TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: 50+ Win Seasons Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Sep 7th, 2012 01:31 PM
joe87
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Patricia Mayr-Achleitner

2008 Singles Record: 78-27

Sep 6th, 2012 08:04 PM
18majors
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Maria's 51 wins after USO will be really sweet!
Sep 6th, 2012 08:01 PM
tennisfan5
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Davenport

1996: 51-15
1997: 59-16
1998: 69-15
1999: 61-10
2000: 60-12
2001: 62-9
2004: 63-9
2005: 60-10
Sep 6th, 2012 07:53 PM
Legend97
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobito View Post
Martina Hingis

1996: 51-17
1997: 76-5
1998: 67-13
1999: 71-13
2000: 78-10
2001: 60-15
'97 was amazing, and she had an injury that year from riding horse.
Sep 6th, 2012 07:29 PM
miffedmax
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenas warriors View Post
Lena D:

2008 56-17

2009 55-18
Sep 6th, 2012 07:17 PM
Miracle Worker
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobito View Post
Not a calender year but from 1st August 2011 to 1st August 2012:

Julia Cohen 50-39
Step.

Impressive The real legend of these days
Sep 6th, 2012 06:58 PM
Excelscior
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olórin View Post
Starting in 1995 and 1996 Steffi provided the template on how to win multiple majors and play on a more limited schedule, she needed to do that to preserve her body. The amount of tournaments and matches she was playing in 1995/1996 is simply not comparable to her 1988/1989 schedule.

Venus and then Serena demonstrated their own version of this schedule-lite approach in their multiple slam winning years in the early 2000's.

So yes you can use the "how physical" the tour is today argument because that is exactly what happened, with Graf's injuries and change in approach being a case in point.

And you say Serena doesn't play much compared to her contemporaries. However the fact some of her contemporaries such as Hingis, Kim and Jankovic played more her than her actually proves how much more physical the tour is (and therefore the necessity of a streamlined schedule) because they burned out in one form or another. Oh, except they didn't even play more than her because Kim and Hingis are retired while Serena has more wins and still playing.
------
Also your point that historical analysis showing more tournaments reduces your chances to win slams is completely backwards.Historically the complete opposite is true. Look at the careers of Margaret Court, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert and Steffi Graf in the 1980's. Their most successful years were the years when they won the most matches. Margaret Court won over 110 matches in her 1970 Grand Slam year. Graf's 1989 where she played more matches than any other was her second most successful career season. Then things changed, as I pointed out above. QED.
My correction for not elaborating.

The tour during Court, King and even Navratilova and Evert weren't as physical, deep and grueling as it is today. They all testify to that themselves, as you know.

The historical analysis is that since the late 1980's (as you mentioned), its been shown that playing 20+ tournament doesn't always translate into the equitable Grand Slam total (though many think it would), do to the more physical nature of the tour. Obviously Venus, Serena and Clijsters figured this one out.

And until things change (like the playing style, larger draws, bigger more powerful ladies, and more world travel), that'll probably remain the same.

I even read articles that extrapolated this trend from the 70's, early eighties (though you brought up a good argument to the contrary in some of your player examples).
Sep 6th, 2012 06:46 PM
Excelscior
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Not that many would care, but Court's wins are as follows:

1961 - 80-5
1962 - 77-2
1963 - 86-6
1964 - 77-2
1965 - 106-8
1968 - 104-12
1969 - 96-5
1970 - 113-6
1971 - 64-4
1972 - 60-7
1973 - 101-5
I thought about her, and sorry I didn't mention her.
Sep 6th, 2012 05:51 PM
Olórin
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelscior View Post
Chrissie, Martina and Graf, all dominated the regular tour, as well as the majors, and being #1.

That's what they all have over Serena.

And you can't use the argument, "how physical the tour is today" in Serena's defense, cause she doesn't play a lot of matches, relative to her contemporaries, through out her career anyway.

Of course Serena, has her own arguments, but certainly not those above.
Starting in 1995 and 1996 Steffi provided the template on how to win multiple majors and play on a more limited schedule, she needed to do that to preserve her body. The amount of tournaments and matches she was playing in 1995/1996 is simply not comparable to her 1988/1989 schedule.

Venus and then Serena demonstrated their own version of this schedule-lite approach in their multiple slam winning years in the early 2000's.

So yes you can use the "how physical" the tour is today argument because that is exactly what happened, with Graf's injuries and change in approach being a case in point.

And you say Serena doesn't play much compared to her contemporaries. However the fact some of her contemporaries such as Hingis, Kim and Jankovic played more her than her actually proves how much more physical the tour is (and therefore the necessity of a streamlined schedule) because they burned out in one form or another. Oh, except they didn't even play more than her because Kim and Hingis are retired while Serena has more wins and still playing.
------
Also your point that historical analysis showing more tournaments reduces your chances to win slams is completely backwards.Historically the complete opposite is true. Look at the careers of Margaret Court, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert and Steffi Graf in the 1980's. Their most successful years were the years when they won the most matches. Margaret Court won over 110 matches in her 1970 Grand Slam year. Graf's 1989 where she played more matches than any other was her second most successful career season. Then things changed, as I pointed out above. QED.
Sep 6th, 2012 05:23 PM
NashaMasha
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

50-4 or 55-8 is much more impressive than 70 - 25 or 80-30
Sep 6th, 2012 05:20 PM
TIEFSEE
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobito View Post
Not a calender year but from 1st August 2011 to 1st August 2012:

Julia Cohen 50-39
Sep 6th, 2012 05:11 PM
thrust
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelscior View Post
You bring up a good point, cause it's been proven the less amount of tournaments you play, the better chance you have of winning majors (usually 12-16).

Serena has basically eschewed the current "physicality" of todays tour, by making sure she only plays about 12-16 tournaments a year.

It's kinda like the Lance Armstrong school of Biking (minus the doping).

Instead of Armstrong entering other races, he just concentrated every year on the Tour De France, which he obviously won 7 yrs in a row.

However, many cycling historians, felt you couldn't compare his feat to other multi Tour winners, who also won multiple other events the same year as their Tour DeFrance wins.

Chrissie, Martina and Graf, all dominated the regular tour, as well as the majors, and being #1.

That's what they all have over Serena.

And you can't use the argument, "how physical the tour is today" in Serena's defense, cause she doesn't play a lot of matches, relative to her contemporaries, through out her career anyway.

Of course Serena, has her own arguments, but certainly not those above.
Not that many would care, but Court's wins are as follows:

1961 - 80-5
1962 - 77-2
1963 - 86-6
1964 - 77-2
1965 - 106-8
1968 - 104-12
1969 - 96-5
1970 - 113-6
1971 - 64-4
1972 - 60-7
1973 - 101-5
Sep 6th, 2012 05:07 PM
bobito
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Not a calender year but from 1st August 2011 to 1st August 2012:

Julia Cohen 50-39
Sep 6th, 2012 04:38 PM
Excelscior
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSerenaWilliams View Post
Wouldn't that be a positive for her? She's been able to win 14+ majors playing almost 1/2 the schedule of anyone else who's won more?
It's been shown and pretty accepted by historical analysis, that if you play too many tournaments, it lessens your chance of winning majors each year.

The accepted sweet spot is usually 12-16 tournaments a year. Maybe you can even squeeze in 1-2 more to that number (and limit it at 20).

But if you play 12-16, it only increases your chances of winning majors more so.
Sep 6th, 2012 04:26 PM
Excelscior
Re: 50+ Win Seasons

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
Interesting that S.Williams apparently has always played the least amount allowed. It's one of the things that IMO counts against her in GOAT discussions. Her best seasons don't match Graf's:

1987: 69-2
1988: 73-3
1989: 87-2
1990: 72-5
1991: 75-8
1992: 71-7
1993: 76-6
You bring up a good point, cause it's been proven the less amount of tournaments you play, the better chance you have of winning majors (usually 12-16).

Serena has basically eschewed the current "physicality" of todays tour, by making sure she only plays about 12-16 tournaments a year.

It's kinda like the Lance Armstrong school of Biking (minus the doping).

Instead of Armstrong entering other races, he just concentrated every year on the Tour De France, which he obviously won 7 yrs in a row.

However, many cycling historians, felt you couldn't compare his feat to other multi Tour winners, who also won multiple other events the same year as their Tour DeFrance wins.

Chrissie, Martina and Graf, all dominated the regular tour, as well as the majors, and being #1.

That's what they all have over Serena.

And you can't use the argument, "how physical the tour is today" in Serena's defense, cause she doesn't play a lot of matches, relative to her contemporaries, through out her career anyway.

Of course Serena, has her own arguments, but certainly not those above.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome