Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
39,013 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
this is - of course - a purely theoretical question. it is taking the problem of grand slams vs. consistency to extremes.

>

player A: plays 17 tournaments. loses 13 times in the 1st round, but wins 4 tournaments - all 4 grand slams. has a record of 28 - 13.

player B: plays 17 tournaments. wins 13 of them. loses just 4 times - to player A in the 4 grand slam finals. has a record of ca. 80 - 4.


so who should be no. 1?
 

· Banned
Joined
·
27,238 Posts
pffffffffft

obviously player b is more consistent. but that is not the same as Serena/Kim. Serena has a better winning percentage and 3 of the 4 gs right now.

so....this theoretical question bears no relation to the WTA tour right now. thats why its so difficult to see who should be #1
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
Beat said:
this is - of course - a purely theoretical question. it is taking the problem of grand slams vs. consistency to extremes.

>

player A: plays 17 tournaments. loses 13 times in the 1st round, but wins 4 tournaments - all 4 grand slams. has a record of 28 - 13.

player B: plays 17 tournaments. wins 13 of them. loses just 4 times - to player A in the 4 grand slam finals. has a record of ca. 80 - 4.


so who should be no. 1?
Too bad that isn´t the actual situation on the WTA tour. As the player symbolizing player A herself has reached at least the semi´s in all semi´s and has won 4 of 5 finals...has won 2 slams and is the defending champion at another! Sorry pal, this doesn´t cut it!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,204 Posts
if i was a player I'd rather to win all 4 slams and lose or not play all the other events THAN being the n.1 in the world and not winning a Slam.it's a nonsense,so right now i hope Kim can win a slam and legitimate her n.1.she still has the chance to do it winning Us Open and shuting us up.but if she doesnt win Us Open and maybe Justine does...Justine or Serena should be n.1 and not Kim.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
´Cause if she CAN´T win this Open, chances are she will never win a slam!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
39,013 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
o.k. i take the "kim" out of the title. i was really interested in what people would decide about this question, but now reality seems to have interfered too much. only 1 person answered the question...
kim was the reason for coming up with this idea - but it's not really about her.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
20,830 Posts
I go for player A

you have to be a big matchplayer too

sure player b deserves credit too but it obvious she fails when it matters

sabatini often won many claytournaments pre french open(beating all the topplayers too. that's why I use her and not conchita) but always failed in the french open then you can't say she is better because she dominated steffi in amelia island or monica in rome!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
irma said:
I go for player A

you have to be a big matchplayer too

sure player b deserves credit too but it obvious she fails when it matters

sabatini often won many claytournaments pre french open(beating all the topplayers too. that's why I use her and not conchita) but always failed in the french open then you can't say she is better because she dominated steffi in amelia island or monica in rome!
Yep! That´s odd about sabatini. She won Rome like FOUR time in a row and yet she didn´t reach ONE final at the French! So all those Rome titles in the end meant crap!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
azza said:
But noone can lose 13 times in the 1st round and win 4 grand slams thats a dumb question :p
Yeah, that REALLY gives the: " I only get up to play the slams." a new meaning!! :lol:
 

· Banned
Joined
·
27,238 Posts
id prefer to win 4 slams in one year and never play again than only winning lower level tourneys year in year out.

its like asking "what do u prefer? 4 Tier Is or loadsa 25K challengers" :rolleyes:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
Give me the elusive/exclusive Grand Slam!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,307 Posts
Look, this is tennis. It's about the grandslams.

None of these young girls dream about winning 4 to5 tournaments .. THEY DREAM OF HOLDING UP GRANDSLAM TROPHIES!

Rollin on the floor.:)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,100 Posts
Its understandable that non-fans can think that tennis is about GS only or even the one or two GS they see the finals of per year. Its very odd that fans might - the WTA is a tour not 4 boxing matches a year - many of us often find tournaments like Rome, Filderstadt or San Diego (usually) far more interesting and competitive than the possibly 3 competitive matches a top player has to win to get a GS winners cheque. Indeed given the sheer number of non-GS clashes on the tour and the uncompetitive nature of many of the recent GS finals concentrating on the GS seems a recipe for not seeing the best action.

Winning GS alone also isn't going to do you much good in the history books either - unless you win shedloads. 3-6 looks tame compared with 24 or 22. You will just get lost in the champions list near the bottom of the page. Great players have other stories - career tournaments, career wins, weeks at number one or jhave something else exceptional in their careers that make people aware of what might have been (Seles)
 

· Banned
Joined
·
27,238 Posts
nobody is gonna remember 97 winner of Filderstadt over 97 winner of the French Open LMAO :lol:

its bullshit.you dont dream about winning Moscow over Melbourne, Palermo over Paris, Luxembourg over London or New Haven over New York.

so yea, as far as the players are concerned, the slams are the main goal
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top