who endure to the end. If Serena endures she will make it without a doubt.

AnomyBC
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:23 PM
Serena LIVED her life while playing tennis, plus she had to deal with injuries, surgery and the tragic death of her sister. Considering all these factors, I think it is even more remarkable that she has achieved such success even though she was not as myopic as the rest.

Anyway for me 18 total is the "ligitimate" benchmark because if Chris and Martina were "true" rivals. After Seles got stabbed everything was just smooth sailing for Steffi without any true rival. It was like Federer without Nadal.:tape:

Tennis is not for the swift but for those who endure to the end. If Serena endures she will make it without a doubt.

Couldn't it also be said that Serena right now is like Federer without a Nadal?

AnomyBC
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:30 PM
If you have a chance sometime, I'd love to see the chart with Court, Wills Moody, King and Connolly added. (I'm not mentioning Lenglen because I don't think it's meaningful to compare her slam numbers to the others.)

Vlover
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:30 PM
Couldn't it also be said that Serena right now is like Federer without a Nadal?
Not at all. Remember there is still Venus (when she is healthy) Kim, Pova and Justine to contend with. Even though Serena have won most of the meetings lately they are still stiff competition. When Seles was removed who else was there to rival Graf?:tape:

CloudAtlas
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:04 AM
Not at all. Remember there is still Venus (when she is healthy) Kim, Pova and Justine to contend with. Even though Serena have won most of the meetings lately they are still stiff competition. When Seles was removed who else was there to rival Graf?:tape:



You can't simply discount people's slams and not consider them legitimate because in your eyes there wasn't enough competition. How far does this go then? Discount most of Court's Aussie Opens cos they were against scrubs? Discount the three Slams Serena won in the weak period post Justine retirement/during the 08/09 dark period of WTA? Serena when playing at her Slam level is not gonna lose to any of the players you mentioned given how they've been playing of late...actually forget late...just from the start of the year. Nadal pretty much owns Federer , no-one owns Serena or makes her the slight underdog against them. There's not much competition for Slam-Rena right now and that should be considered a good thing as it simply means she is a cut above the rest, just like Steffi was.

twight6
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:10 AM
Great chart! Some of my initial thoughts-- surprised Serena stands in about the same position as they did, but I also think today's game is so much different it will be tough for her. The game is a lot more grinding, takes a lot more out of a person.. it will be tough for Serena to keep playing without injury, but also to keep with the tough younglings. Also, if you'd shown me this a couple years ago, I would've said- Serena is nowhere near dedicated enough to keep playing long enough to win enough slams.. But seeing how she has re-dedicated herself (and also the recent drop of the tour :p), I think it's something she could do :shrug:

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:21 AM
Love the chart- great work and very interesting!

HippityHop
Jul 6th, 2010, 02:09 AM
You can't simply discount people's slams and not consider them legitimate because in your eyes there wasn't enough competition. How far does this go then? Discount most of Court's Aussie Opens cos they were against scrubs? Discount the three Slams Serena won in the weak period post Justine retirement/during the 08/09 dark period of WTA? Serena when playing at her Slam level is not gonna lose to any of the players you mentioned given how they've been playing of late...actually forget late...just from the start of the year. Nadal pretty much owns Federer , no-one owns Serena or makes her the slight underdog against them. There's not much competition for Slam-Rena right now and that should be considered a good thing as it simply means she is a cut above the rest, just like Steffi was.

I don't think that any slam winner should be discounted but one is entitled to wonder "what if?

For me it's like wondering what the stats of the early great Major League baseball players would have looked like if they were not protected from playing against the best Negro League players on a consistent basis.

One of my great uncles played for the Pittsburgh Crawfords and he said that as great as Jackie Robinson was, Robinson was only the 4th or 5th best 2nd baseman in the Negro Leagues.

But Robinson was chosen because he was able to control himself in the face of the bullshit that he was going to have to endure from "certain people". Some of the players who were better than Robinson would have cut the shit out of some of those racist assholes and set the entire cause back for who knows how many years.

duhcity
Jul 6th, 2010, 03:19 AM
I don't think that any slam winner should be discounted but one is entitled to wonder "what if?

For me it's like wondering what the stats of the early great Major League baseball players would have looked like if they were not protected from playing against the best Negro League players on a consistent basis.

One of my great uncles played for the Pittsburgh Crawfords and he said that as great as Jackie Robinson was, Robinson was only the 4th or 5th best 2nd baseman in the Negro Leagues.

But Robinson was chosen because he was able to control himself in the face of the bullshit that he was going to have to endure from "certain people". Some of the players who were better than Robinson would have cut the shit out of some of those racist assholes and set the entire cause back for who knows how many years.

That's a ridiculous idea. Wondering "what if" is plausible, but how far does it go?

Well if we go by that way, what if Venus and Serena weren't sisters? Would 2002 be different?
What if Kim and Justine had not been absent these recent years?

The list goes on.

Yes, Graf was being rather dominated by Seles, but who's to say Graf wouldn't have turned it around? Fed and Hewitt isn't a great example, but it's clear it can be done

Serena has a great career. If she ever gets to 18 or more singles slams, then she begins to enter the conversation of Greatest of all time.

Nicolás89
Jul 6th, 2010, 03:52 AM
Yay Serena. :hearts:

metamorpha
Jul 6th, 2010, 04:11 AM
Not at all. Remember there is still Venus (when she is healthy) Kim, Pova and Justine to contend with. Even though Serena have won most of the meetings lately they are still stiff competition. When Seles was removed who else was there to rival Graf?:tape:

I find your standard of 18 GS and Graf-Federer analogy minus Nadal = total domination acceptable. Who do you think will have more benefits when their rivals are missing, Fed or Graf?

Both Graf and Seles might end up no further than 18 GS if those crazed fan out there let the "nature" take care of the competition.

danieln1
Jul 6th, 2010, 05:30 AM
Great graphic...

Suppose Serena plays until 2012, then she can win 2-3 US, 2 Australians, and 2 wimbledons... that would be a reasonable guess... then she would have 19 slams... it would be so great if she achieves that, because then we would be living a GOAT era, Serena Era...

Pureracket
Jul 6th, 2010, 06:08 AM
From that chart, I can't say that Martina is the Greatest of all time. I'll just say that she is the greatest of her generation.

Navratil
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Great chart! My first thought was she has no chance, she's too old, but she might be able to. Twice now Roland Garros has been handed to her on a plate and she's blown it, but 5 in 5 years is doable.

Agree. But she's right up there with Martina at the same age.

But where is Steffi on that list?

Vlover
Jul 6th, 2010, 01:57 PM
You can't simply discount people's slams and not consider them legitimate because in your eyes there wasn't enough competition.
By no means am I discounting the majors of anyone because they are on record as such. By the same token on closer examination you cannot discount the context and circumstances under which some of those wins occur. It is OK for most Graf fans to conveniently ignore and pretend that Graf would have won 22 majors regardless but the rest of us are not convinced that would have happen if Monica was allowed to continue her domination at the time. I'm not saying that Graf wouldn't even have more majors than Monica eventually but I think 22 is a bit inflated considering the circumstances. Please remember that Gunther was sane enough to know exactly what he was doing. He went after Monica specifically and deliberately because she posed the most threat to Graf's legacy and mission accomplished.

In any case Graf doesn't have the most singles majors, so if we are going by strictly by singles count she is not the one to beat therefore everything should be considered if we are going down that route. Anyway I honestly don't want to get bogged down with "greatest ever" arguments at this time but continue to enjoy the present. We all will get to see how well Serena does later and can judge then.

Bonta
Jul 6th, 2010, 03:40 PM
By no means am I discounting the majors of anyone because they are on record as such. By the same token on closer examination you cannot discount the context and circumstances under which some of those wins occurIt is OK for most Graf fans to conveniently ignore and pretend that Graf would have won 22 majors regardless but the rest of us are not convinced that would have happen if Monica was allowed to continue her domination at the time. I'm not saying that Graf wouldn't even have more majors than Monica eventually but I think 22 is a bit inflated considering the circumstances. Please remember that Gunther was sane enough to know exactly what he was doing. He went after Monica specifically and deliberately because she posed the most threat to Graf's legacy and mission accomplished.

In any case Graf doesn't have the most singles majors, so if we are going by strictly by singles count she is not the one to beat therefore everything should be considered if we are going down that route. Anyway I honestly don't want to get bogged down with "greatest ever" arguments at this time but continue to enjoy the present. We all will get to see how well Serena does later and can judge then.

It's often difficult though to see the complete context and circumstances. The number 1 position for example was a big deal back then and that could have been Gunther's biggest frustration, more than Seles' slam tally. Adding up slam's became more fashionable after Pete Sampras.
Navratilova and Evert also skipped a lot of French Opens and Australian Opens.

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2010, 03:52 PM
I want Serena to get up into the 18-24 range, yet, for her to do so, it basically means no young player emerges as a real force for the next five years. I think I would find that disappointing.

HippityHop
Jul 6th, 2010, 05:45 PM
That's a ridiculous idea. Wondering "what if" is plausible, but how far does it go?

Well if we go by that way, what if Venus and Serena weren't sisters? Would 2002 be different?
What if Kim and Justine had not been absent these recent years?

The list goes on.

Yes, Graf was being rather dominated by Seles, but who's to say Graf wouldn't have turned it around? Fed and Hewitt isn't a great example, but it's clear it can be done

Serena has a great career. If she ever gets to 18 or more singles slams, then she begins to enter the conversation of Greatest of all time.

As far as the individual doing the wondering wants it to go. After all, it's not like wondering is going to erase any of the results, is it?