PDA

VeeJJ
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:30 PM
Random question. Just wanted to know what people would think.

Example -
Player one has 2 AO's, 1 Wimbledom and 2 USO.

Player two has 1 AO, 1 RG, 1 Wimby, and 1 USO.

Don't read too much into the examples and base your answer off the Slams I used. It's suppose to be a general example. Like, "Would you prefer 6 slams but not all, or all 4 slams?"

If you have certain limit, meaning that you would take 10 slams that do not include all 4 rather than having just each of the 4, say so.

Example:
EOT(EACH OF THE) 4 > 5
EOT 4 > 6
EOT 4 < 8
EOT 4 < 10

If you wanna customize it even further, by adding an Olympic medal or something to the pot than please do so. I look forward to seeing your thoughts.

Example-
EOT 4 + Olympic Gold in Singles > 8 Slams

I hope I explained everything in enough detail so you aren't confused. :)

If you're saying it depends in the amount and or which slams you would have VERSUS having all 4 PLEASE say which ones would make them worth more than having all 4.

Another example/question-

Would Sharapova be considered a more prestigious player than Venus if she won RG? She would have all 4. And Venus would only have 5 Wimby and 2 USO.

claypova
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:33 PM
all 4

Ivanovic2008
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:33 PM
All four slams. Shows that you can play well on different surfaces!

Ivanovic2008
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Oops i voted on the wrong one! Count mine as all 4.

Wiggly
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:35 PM
All four Slams.

Apr 12th, 2011, 11:35 PM
How many more?

DecoTurf
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:36 PM
Au contraire more than four shows u are not one or two years wunderkid, so winning a particular gs more than 4 times means consistency

Rui.
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:36 PM
Kinda like:

this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Fry_Irvin) vs this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Hingis)? :p

DecoTurf
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Kinda like:

this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Fry_Irvin) vs this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Hingis)? :p

so who would u chose, i would chose martina !

SVK
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:40 PM
All 4 is better. When you have many slams but not from all GS tournamets then everybody says about you that you are multiple slam winner but they also don´t forget to say that you didn´t win this and this. When you have all 4 then they can´t say anything bad about it + I think also when a player has many GSs but he´s missing one then he is way more motivated to win the missing one as others.

Vartan
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:40 PM
All 4.

new-york
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:41 PM
If it's 4 (one of each) or 5 (3/4) then definitely the first option.

Depends on how many more is the second option.

DecoTurf
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:41 PM
All 4 is better. When you have many slams but not from all GS tournamets then everybody says about you that you are multiple slam winner but they also don´t forget to say that you didn´t win this and this. When you have all 4 then they can´t say anything bad about it + I think also when a player has many GSs but he´s missing one then he is way more motivated to win the missing one as others.

No one can win all of them except GOATRena ! :worship:

young_gunner913
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:41 PM
Depends on how many more than 4 we're talking about but I'd still rather win all 4 slams.

DecoTurf
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:42 PM
If it's 4 (one of each) or 5 (3/4) then definitely the first option.

Depends on how many more is the second option.

But if it is 5 Wimbledon and three Us open

simonsaystennis
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:42 PM
Depends. Each of the 4 is more prestigious than 5,6, maybe even 7. But I feel like once you hit double the one of each (so 8 total) than that is more prestigious. Just my opinion.

Sean.
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:43 PM
Shirley was unbeaten at AO (in doubles and singles). :worship:

Henpova
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:49 PM
if it was 1aus 1french 1wimb iuso

Or

1aus 1fo 2wimb

I would pic all four but i would rather have five slams over four even if it was all four....

Stonerpova
Apr 12th, 2011, 11:55 PM
This kinda brings in the Sampras vs. Agassi comparison a bit. Pete won a lot more, but Agassi won all four.

If it's 8 majors or more without having all four, I'll go for more than four. Less than eight, I'd pick the career slam.

I'm interested how people would compare Sharapova were she to complete the Grand Slam with players like Venus and Henin, who won more but not all four.

Batiguza
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:35 AM
That's a good question, actually. I would choose having all 4. I think when a professional player has something like 3 Australian Open titles and 4 US Open titles, she/he would probably rather win a Slam that she/he doesn't have yet than win another one that she/he already has.

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:17 AM
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/474/556/82387394_display_image.jpg?1288380180

Kworb
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:36 AM
4 different Slams = 8 of the same Slam
4 different Slams = 7 of two different Slams
4 different Slams = 6 of three different Slams

skanky~skanketta
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:46 AM
Depends. In terms of variety, obviously I would love all 4. I would even pick 4 of all slams as opposed to winnig 5 in total but missing out on 1. However, if I were to win 6 in total, even if I didn't win the other 3 slams, I'm fine with it.

new-york
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:15 AM
But if it is 5 Wimbledon and three Us open

You can even say 2 US Open so i can be my fave. :worship:

Sp!ffy
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:18 AM
I'd rather have all 4 until...about 7-8 slams overall.

Macomeh
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:22 AM
damn, id pick all six
http://images.wikia.com/powerrangers/images/0/0c/250px-LightSpeedRescue6.jpg

Mistress of Evil
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:38 AM
Career Slam :cheer:

rimon
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:48 AM
Definitely all 4. I would much prefer to have Agassi's 8 slam titles than Sampras's 14, because he has 4/4, Sampras 3/4. Just a question, is there any player in history who won all 4, but only once each? The closest examples that I can think are Lindsay Davenport and Maria Sharapova, who each have a AO, W and US0, but no RG.

doni1212
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:09 AM
All 4!

zhengjieforever
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:12 AM
probably all 4...no matter what. can you imagine a player with 20 GS titles, but he could never win the french open? that's all people would talk about with regard to him. if i were him i would hate that. i'd much rather just have all 4 but only 4.

rimon
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:18 AM
Random question. Just wanted to know what people would think.

Example -
Player one has 2 AO's, 1 Wimbledom and 2 USO.

Player two has 1 AO, 1 RG, 1 Wimby, and 1 USO.

Don't read too much into the examples and base your answer off the Slams I used. It's suppose to be a general example. Like, "Would you prefer 6 slams but not all, or all 4 slams?"

If you have certain limit, meaning that you would take 10 slams that do not include all 4 rather than having just each of the 4, say so.

Example:
EOT(EACH OF THE) 4 > 5
EOT 4 > 6
EOT 4 < 8
EOT 4 < 10

If you wanna customize it even further, by adding an Olympic medal or something to the pot than please do so. I look forward to seeing your thoughts.

Example-
EOT 4 + Olympic Gold in Singles > 8 Slams

I hope I explained everything in enough detail so you aren't confused. :)

If you're saying it depends in the amount and or which slams you would have VERSUS having all 4 PLEASE say which ones would make them worth more than having all 4.

Another example/question-

Would Sharapova be considered a more prestigious player than Venus if she won RG? She would have all 4. And Venus would only have 5 Wimby and 2 USO.

In reply to final question, I would consider them about equal, as I do Venus with Martina.

Loungy
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:39 AM
7 is the tipping number for me in regards to # of Slams that would > EOT4. Especially if it's something like 3 Wimbledons, 2 RGs and 2 USOs. That would still mean Slams on all the 3 major types of surfaces.

Not to mention more prize money.

Henpova
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:34 AM
probably all 4...no matter what. can you imagine a player with 20 GS titles, but he could never win the french open? that's all people would talk about with regard to him. if i were him i would hate that. i'd much rather just have all 4 but only 4.

Yeah but after saying he has never one (blank) they would say he is the greatest of all time......so I take the 20 LOL

4 slams just puts you at a great player but not one of the greatest....

Serenita
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:39 AM
All 4

Justin SW
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:48 AM
I couldnt accept not having all the 4 prestigious trophies. One of each is better than 10 slams. After that well ahaha :)

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:49 AM
7 is the tipping number for me in regards to # of Slams that would > EOT4. Especially if it's something like 3 Wimbledons, 2 RGs and 2 USOs. That would still mean Slams on all the 3 major types of surfaces.

Not to mention more prize money.

Clay is one of the greater surfaces on tour. It's top 2. Next to hardcourt.

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:52 AM
I'm actually surprised at how people are responding. I did not think so many people would go for all 4 vs. numerous ones.

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:05 AM
I'm actually surprised at how people are responding. I did not think so many people would go for all 4 vs. numerous ones.

Why?

Winning on every surface and proving that you can win on each surface at the highest level is the ultimate showcase of a legacy.

There's a reason why so few women have the career slam after the AO stopped being played on grass. Only the greatest of the great have been able to achieve this feat.

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:25 AM
Why?

Winning on every surface and proving that you can win on each surface at the highest level is the ultimate showcase of a legacy.

There's a reason why so few women have the career slam after the AO stopped being played on grass. Only the greatest of the great have been able to achieve this feat.

Because all TF posters bitch about is slams slams and more slams. Sends off the imagine that they measure in quantity not quality.

Winning all for I think is even greater than having 15 slams but not all 4. It shows the dynamic the player has. It displays supreme mentality and versatility and mastery of the sport.

I wonder if people would hold Serena on such a high pedestal if she did not have her lone FO.

Apr 13th, 2011, 06:27 AM
Good question. I'd say,

EOT4 > 5
EOT4 = 6
EOT4 < 7

Then again, it would also mean more to miss Wimbledon than one of the other 3 imo. EOT4 might top 6 or even 7 if Wimbledon is missing!

I was always rooting for Agassi, but I still rank his 8 slams lower than Pete's 14...

Apr 13th, 2011, 06:29 AM
Not sure how to vote though, as both options are right depending on how many more :shrug:

darrinbaker00
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:31 AM
If you took prize money out of the equation, then I'd rather win all four. Then again, if you took prize money out of the equation, I wouldn't be wasting my time chasing a tennis ball around the world when I could be earning a living. Never mind. :shrug:

Apr 13th, 2011, 06:37 AM
4 different Slams = 8 of the same Slam
4 different Slams = 7 of two different Slams
4 different Slams = 6 of three different Slams

Well this settles it. Maria must win the French.

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:54 AM
I wonder if people would hold Serena on such a high pedestal if she did not have her lone FO.

Of course not, but her '02 triumph makes her immune.

Slightly off-topic: It makes me seriously think when or who will the next career slam come from?

The last active player before Serena to have a career slam was Graf who retired in 1999. Steffi had already completed the slam in 1988.

Serena completed her career slam in 2003 by winning in Melbourne, so it's been a little over 8 years since anyone has done it.

It's going to have to come from someone new because Venus is winning no one's career slam and neither is Clijsters.

Apr 13th, 2011, 07:00 AM
Of course not, but her '02 triumph makes her immune.

Slightly off-topic: It makes me seriously think when or who will the next career slam come from?

The last active player before Serena to have a career slam was Graf who retired in 1999. Steffi had already completed the slam in 1988.

Serena completed her career slam in 2003 by winning in Melbourne, so it's been a little over 8 years since anyone has done it.

It's going to have to come from someone new because Venus is winning no one's career slam and neither is Clijsters.

Sharapova will have many more tries at the French, and there aren't any true claycourters these days...

No way is Venus winning both AO and RG. She might nab one.

If Kim plays RG and somehow wins.... Maybe the career slam could happen-- then again, why not throw in the whole grand slam? lol

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:03 AM
Of course not, but her '02 triumph makes her immune.

Slightly off-topic: It makes me seriously think when or who will the next career slam come from?

The last active player before Serena to have a career slam was Graf who retired in 1999. Steffi had already completed the slam in 1988.

Serena completed her career slam in 2003 by winning in Melbourne, so it's been a little over 8 years since anyone has done it.

It's going to have to come from someone new because Venus is winning no one's career slam and neither is Clijsters.

You could argue Clijsters. She is easily the best player on the court when it comes down to it considering the current competition. The FO is hers if she just plays decent. As for Wimbledon. I think it would be easier for her to win that than the French. Venus is sadly no longer an unbeatable force at Wimbledon. An inform Clijsters would beat her there and I doubt Serena will be ready by Wimbledon. ANd it's a fast surface, her favorite. Clijsters has the next 2 slams on a platter the way I see it. She just has to take it. But for some reason, she is hesitant or reluctant.

Alejandrawrrr
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:07 AM
I'd pick 5 slams over three different venues over one at each. Or probably just five in general.

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:09 AM
Sharapova will have many more tries at the French, and there aren't any true claycourters these days...

No way is Venus winning both AO and RG. She might nab one.

If Kim plays RG and somehow wins.... Maybe the career slam could happen-- then again, why not throw in the whole grand slam? lol

I'm fairly confident Sharapova will get the French eventually in her career. And by the bolded comment do you mean that their are not any champions like that? Serena, Venus, Sharapova etc? Then yes you would be right. Venus is a great claycourter though. Her and RG just hate each other. I think Kim can get it if she really goes after it. But I think she lost all care for the sport.

On the topic of Career Slams. I feel like Svetlana is a contender tbh. Her game suits both slams she has left to claim. SHe has a good game to win Wimbledon and AO is a hard-court so she is very able there. It wouldn't surprise me if she squeezed out another slam or 2. It's very possible she could get the career slam IMO. She just needs to conquer her mind for 2 weeks and she's pretty Golden.

Calypso
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:45 AM
All 4; such a nice feel to it. Shows you conquered every surface at the highest level and could adapt to each surface for 2 weeks for the big win at a major.

bandabou
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:47 AM
Having all 4 is ice on the cake..then you just have to keep adding. That's why Serena vs Juju was always in Serena's favor as long as Juju couldn't win Wimbledon, even when it was 8 vs 7 majors.

olivero
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:08 AM
4 slams but it depends...

What if a player has for example RG, 2W and 3USO. He won on three different surfaces including the hardcourt thrice. Are his results worse than having AO, RG, W and USO? I could argue with that one.

azdaja
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:00 AM
if you ask for my opinion, it depends both on the number and variety of slams you win. all 4 once each is better than even 10 times the same, i'd say. however, if a player wins 2 or 3 different ones for a total of 7 or 8 i'd say that's better than winning all 4 once. come to think of it, i'd perhaps even consider winning something like 3 different slams twice each for a total of 6 more impressive than winning each of the 4 once.

however, winning a career grand slam is a very important achievement that makes history no matter what anyone thinks.

Miracle Worker
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:29 AM
I would pick Olympic Gold Medal over both options. Unless we're talking about 4 Majors in one year.

Apr 13th, 2011, 11:48 AM
If you have 8 or more of the second option, then I chose that

Hardiansf
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:00 PM
:eek: Surprise!!!
For me it's simple, more slams > less slams.
Of course if its only all 4 slams and 5 slams (but not each), it's easy to pick all 4 slams.
But it also depends :p
For me:
1 Oz 1 RG 1 W 1 USO >> 5 slams, not win each (with just 1 W or zero W) = at least 8 slams (with just 1 W or zero W)
1 Oz 1 RG 1 W 1 USO > 5 slams, not win each (with W > 1)
1 Oz 1 RG 1 W 1 USO = 5 slams, not win each (with W > 1) + Olympic Gold
But clearly 4 slams << 8 slams + Olympic Gold

Yes, for me Wimbledon and Olympic Gold are :worship::worship::worship:

goldenlox
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:01 PM
Its like Sampras and Agassi. You want more majors, but when you are a HoF player & didnt win one, it keys into a weakness in your game.

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:05 PM
I'd pick 4/4 unless the discrepancy was greater than 3.

I mean, all 4 is nice, but:
3 AO
0 FO (1 final)
5 W
2 US

that's not too bad....(especially if you've reached the final of the major you haven't won)

Definitely all 4. I would much prefer to have Agassi's 8 slam titles than Sampras's 14, because he has 4/4, Sampras 3/4. Just a question, is there any player in history who won all 4, but only once each? The closest examples that I can think are Lindsay Davenport and Maria Sharapova, who each have a AO, W and US0, but no RG.

Interestingly enough, their best result at the French is the the SF.

Who else, besides Hingis, Seles, Evert and Venus, have reached all 4 finals, but not won all 4?

Alejandrawrrr
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:12 PM
I'm surprised people put so much importance in the Career Grandslam. I mean, maybe if they were all won in the same calendar year, then I would value it over six majors I guess, but for me 5>4, as plain as that. If Maria Sharapova were to win 2011 RG somehow, she would be greater(slams-wise) than Clijsters, as they would both have four slams. If Clijsters then won her fifth at the 2011 US Open, she would be greater than Maria again, IMO :shrug:

bandabou
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:18 PM
I'd pick 4/4 unless the discrepancy was greater than 3.

I mean, all 4 is nice, but:
3 AO
0 FO (1 final)
5 W
2 US

that's not too bad....(especially if you've reached the final of the major you haven't won)

Interestingly enough, their best result at the French is the the SF.

Who else, besides Hingis, Seles, Evert and Venus, have reached all 4 finals, but not won all 4?

:secret: Juju...

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:23 PM
If Maria Sharapova were to win 2011 RG somehow, she would be greater(slams-wise) than Clijsters, as they would both have four slams. If Clijsters then won her fifth at the 2011 US Open, she would be greater than Maria again, IMO :shrug:

:spit:

So if Sharapova held titles at all 4 venues across all 3 surfaces, 1-1-1-1. Clijsters would be better in your eyes with 1-0-0-4 and only being able to produce champion form on 1 surface.

:secret: Juju...

I think that was the shade. :lol:

Olórin
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:24 PM
. It shows the dynamic the player has. It displays supreme mentality and versatility and mastery of the sport.

Precisely how does winning four different slams show versatility, mentality and dynamism in a way that winning, say, 14 slams in three different tournaments doesn't.

As an example on the versatility point, I don't really see that Agassi's slam wins show much more, if any, versatility than Sampras' wins. 6/8 Agassi slams came on hard - that's the overwhelming majority. Of course the other two slams Agassi won were Wimbledon and French Open which shows great versatility. However, when you look at Sampras he won 7/14 slams on grass and the other 7 on hard courts. A more even spread than Agassi, even though he didn't win on the three different surfaces you could argue that he demonstrated greater versatility by consistently winning and adapting on different surfaces. It's not like Sampras played the same game every where, he would adapt his game to the AO and be more ready to engage in a rally there than that Wimbledon.

So, I would say winning four different is better than 5/6 on two surfaces only (e.g. only clay and hardcourt) but by the time you're getting to 8+ slams then that tends to be more impressive.

bandabou
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:38 PM
I'm surprised people put so much importance in the Career Grandslam. I mean, maybe if they were all won in the same calendar year, then I would value it over six majors I guess, but for me 5>4, as plain as that. If Maria Sharapova were to win 2011 RG somehow, she would be greater(slams-wise) than Clijsters, as they would both have four slams. If Clijsters then won her fifth at the 2011 US Open, she would be greater than Maria again, IMO :shrug:

Tricky...yet another U.S. open..would make Kim look awfully like a one-trick pony. Kinda like with Vee and Wimbledon, no?! :shrug:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:39 PM
One could argue that 4 different Slams are better than 5 Slams of 1 kind or of 2 different kinds, but as soon as you win 6 Slams you are always better (as far as Slam are concerned) than soemone who wins 4 Slams no matter the venue or surface IMO :shrug:

I'm fairly confident Sharapova will get the French eventually in her career.

You could argue Clijsters. She is easily the best player on the court when it comes down to it considering the current competition. The FO is hers if she just plays decent.

I'm sorry but WTF are you smoking, my dear? :weirdo:

And for the people who are trying to derail this thread into a Serena vs. Justine debate: :yawn:

Loungy
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:55 PM
Its like Sampras and Agassi. You want more majors, but when you are a HoF player & didnt win one, it keys into a weakness in your game.
To me, "would you rather have Sampras' or Agassi's career?" is a more difficult question than the one in this thread. (Though Roger almost tipped it in Agassi's favor by overtaking Pete in # of Slams total. Pete still has h2h, but I digress.)

The way I see it, missing one of either RG or Wimbledon is far worse than missing one of AO or USO. These last two are both on hard. Different types, yes, but hardcourts.

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:53 PM
Precisely how does winning four different slams show versatility, mentality and dynamism in a way that winning, say, 14 slams in three different tournaments doesn't.

As an example on the versatility point, I don't really see that Agassi's slam wins show much more, if any, versatility than Sampras' wins. 6/8 Agassi slams came on hard - that's the overwhelming majority. Of course the other two slams Agassi won were Wimbledon and French Open which shows great versatility. However, when you look at Sampras he won 7/14 slams on grass and the other 7 on hard courts. A more even spread than Agassi, even though he didn't win on the three different surfaces you could argue that he demonstrated greater versatility by consistently winning and adapting on different surfaces. It's not like Sampras played the same game every where, he would adapt his game to the AO and be more ready to engage in a rally there than that Wimbledon.

So, I would say winning four different is better than 5/6 on two surfaces only (e.g. only clay and hardcourt) but by the time you're getting to 8+ slams then that tends to be more impressive.

They are 4 different surfaces, That play different. Not all play similarly. Therefore it shows the dynamic and versatility a player has. The top two surfaces of the tour are outdoor true hard court and red clay. Yes, AO is a hard court but plexicoushion does play different. Players must adapt differently to it.

"Well, guess what? Plexicushion, having the word “cushion” in its name, might have helped with better traction on the court on hotter days, fine. But cushion equals bounce, and anyone who knows anything about tennis means that’s likely going to be MORE bounce and a bit slower speed, not “providing a faster, lower and more consistent bounce” like Tennis Australia eventually called for (though the surface itself is supposed to have incredibly consistent bounces)."

Source: http://www.mindtheracket.com/2010/07/whats-in-a-hard-court/

Getting all for slams requires diversity and the mental strength to change your game and use it productively on different surfaces, even if it means going out of your comfort zone. Many players blame surfaces they dislike for why they lose matches. They say they can't transition well. In regards to your Sampras reference, yes he did have the versatility to win his slams on 3 different surfaces. But 3 is not 4. And back then all surfaces were totally different with Rebound Ace. The current plexicushion of the AO is more similar to tru hardcourts but still different in little distinct ways, that matters. And clay was and still is the 2 most used surface on both tours. It makes RG important and very prestigious. As far as versatility goes. Agassi has more. It is simple math. 4 is greater than 3.

RG a pretty important slam regardless of it's current reputation as the fluke slam. I actually think its current reputation is proof that champions today or the so called "elite" are not as dynamic as they should be or are made out to be. Aside from Justine and arguably Kuznetsova, none of the other champions of the game have achieved notable success on clay in the past 8 years or so. Serena hasn't had any since her triumph at RG in 02. Venus is a good clay court player but can never get it together when she needs to. Kim hates clay. Sharapova hasn't adapted to it yet but in time she will. As for the good clay court players - Jelena, Ana, etc. They are mentally lost. Even though Ana has a FO title. She hasn't achieved anything since and currently her future does not look positive.

One could argue that 4 different Slams are better than 5 Slams of 1 kind or of 2 different kinds, but as soon as you win 6 Slams you are always better (as far as Slam are concerned) than soemone who wins 4 Slams no matter the venue or surface IMO :shrug:

I'm sorry but WTF are you smoking, my dear? :weirdo:

And for the people who are trying to derail this thread into a Serena vs. Justine debate: :yawn:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:24 PM

Yes, I can: Pova and Kim's chances to win RG are extremely slim.

Gdsimmons
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:26 PM
It depends. Like if I had like 9 or 10 slams then I would be happy with having 3\4 slams

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:30 PM
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/474/556/82387394_display_image.jpg?1288380180

:facepalm:

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:41 PM
Yes, I can: Pova and Kim's chances to win RG are extremely slim.

So much for elaborating :(

Why do you think that?

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:41 PM
:facepalm:

Be nice. Let Max be happy.

Sammo
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:43 PM
More than 4 but not 4 all, but only if I had 3 of 4

Miracle Worker
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:44 PM
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/474/556/82387394_display_image.jpg?1288380180

:hearts:

gc-spurs
Apr 13th, 2011, 10:31 PM
All 4 with the tipping point at 7/8, provided that those 7/8 are from three different slams.

Monzanator
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:27 PM
I would pick Olympic Gold Medal over both options. Unless we're talking about 4 Majors in one year.

I bet your would be talking otherwise if a certain Russian won just one slam instead ;)

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:30 PM
I bet your would be talking otherwise if a certain Russian won just one slam instead ;)

Don't start.

Monzanator
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:34 PM
It wasn't me who posted a picture of that certain Russian in this thread in first place :shrug:

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:36 PM
Max is always immune. He doesn't start things. He just grips on to his false hope. We all accept it out of courtesy :)

Monzanator
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:38 PM
I felt offended when I saw this. Yeah, that doesn't count, don't need to remind me ;)

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:42 PM
I'd rather kick peoples asses consistently on a surface than to say that I did it once on a different surface as an all around player. lol More slams more money...more power more respect ;) At least the tour would know which slam they WERE NOT going to win ;)plus you always leave your mark on that surface as well.

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:47 PM
So much for elaborating :(

Why do you think that?

Seriously?

Ok. Because Pova has never ever (even in her "first career") won anything big on clay. She doesn't move well on that surface. And nowadays she doesn't even have the serve, the mentality or consistancy anymore to win a tournament like RG.

And Kim, while she has the ability to play well on that surface, hasn't shown any interest in playing on clay in her "second career", hence her slim chances.

VeeJJ
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:32 AM
Seriously?

Ok. Because Pova has never ever (even in her "first career") won anything big on clay. She doesn't move well on that surface. And nowadays she doesn't even have the serve, the mentality or consistancy anymore to win a tournament like RG.

And Kim, while she has the ability to play well on that surface, hasn't shown any interest in playing on clay in her "second career", hence her slim chances.

Whether Kim has interest or not doesn't matter. If she seriously played she is perfect able to win it.

As far as Sharapova. She has gotten better on clay as her career has progressed. She isn't horrible anymore. She is still very young. This year we have seen some sure signs of her finally getting back to her old self. I think the timing will work out perfectly for her. I think she will fully find her champion form and old self the end of 2012 and beginning 2013. This injuries effects still linger, mentally at least. By then will probably have everything back in order if she maintains her deep runs. And by that time. Her biggest competition will be Wozniacki. I think her chances for RG in the future are much brighter than many people give her credit for.