PDA

View Full Version : If Kim wins on Saturday...


disposablehero
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:30 PM
She becomes the worlds #1 ranked player about 4 weeks from now. She also becomes the youngest of the active Slam-holders, the first new Slam-winner in over 2 years, and only the fourth teenager to win a Slam since 1990. Oh yeah, and she will rule Belgium. ;)

Ryan
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:31 PM
Agh, now I'm torn. I like Justine a lot more and I want her to win, but I want Kim to knock Serena off the top too. Choices choices. ;)

Dava
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:31 PM
How will she become world number one. She has not won Wimbledon yet, and to be honest I dont think she will (as much as I would like it though!)

Crazy Canuck
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:32 PM
If.

BigB08822
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:32 PM
I dont know what I think of Kim becoming #1 all because she wins one Slam. Serena currently holds 4 Slams, will still be holding 3 after tomorrow. I know Slams aren't everything, but Serena's record holds up everywhere else, she has only lost what, 3 matches this year. Maybe I understand now how these rankings don't make much sense.

disposablehero
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:38 PM
How will she become world number one. She has not won Wimbledon yet, and to be honest I dont think she will (as much as I would like it though!)

She won't need to win Kimbledon. If she wins RG and Serena wins WB, then Kim will likely only need a Semifinal there to take over #1. Maybe less if she is still planning on playing that tuneup and wins it.

disposablehero
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:42 PM
I dont know what I think of Kim becoming #1 all because she wins one Slam. Serena currently holds 4 Slams, will still be holding 3 after tomorrow. I know Slams aren't everything, but Serena's record holds up everywhere else, she has only lost what, 3 matches this year. Maybe I understand now how these rankings don't make much sense.

They make perfect sense. Serena just chooses to not prioritize them. The system is not responsible for accommodating Serena's schedule.

treufreund
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:42 PM
kim with Roland Garros, the tour championship and good results at MANY other tournaments seems legit to me as #1. serena is still the better player a lot of the time but not always and had Kim not gotten nervous and maybe had a slice backhand or some moonballs in that third set of Oz she could have won that 3rd set when Serena starting smacking the crap out of the ball. she needed to mix it up and but did not. but it still shows that she is not far from Serena at all.

1jackson2001
Jun 5th, 2003, 10:59 PM
very true

Lisbeth
Jun 6th, 2003, 12:16 AM
Yay! Though I don't have the heart to cheer too hard against Justine.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 12:44 AM
I don't think Kim will reach number one this year if she wins on Saturday. Serena would have to lose at Wimbledon in an early round and Kim would probably have to appear in the final or win the whole thing. Considering her history on grass and the history of some of the other top players, she would probably have to beat two of them to win and I just don't see that happening since she only has a little more than a week to start getting used to playing on grass.

Don't look for her to do much during the summer North American hardcourt season if Serena, Venus, Jennifer, Chanda and Lindsay play well. Plus if you take out the USO championship points, Serena has less to defend than Kim.

Lisbeth
Jun 6th, 2003, 12:51 AM
Kim doesn't need to win Wimbledon - I believe she would only need to go one or two rounds less well than Serena. Someone posted the exact figures somewhere else, I think. However, I agree it's far from a certainty that she will take over the #1.

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:03 AM
I don't think Kim will reach number one this year if she wins on Saturday. Serena would have to lose at Wimbledon in an early round and Kim would probably have to appear in the final or win the whole thing. Considering her history on grass and the history of some of the other top players, she would probably have to beat two of them to win and I just don't see that happening since she only has a little more than a week to start getting used to playing on grass.

Don't look for her to do much during the summer North American hardcourt season if Serena, Venus, Jennifer, Chanda and Lindsay play well. Plus if you take out the USO championship points, Serena has less to defend than Kim.

???

I don't understand. All your points are precisely backwards from the truth. It's Serena who has to do much better than Kim at Wimbledon to stay #1, and its Serena who has the big points to defend from now til September.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:09 AM
???

I don't understand. All your points are precisely backwards from the truth. It's Serena who has to do much better than Kim at Wimbledon to stay #1, and its Serena who has the big points to defend from now til September.

Reread the post. What I was implying, without ACTUALLY coming out and saying it is that don't expect to see the Serena of today out on the court come Monday (the strt of the grass court season) because she is a much better grass and outdoor hardcourt player than Kim is. I was also trying to say is that Kim also has to worry about Venus, Jennifer, Chanda and Lindsay, moreso the first two than the latte two because she currently has losing records against them and I don't know of recent nubmer one player who has losing records agaisnt two people in the top five, much less another player in the top ten.

jenglisbe
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:11 AM
If she wins the French, it's highly possible that Kim will overtake the #1 ranking by/after the U.S. Open. She has almost no points to defend, while Serena has major points to defend.

I am a huge Kim fan, too, but Kim doesn't deserve to be #1 if Serena is holding 3 majors at the time. The majors are still the biggest tournaments in tennis, and if one player holds 3 of them, they deserve to be #1.

If, however, Kim wins a major and Serena loses at either Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, then I say Kim is certainly deserving of the #1 spot.

Let's see how it all pans out :)

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:16 AM
Reread the post. What I was implying, without ACTUALLY coming out and saying it is that don't expect to see the Serena of today out on the court come Monday (the strt of the grass court season) because she is a much better grass and outdoor hardcourt player than Kim is. I was also trying to say is that Kim also has to worry about Venus, Jennifer, Chanda and Lindsay, moreso the first two than the latte two because she currently has losing records against them and I don't know of recent nubmer one player who has losing records agaisnt two people in the top five, much less another player in the top ten.

The only players Kim has a losing record against are the Williams. Things that happened more than 52 weeks ago are irrelevant to the #1 ranking. Kim has taken firm control of Lindsay, owns Chanda, and has beaten Jennifer in their only recent meeting. When Venus was the best player in the world in 2000, she had a poor head to head for her overall career against Hingis and Davenport. But she was beating them at the moment, which is what matters.

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:20 AM
If she wins the French, it's highly possible that Kim will overtake the #1 ranking by/after the U.S. Open. She has almost no points to defend, while Serena has major points to defend.

I am a huge Kim fan, too, but Kim doesn't deserve to be #1 if Serena is holding 3 majors at the time. The majors are still the biggest tournaments in tennis, and if one player holds 3 of them, they deserve to be #1.

If, however, Kim wins a major and Serena loses at either Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, then I say Kim is certainly deserving of the #1 spot.

Let's see how it all pans out :)

My opinion is that Serena doesn't deserve to be #1 if she doesn't work for it. If she had 15 events on the computer, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Changing the ranking system to suit the Williams would hurt the tour, as players who could afford it would start playing less events. The system has already become more "Williams-friendly" twice in recent years, and should be left alone and respected now.

Gonzo Hates Me!
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:22 AM
It's June 5th-- I don't want to think about some July prospects. You're scaring me and making me nervouse. LOL

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:24 AM
Apparently the #1 ranking is pretty important to people. It seems to have been the entire topic of this discussion, even though I listed 3 other great things in the opener.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:24 AM
The only players Kim has a losing record against are the Williams. Things that happened more than 52 weeks ago are irrelevant to the #1 ranking. Kim has taken firm control of Lindsay, owns Chanda, and has beaten Jennifer in their only recent meeting. When Venus was the best player in the world in 2000, she had a poor head to head for her overall career against Hingis and Davenport. But she was beating them at the moment, which is what matters.


She has a 1-3 record against Capriati.

When Venus reached the number one spot (February 2002), she had an 8-10 record against Hingis and a 10-10 record against Lindsay, which is what I tought we were talking about.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:29 AM
My opinion is that Serena doesn't deserve to be #1 if she doesn't work for it. If she had 15 events on the computer, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Changing the ranking system to suit the Williams would hurt the tour, as players who could afford it would start playing less events. The system has already become more "Williams-friendly" twice in recent years, and should be left alone and respected now.

What the hell are you talking about?

I think the rankings take the best 17 results. If Serena only has 15 results and those results are better than Kim's best 17, then Serena deserves the number one sport, period. It isn't Serena's problem or fault that she is ranked higher than Kiim even though she plays less, but gets better results.

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:31 AM
She has a 1-3 record against Capriati.

When Venus reached the number one spot (February 2002), she had an 8-10 record against Hingis and a 10-10 record against Lindsay, which is what I tought we were talking about.

That is what we are talking about. However, Venus was a better player before she was #1, and her career heads to heads were poorer. However, when she took the #1 ranking, her 52 week head to heads against Hingis and Davenport were flawless. As is Kim's vs Jen, 1-0. Jen's current ranking is an accurate reflection of her current ability. As is Kim's. Kim beats damn near everyone damn near all the time. Jen doesn't.

jenglisbe
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:32 AM
Why are we arguing about changing the rankings system? Did anyone here even suggest that?

lizchris - but Kim beat Jennifer in their most recent meeting, which was their first meeting in over a year. Kim has now clearly overtaken Capriati in the world of tennis.

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:34 AM
What the hell are you talking about?

I think the rankings take the best 17 results. If Serena only has 15 results and those results are better than Kim's best 17, then Serena deserves the number one sport, period. It isn't Serena's problem or fault that she is ranked higher than Kiim even though she plays less, but gets better results.

That's exactly right. But Serena doesn't have 15 results, she has 12. If Serena came close to the minimum, she would have a huge lead on Kim right now. But she is not close to the minimum, and thus Kim has a well-earned opportunity to overtake her.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:45 AM
Why are we arguing about changing the rankings system? Did anyone here even suggest that?

lizchris - but Kim beat Jennifer in their most recent meeting, which was their first meeting in over a year. Kim has now clearly overtaken Capriati in the world of tennis.

While I will admit that Jennifer isn't the player she was in 2001-early 2002, Kim beat her on clay. Two of Jennifer's three victories against Kim are on hardcourt. The fact remains that Venus (newly ranked 4) has a 4-2 record against Kim, two of those victories on hardcourt. Serena (current number one) has a 7-1 record against Kim, four of those victories on hardcourt (I didn't count Rebound Ace). Though most of these victoires haven't been recent, the fact is she has a 7-3 record on hardcourt against these players and the hardcourt searon starts in six weeks. She will have to do better with that if she plans on becoming number one. She will also have to defend her indoor points, while Serena has substantial points to defend during the indoor season while Jennifer and Venus have almost nothing, but I don't wnat to get into the indoor season right now.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:50 AM
That's exactly right. But Serena doesn't have 15 results, she has 12. If Serena came close to the minimum, she would have a huge lead on Kim right now. But she is not close to the minimum, and thus Kim has a well-earned opportunity to overtake her.

The fact that Serena only has played 12 tournaments and is still nubmer one is even worse. BTW, Serena pulled out of two tournaments where she was the defending champion (Scottsdale) and a finalist (German Open), so she would have had 14 tournaments played. Also, she is playing the Bank of the West in Stanford (where she has zero points to defend because she didn't play there last year) and the Canadian Open (where she didn't play last year because she wa injured) this summer.

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:52 AM
True Liz, but Kim's win against Serena was also on Hardcourt, as was her first victory against Lindsay, which was really one of the landmarks of her career. She can play on the stuff, and well.

disposablehero
Jun 6th, 2003, 01:55 AM
The fact that Serena only has played 12 tournaments and is still nubmer one is even worse. BTW, Serena pulled out of two tournaments where she was the defending champion (Scottsdale) and a finalist (German Open), so she would have had 14 tournaments played. Also, she is playing the Bank of the West in Stanford (where she has zero points to defend because she didn't play there last year) and the Canadian Open (where she didn't play last year because she wa injured) this summer.

But she doesn't have 14 tournaments. Kim has pulled out of 1 or 2 events as well, but she still found time to play over 20, a ton of matches, and far more doubles than anyone else in the top 5. If Serena plays Stanford and (Toronto/Montreal?), then she will have a chance to earn the #1 ranking back. If she loses it.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:04 AM
But she doesn't have 14 tournaments. Kim has pulled out of 1 or 2 events as well, but she still found time to play over 20, a ton of matches, and far more doubles than anyone else in the top 5. If Serena plays Stanford and (Toronto/Montreal?), then she will have a chance to earn the #1 ranking back. If she loses it.

Maybe you don't get it, but Serena is number one, has earned it by winning four Grand Slams, one Tier I and three Tier IIs, not to mention being a finalist or semifinalist in many other tournments, and until the beginning of July, will still be number one. Since last year, Kim has won the WTA year-end championship, two Tier Is and two or three Tier IIs and one Tier III, not to mention being a finalist or semifinalist in many other tournaments. Impressive, but not enough to earn you the number one spot. I'll also add that when Serena was winning three of her four Slams, she was the reigning WTA tour champion.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:05 AM
kim with Roland Garros, the tour championship and good results at MANY other tournaments seems legit to me as #1. serena is still the better player a lot of the time but not always and had Kim not gotten nervous and maybe had a slice backhand or some moonballs in that third set of Oz she could have won that 3rd set when Serena starting smacking the crap out of the ball. she needed to mix it up and but did not. but it still shows that she is not far from Serena at all.

and if serena had held her serve and not let the crowd get to her she would have defeated justine in the third set today. If If if if means nothing only results. If kim reaches number one then good for her because she deserves it. I think shes going to spank justine on saturday.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:14 AM
and if serena had held her serve and not let the crowd get to her she would have defeated justine in the third set today. If If if if means nothing only results. If kim reaches number one then good for her because she deserves it. I think shes going to spank justine on saturday.

You are right on about the if, if, ifs.

Look, Serena had a chance to go up 5-2 after she broke Justine, but she didn't and should have held her serve when the score was tied 5-5, but she didn't. I was upset that she lost, but tomorrow is another day and Wimbeldon is two weeks from Monday. As with the French Open, Serena is the defending champion at Wimdeldon and will be the number one seed and if she plays well, as she does on grass, she can defend her title. Plus the winner of Saturday's French Open will have pressure on her to do something only Steffi and Serena have done in the past decade and that is win the French and Wimbeldon. Can it be done, sure. Will it be done, not likely if Serena and Venus (or Lindsay or Chanda) play Wimbeldon well.

yukon145
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:30 AM
You are right on about the if, if, ifs.

Look, Serena had a chance to go up 5-2 after she broke Justine, but she didn't and should have held her serve when the score was tied 5-5, but she didn't. I was upset that she lost, but tomorrow is another day and Wimbeldon is two weeks from Monday. As with the French Open, Serena is the defending champion at Wimdeldon and will be the number one seed and if she plays well, as she does on grass, she can defend her title. Plus the winner of Saturday's French Open will have pressure on her to do something only Steffi and Serena have done in the past decade and that is win the French and Wimbeldon. Can it be done, sure. Will it be done, not likely if Serena and Venus (or Lindsay or Chanda) play Wimbeldon well.
There will be no pressure on the player that wins the French because that player didn't will the Aussie, so they aren't going for the Gland Slam, say as in 2001 when Jenn had a chance to win it.

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:44 AM
There will be no pressure on the player that wins the French because that player didn't will the Aussie, so they aren't going for the Gland Slam, say as in 2001 when Jenn had a chance to win it.

Yes, they will be because they will be under pressure to win two Grand Slams in a row, something Jennifer, Venus and Serena have done. Plus they will have to live up to the hype that the Belgians are the top players at the moment. If one wins the French Open and the other wins Wiimbeldon, that won't be enough proof in some people's eyes, including mine.

yukon145
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:49 AM
Yes, they will be because they will be under pressure to win two Grand Slams in a row, something Jennifer, Venus and Serena have done. Plus they will have to live up to the hype that the Belgians are the top players at the moment. If one wins the French Open and the other wins Wiimbeldon, that won't be enough proof in some people's eyes, including mine.
If one wins the French and than the other wins Wimbeldon 2 weeks later you won't be impressed? God, what do you want them to do?

lizchris
Jun 6th, 2003, 02:59 AM
If one wins the French and than the other wins Wimbeldon 2 weeks later you won't be impressed? God, what do you want them to do?

For one of them to win two consecutive Slams in one year or just for one of them to win two in one year. Remember Iva Majoli (French Open winner 1997)? Many people don't.