Originally Posted by dragonflies
LOL, it's true what you said, winning a Slam facing match point( s) is certainly worse of an achievement than winning a Slam not dropping a set.
I wouldn't say so. How can you objectively say that Serena's feat of winning Wimbledon in 2010 or the US Open in 2008 is a greater achievement than completing the Serena Slam with the Australian Open in 2003. Your assertion automatically deprives the feat of winning a slam saving match point of any situational context whatsoever and assumes utter and unabashed dominance is always
the most desirable and laudable outcome in sport. It isn't. Sometimes given the pressures, confidence and form of your opponent, the way you happen to be striking the ball on a given day you can't expect to come out and flatten them - not every time. Martina Navratilova said that what counts isn't that you can win when you're playing well, but when you're playing badly. This is actually what defines being a champion more than anything else. Continuing to prove yourself in all manner of match-contexts.
Surely any fan of Serena would devote time and analytical capacity to going into the specifics, the pressures a player might have faced in a given slam, on a given day, that affected form and performance rather than chiding other fans, getting into disputes over the verbal definitions and worrying about what insecure Serena haters will say.