PDA

View Full Version : IMPORTANT POLL: Consistency without big results VS Inconsistency with big results??


Matt-TennisFan24
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:33 AM
Ok so I needed to create this thread before the off-season ended :devil:

I think it's always important in the GOAT debate or in the "real/true" No.1 discussions, to know what is valued more: consistency with no big results or inconsistency with big results.

Everyone has a different opinion, of course, but I'd like to know the overall majority's opinion and taking into consideration different hypotetical outcomes.

Which of the following "scenarios" Grand Slam seasons do you think is better?
(Player A will be our consistent player, and Player B will be our inconsistent but winner player)


1st Scenario:

PLAYER A

Australian Open: SF
Roland Garros: SF
Wimbledon: F
US Open: F

PLAYER B

Australian Open: W
Roland Garros: 3R
Wimbledon: W
US Open: 1R

2nd scenario:

PLAYER A

Australian Open: SF
Roland Garros: SF
Wimbledon: SF
US Open: F

PLAYER B

Australian Open: 2R
Roland Garros: W
Wimbledon: SF
US Open: 4R

3rd and final scenario:

PLAYER A

Australian Open: SF
Roland Garros: SF
Wimbledon: SF
US Open: SF

PLAYER B

Australian Open: F
Roland Garros: 4R
Wimbledon: F
US Open: 4R


The Poll is multiple choice so you can vote for all the scenarios.

Have fun and discuss (without rudeness or bashing please!)

ExtremespeedX
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:36 AM
I'd rather win one slam and lose in R1 of all other slams than to reach final of all 4 slams and win none. Why?

Because in 50 years, nobody will give a shit who made quarters, semis or finals. People remember slams, nobody cares about the loser or the underachiever. Thus nobody will remember that someone lost several times in R1 one of a slam - but people will remember the slams that the player won.

Matt-TennisFan24
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:40 AM
I'd rather win one slam and lose in R1 of all other slams than to reach final of all 4 slams and win none. Why?

Because in 50 years, nobody will give a shit who made quarters, semis or finals. People remember slams, nobody cares about the loser or the underachiever. Thus nobody will remember that someone lost several times in R1 one of a slam - but people will remember the slams that the player won.

I agree in some part, but isn't it a bit embarassing to lose early in a Slam when you're considered a favourite?

Meanwhile on the other side you are always in the mix for the title and you fall just towards the end, but you show how you managed to be top 4 or top 2 in all the important tournaments.

Sean.
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:08 AM
Even if you never win a match again in your life you'll still go into the history books and be remembered as a Slam Champion, the highest accolade in your sport.

As things stand in the future Na Li is more likely to be remembered than Jankovic, even though Jelena was number one and had a very consistent year.

Jimmie48
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:14 AM
I'd rather win one slam and lose in R1 of all other slams than to reach final of all 4 slams and win none. Why?

Because in 50 years, nobody will give a shit who made quarters, semis or finals. People remember slams, nobody cares about the loser or the underachiever. Thus nobody will remember that someone lost several times in R1 one of a slam - but people will remember the slams that the player won.

Bullshit theory, do you really want to claim that people remember Iva Majoli over more accomplished players who've never won a slam?

Consistency is always more difficult to archive, playing at the top level for several years and staying motivated and healthy is much harder than just peaking for 1-2 events.

ElusiveChanteuse
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:19 AM
Bullshit theory, do you really want to claim that people remember Iva Majoli over more accomplished players who've never won a slam?

Consistency is always more difficult to archive, playing at the top level for several years and staying motivated and healthy is much harder than just peaking for 1-2 events.
Not everyone remembers but definitely worth mentioning for sure.:shrug: Caro is also worth mentioning, so far becoming #1 without winning a slam yet.:shrug: but she definitely won't be remembered/mentioned until some other players who will become slamless #1 like her.:shrug:

ExtremespeedX
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:19 AM
Bullshit theory, do you really want to claim that people remember Iva Majoli over more accomplished players who've never won a slam?

Yes. Slam > no slam. Is it so hard to understand? I remember Iva Majoli for the slam. Dementieva for Olympic gold etc... nobody cares about them consistently losing in big tournaments...Nobody remembers consistent losers :shrug:

Consistency is always more difficult to archive, playing at the top level for several years and staying motivated and healthy is much harder than just peaking for 1-2 events.

Consistency is difficult to achieve when you win big events like Federer or Graf who were both consistent and won big titles, not New Haven or Brussels and your only top 10 scalp is Schiavone :lol:

Jimmie48
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:22 AM
Yes. Slam > no slam. Is it so hard to understand?



It's not hard to understand, it's simply wrong and has little to do with reality but is based on your absurd overvaluation of slams.

ElusiveChanteuse
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:24 AM
But in this "who has better season" case, I'd go with the one with more consistent results. But I personally would win a slam rather than #1 in my career.:oh: You can only have about 48 chances (96 weeks max) in a normal career (let say 12 years) to win a slam but you have about 12 years time to become #1. Not saying that winning a slam is harder to achieve, but it's definitely more precious in terms of achievement. As #1, you can get it without big results. But winning a slam, if you don't push hard, you can never get it for sure.

ExtremespeedX
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:25 AM
It's not hard to understand, it's simply wrong and has little to do with reality but is based on your absurd overvaluation of slams.

Slams are only overvalued for fans of players who can't win them.

Jimmie48
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:32 AM
Slams are only overvalued for fans of players who can't win them.

Yeah, cling to that...it's the last thing you have and she can take it away as early as four weeks from now... and then your empty pathetic hater life has run out of options :wavey:

ExtremespeedX
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:33 AM
Yeah, cling to that...it's the last thing you have and she can take it away as early as four weeks from now... and then your empty pathetic hater life has run out of options :wavey:

If Dullniacki wins a slam, I will never insult her again.

ElusiveChanteuse
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:35 AM
If Dullniacki wins a slam, I will never insult her again.

*subscribes* :oh:

Mynarco
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:36 AM
Player B in three situations.

Excelscior
Dec 29th, 2011, 02:45 AM
I chose player B in three situations as well. But wouldn't choose definitively, inconsistency with results, is always better than consistency without results.

But under these scenarios, I chose player B three times.

miffedmax
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:21 AM
I'd rather win one slam and lose in R1 of all other slams than to reach final of all 4 slams and win none. Why?

Because in 50 years, nobody will give a shit who made quarters, semis or finals. People remember slams, nobody cares about the loser or the underachiever. Thus nobody will remember that someone lost several times in R1 one of a slam - but people will remember the slams that the player won.

Please. :rolleyes: Most of the people on this so-called tennis forum didn't know who Maria Bueno was in a recent thread.

Anyway, I don't see how you can talk about consistency if you only count four events from an 11 month season.

Lena's bangs.

Pops Maellard
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:31 AM
I'm guessing Player B is Kvitova and Player A is Wozniacki (though TBH Caro's overall slam results don't come close to any Player A in these polls :oh:).

Player B every time.

VeeJJ
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:51 AM
It's like we are talking about Lena D/Jankovic and Mary Pierce

Yoncé
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:54 AM
This confused me. So I just selected all the options!

SwingVolley93
Dec 29th, 2011, 04:12 AM
Bullshit theory, do you really want to claim that people remember Iva Majoli over more accomplished players who've never won a slam?

Consistency is always more difficult to archive, playing at the top level for several years and staying motivated and healthy is much harder than just peaking for 1-2 events.

So you're saying that as of right now, Caroline has had a better career than Kvitova, Stosur, Schiavone or Li Na? That she will be remembered better? Is that what you're saying? I just need you to clarify. :wavey:

ranfurly
Dec 29th, 2011, 04:27 AM
Id go with having a consistent career over one that has it's ebbs and flows.

and because this thread is directed at Wozniacki it seems...

If Schiavone, Li, Stosur were to retire without winning any more slams, and Wozniacki goes on for another 7-10 years being consistent and showing her consistent play with solid results, tournament in and tournament out without achieving a grandslam, I'd be inclined she had the better career. (for arguments sake)

In retrospect, I'd say she has had the more consistent career, and at such a young age, has youth on her side. and if she continued this play, an overall better career, despite not having a grandslam.

skanky~skanketta
Dec 29th, 2011, 04:53 AM
1st Scenraio: Player B
2nd Scenario: Player B
3rd Scenario: Player A

I'd pick winning slams any day. That is after all, the biggest prize.

M.P
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:02 AM
It's like we are talking about Lena D/Jankovic and Mary Pierce

Lena has a Gold Medal, sorry :oh:

mac47
Dec 29th, 2011, 09:24 AM
It's theoretically possible to be ranked #1 and never actually win so much as a MM tournament. That would be my definition of tennis hell. Perpetual bridesmaid. The life of Natalie Grandin, except in singles. Far better to actually win once or twice than to look back on week after week of weeping on one's pillow.

This poll obviously isn't about Kvitova and Wozniacki, because Kvitova is more consistent than Woz, not less.

Holdsworth
Dec 29th, 2011, 09:32 AM
I didn't notice, that Murray was happy of his results at slams this year (F+SF+SF+SF)

duhcity
Dec 29th, 2011, 09:32 AM
Yes. Slam > no slam. Is it so hard to understand? I remember Iva Majoli for the slam. Dementieva for Olympic gold etc... nobody cares about them consistently losing in big tournaments...Nobody remembers consistent losers :shrug:



Consistency is difficult to achieve when you win big events like Federer or Graf who were both consistent and won big titles, not New Haven or Brussels and your only top 10 scalp is Schiavone :lol:

If you can't remember who made the finals of slams, you're nowhere near as big of a tennis fan as you think you are and you should get off this forum.

As for the topic: Difference is if you get to #1, which I would put as equal as someone with a 1r/W/1r/1r year

claypova
Dec 29th, 2011, 09:38 AM
scenario 1: player B (duh)
scenario 2: player B (rather have a slam)
scenario 3: Player B (2 finals > 4 SFs)

all in all, big results > smaller but consistent results :)

tennismaster8820
Dec 29th, 2011, 09:48 AM
Bullshit theory, do you really want to claim that people remember Iva Majoli over more accomplished players who've never won a slam?

Yes she is remembered.
Every year when Roland Garros is being played she is the one who stands as previous winner and people mention her.
Nobody will remember those who didn't win slam so much.
Also Iva won only 1 slam but she was top 10 player for 4 years and won other big titles.

Also whenever any Croatian player is shown on Eurosport in some grand slam, commentators always mention how Iva Majoli is the only Croat with slam so far.
Her name pops out always because of that 1 grand slam title at least.

Of course reaching number 1 is huge achievement so players who managed to reach it will also be remembered for it, just that it won't be nice if people in the future keeps saying she was the one who was number 1 but never won any slam... :p

goldenlox
Dec 29th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Is the goal to be famous and remembered and wealthy and on Forbes lists and like that? Being a long term #1 will definately make you famous and remembered. The 2012 WTA media guide has one player on the cover

http://c0014104.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_a125ae4

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 29th, 2011, 10:49 AM
Please. :rolleyes: Most of the people on this so-called tennis forum didn't know who Maria Bueno was in a recent thread.

Anyway, I don't see how you can talk about consistency if you only count four events from an 11 month season.

Lena's bangs.

That's not because people don't "remember" it's just because many people on this forum only started watching tennis in recent years and never bothered to educate themselves on the history of the sport. Anyone who was around in Bueno's day obviously remembers her 7 slam wins, but you can't use people who likely weren't even born when she won her last slam(such as myself) as an example to invalidate his claim.

To answer the question, voted:
Scenario 1: B definitely, 2 slam wins and not a single match win outside of those(including slams, WTA/ITF/Fed Cup/You name it) > No slams.
Scenario 2: B.
Scenario 3: B, but it was a bit closer. At the end of the day, both are slamless flops, but 2 slam Fs > 4 slam SFs in terms of prestige I suppose. Plus B probably got more prize money and ranking points :shrug:
Lastly, voted inconsistent result but BIG wins over the other things. I think its a no-brainer that most would rank Mary Pierce above Wozniacki, even taking away her slam finals in 2005 based on her hot'n'cold career, but with two grand slams. Even Kvitova, actually.

Vespertine69
Dec 29th, 2011, 11:30 AM
I get the endless debate about the SLAMS BEAT EVERYTHING! thing and mostly I agree. Slams will stand up in history (especially to non-followers of tennis) the way consistency won't unless it was a Federer consistency type thing.

The first two scenarios here are pretty clear-cut - slams for the win. However, I don't really understand the voting in the third scenario being so weighted towards the 2 F'd and 2 4R's - personally I'd rather have the 4 SF's, obviously you'd want to make it past a SF sometime in your life, but SF at all the slams in a year is more slam wins and I think tougher when you consider the different surfaces and conditions. I would lean to rather having the 2 finals if it was an assumption you could never make another one... but in terms of a year out of my career, I'd feel a lot happier with the 4 semis.

BuTtErFrEnA
Dec 29th, 2011, 11:45 AM
*subscribes* :oh:

ditto :lol:

Jimmie48
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Is the goal to be famous and remembered and wealthy and on Forbes lists and like that? Being a long term #1 will definately make you famous and remembered. The 2012 WTA media guide has one player on the cover

http://c0014104.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_a125ae4

No surprise there, the WTA knows who their #1 is :)

terjw
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:02 PM
That's not because people don't "remember" it's just because many people on this forum only started watching tennis in recent years and never bothered to educate themselves on the history of the sport. Anyone who was around in Bueno's day obviously remembers her 7 slam wins, but you can't use people who likely weren't even born when she won her last slam(such as myself) as an example to invalidate his claim.



So according to you in 50 years time - it doesn't really matter whether you won a slam or not as far as being remebered because no-one who wasn't around at the time will know either way and those that are will get fewer and fewer every year. :lol:

Brad[le]y.
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:16 PM
Bullshit theory, do you really want to claim that people remember Iva Majoli over more accomplished players who've never won a slam?

of course, she absolutely stunned Legend in the final and prevented her from achieving the Grand Slam :sobbing:

Miss Atomic Bomb
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:26 PM
I don't know why the Wozniacki fans are getting their panties in a twist in this thread. Its not like she has been consistent in the slams this year to warrant a mention in this discussion :shrug: Her results are worse than all the ones mentioned in the poll.

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:35 PM
So according to you in 50 years time - it doesn't really matter whether you won a slam or not as far as being remebered because no-one who wasn't around at the time will know either way and those that are will get fewer and fewer every year. :lol:

Please don't try this twisting words bullshit with me, thanks. My point was, certain idiots on TF who only started following the game in 2008 are not the measuring stick for whether or not you will be remembered. Furthermore, a slamless #1 such as Wozniacki, Jankovic is even LESS likely to be remembered than a slam winner 50 years from now :lol:

Celest
Dec 29th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Cross surface consistency is pretty special, something Jankovic never achieved and something Wozniacki won't achieve for a while, if at all.

And if player B is Wozniacki in scenario 2, so only does well on Hard and sucks elsewhere, I'd prefer the consistent player's year.

Matt01
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:11 PM
Winning a Slam is always better than not winning a Slam.

Finishing the season two years in a row as #1 is almost as good (and arguably more difficult) as winning a Slam.

pov
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:25 PM
I'm surprised (though I probably shouldn't be) that some many chose "Inconsistency but with big results is always better than consistency without big results " To them a player who wins a major and makes it only to the 3R of the other 3 majors has had a better season than a player who makes the Finals of all 4 majors.

IMO many people don't seem to view the tour for what it is - a 10 month performance season. Maybe the WTA and the ATP should only have 4 tournaments/year.

Excelscior
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Is the goal to be famous and remembered and wealthy and on Forbes lists and like that? Being a long term #1 will definately make you famous and remembered. The 2012 WTA media guide has one player on the cover

http://c0014104.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_a125ae4

How/What in the world does this book cover have to do with this conversation and scenario? I'm still trying to figure this out?

For example, I saw Petra's image at the end of a recent 2011 WTA retrospective video and 2012 preview article (and others), but it's not something I wrote and bragged about here? Who cares!?

I wouldn't even be surprised if there were other WTA guides, with other players on the cover?

Come on now, it's a new year/season. Tennis is what should be on our mind.

This is the type of stuff that just illustrates how Caro and many of her fans have such misplaced priorities and goals.

miffedmax
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:44 PM
That's not because people don't "remember" it's just because many people on this forum only started watching tennis in recent years and never bothered to educate themselves on the history of the sport. Anyone who was around in Bueno's day obviously remembers her 7 slam wins, but you can't use people who likely weren't even born when she won her last slam(such as myself) as an example to invalidate his claim.

To answer the question, voted:
Scenario 1: B definitely, 2 slam wins and not a single match win outside of those(including slams, WTA/ITF/Fed Cup/You name it) > No slams.
Scenario 2: B.
Scenario 3: B, but it was a bit closer. At the end of the day, both are slamless flops, but 2 slam Fs > 4 slam SFs in terms of prestige I suppose. Plus B probably got more prize money and ranking points :shrug:
Lastly, voted inconsistent result but BIG wins over the other things. I think its a no-brainer that most would rank Mary Pierce above Wozniacki, even taking away her slam finals in 2005 based on her hot'n'cold career, but with two grand slams. Even Kvitova, actually.

I'm a pretty hardcore tennis fan and I can't name every slam winner from my lifetime.

Like it or not, all slams are not created equal, and their importance and prestige has waxed and waned over the history of the game. There's been greater parity in recent years (and I'll concede that applies to this question) but anyone who's going to argue that Barbara Jordan was a better player or had a better singles career than Rosie Casals, or Betty Stove, or Mary Jo Fernandez or Jelena Jankovic or Caroline Wozniaki is in desperate need of a crowbar and a sponge.

Anyway, my main point is still that you can't measure consistency over just four tournaments out of the year.

It will be interesting to see if Kvitova can end this nonsense and finally give us a No.1 who can win majors, or a major winner who can be consistent. You are not a great, or even a very good player if you win one tournament and then disappear for the rest of the year, regardless of whether you get your name in the agate type of previous winners once a year or not.

Lena's bangs.

Excelscior
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:48 PM
I don't know why the Wozniacki fans are getting their panties in a twist in this thread. Its not like she has been consistent in the slams this year to warrant a mention in this discussion :shrug: Her results are worse than all the ones mentioned in the poll.

Agreed!

How did it turn into this?

I never thought her or Petra were necessarily the people being discussed. I just thought it was a hypothetical scenario.

It never crossed my mind actually. Tennis has a long history. Some people here are being sensitive, I guess.

But now that you brought it up; you're correct. Petra was actually the more consistent/successful one overall anyway (for the year, winning %, and big events)out of the two. So those two direct comparisons wouldn't even apply here, anyway.

Thiudans
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:53 PM
Why... does no one win the US Open?

Jimmie48
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:53 PM
I wouldn't even be surprised if there were other WTA guides, with other players on the cover?



Whatever helps you :lol:

JamieOwen3
Dec 29th, 2011, 03:53 PM
OK SO, you can get to number one but if you at the end of your career haven't won a slam you'll be remembered as the #1 who never won a slam or lost to the one who is less consistent in a calendar year but managed to show up when it counted. :shrug:
Olympic medals will be remembered also though, Elena's silver in 2000 and gold in 2008 will never be forgotten and is part of history.

:SIDE NOTE
Im so glad i researched the history of the game the first chance i got *when i first got a computer*, i was so fascinated with the sport i fell in love with in 1997 i wanted to know about the days Billie,Bueno,Rosie anne jones,wade etc and know what commentators were talking about when they were mentioned. I suggest that the people who have followed the game for 5 years or less go learn about the history of the best sport in the world and the players that made such a huge impact!

nfl46
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:13 PM
1ST SCENARIO: Player B (the inconsistent player) had a better season (W/3R/W/1R)

Give me the TWO grand slams!!!!!

Who's going to remember if you made it to SF and F of GS...no one.

Does anyone even remember Vera doing this? No one.

2010 Wimbledon - Final
2010 US Open - Final
2011 Australia - Semi-Final

Critique
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:18 PM
Inconsistency with big results. Neither are desirable but Slam champ > rest.

Mikey.
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:21 PM
Every time I see the title of this thread I remember Cp6uja for some reason. :tears:

Smitten
Dec 29th, 2011, 05:53 PM
Her results are worse than all the ones mentioned in the poll.

:lol:

bobito
Dec 29th, 2011, 07:22 PM
Tennis is a tournament sport. The player who wins the tournament is a champion. The rest are also rans. Until the next one that is.

Matt-TennisFan24
Dec 29th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Id go with having a consistent career over one that has it's ebbs and flows.

and because this thread is directed at Wozniacki it seems...

If Schiavone, Li, Stosur were to retire without winning any more slams, and Wozniacki goes on for another 7-10 years being consistent and showing her consistent play with solid results, tournament in and tournament out without achieving a grandslam, I'd be inclined she had the better career. (for arguments sake)

In retrospect, I'd say she has had the more consistent career, and at such a young age, has youth on her side. and if she continued this play, an overall better career, despite not having a grandslam.

Not really... but I got inspired by all the discussions saying Kvitova deserved or not the No.1

It's interesting how pretty much everyone prefers inconsistency with big results over consistency (for now). I know Slams are valued more but... shouldn't 2 Finals be equal to a Slam win and 4 SFs = a Slam win too? That's the way I see it personally

1ST SCENARIO: Player B (the inconsistent player) had a better season (W/3R/W/1R)

Give me the TWO grand slams!!!!!

Who's going to remember if you made it to SF and F of GS...no one.

Does anyone even remember Vera doing this? No one.

2010 Wimbledon - Final
2010 US Open - Final
2011 Australia - Semi-Final

Yeah but only because it was Vera. If it had been Pierce, Serena, or Sharapova having a season like this they would have been more remembered.

Why... does no one win the US Open?

:lol: Well... it's all hypothetical bud.

Miracle Worker
Dec 29th, 2011, 11:04 PM
If we talk about really big names I would pick inconsistency.

If I can choose between Sveta's career and Agnieszka's career I would take Sveta's title without any questions.