Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With just about anyone able to win a single slam these days (Stephens, Ostapenko, Pennetta, Bartoli, etc) isn't it time to lower the value of a single slam win ?sure its still a great win but not something that makes a player really stand out from the pack anymore imo:shrug: meanwhile to win 2 slams separates you and proves the first was no fluke, and if you manage to get 3+ then we are really talking:worship:

so to me the new distinction seems to be between slamless/single slam winners and multi-slam winners rather than the old distinction between slamless and slam winning players:shrug: what do you think:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114,485 Posts
There is no value in a major besides the prize money and points. These discussions on this board are idiotic and just meant to be condescending and insulting to top level pro athletes

If radwanska or jankovic never win a major, they still are tremendous successful tennis stars
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
There is no value in a major besides the prize money and points. These discussions on this board are idiotic and just meant to be condescending and insulting to top level pro athletes

If radwanska or jankovic never win a major, they still are tremendous successful tennis stars
Than any on that list. Especially Radwanska.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Disagree with everything.



if you manage to get 3+ then we are really talking:worship:

This is maybe the part I disagree with the most.

By this token, you're really putting Azarenka, Kerber, Kuznetsova, Muguruza, Kvitova, Mauresmo, Li, Austin and Pierce in a category lower than they deserve to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
LOL @ OP

"With just about anyone able to win a single slam these days (Stephens, Ostapenko, Pennetta, Bartoli, etc) isn't it time to lower the value of a single slam win ?"

Sounds about right etc being Simona or Caroline. These kind of thread are just preparation for Saturday when one of these two girls will not be slamless anymore.

From Saturday it should be "Stay 1-time-only-GS-champion" or "-2 from being the real deal".
 

·
Worshipping the bangs
Joined
·
62,496 Posts
There has never been a time in tennis history without fluke slam winners and great players who never won slams.

Chris O'Neil makes any of today's rando slam winners look like Serena Williams.

She has a slam and Rosie Casals doesn't.


Way more insane than anything in the 2000s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
so to me the new distinction seems to be between slamless/single slam winners and multi-slam winners rather than the old distinction between slamless and slam winning players:shrug: what do you think:confused:
Sure, why not. Let's put Ivanovic, Martinez, Bartoli on the same level with all players who have not won a slam - which is, well, most players, including Vesnina, Cepede Royg, Shelby Rogers, etc.
The scary thing it that it might not be the most idiotic thing I've read here :sobbing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
I completely agree, don't understand the negativity towards your post. Anyone can get hot for just two weeks (Ostapenko the best example) or get a cakewalk draw (like Bartoli, Stephens and maybe Wozniacki if she wins).

Thing is, once we admit that we should also say that the number one has been quite devalued lately, and being at the top for a few weeks is not as worthy in my mind as it was in the past. In 2010/2011 and in 2017 the slamless number ones had just a single GS final to their name. And Muguruza had terrible results bar Cincy a few weeks after Wimbledon.

Basically, I'm not impressed with a player unless they win consistently (Halep's coming close to that, with already a title under her belt and a GS final or better) or get a Slam beating the top girls (alla Kerber in the AO 2016, beating both Vika and Serena on the way).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
By this token, you're really putting Azarenka, Kerber, Kuznetsova, Muguruza, Kvitova, Mauresmo, Li, Austin and Pierce in a category lower than they deserve to be.
Right, because Azarenka or Tracy Austin deserve to be in the same category as Kuznetsova or Na Li....

Let's face it, it was always stupid to group players just for the number of slams they won. At least in the lower stages. It's criminal that Sabatini with a single slam could be considered as "good" as Bartoli, Ivanovic, Stosur, Pennetta, Stephens, etc.

Sure, why not. Let's put Ivanovic, Martinez, Bartoli on the same level with all players who have not won a slam - which is, well, most players, including Vesnina, Cepede Royg, Shelby Rogers, etc.
The scary thing it that it might not be the most idiotic thing I've read here :sobbing:
I don't think the OP's intent was to say those players were just the same category as journeywomen. Think it has to do with the way one-slam winners are valued with respect to the top slamless players. Nobody could genuinely say that Bartoli's career was better than Dementieva's or Jankovic's, for example. And differentiating one-time from two-time Slam winners is not a bad classification to make imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
I don't think the OP's intent was to say those players were just the same category as journeywomen.
He wrote "so to me the new distinction seems to be between slamless/single slam winners and multi-slam winners rather than the old distinction between slamless and slam winning players" (there's no consideration for results outside of slams) with the obvious intent of devaluing a slam now that either Woz or Halep is going to be a slam champ and that haters won't be able to use the good ol'-but always funny-"stay slamless", "slamless #1", etc. One-slam wonders are well and good and respected-until Halep or Woz are one of them, and then 1 slam is not worth much after all. And if Halep wins this AO and then RG or Woz wins this AO and USO, then maybe the bar should be set at 3 slams, after all, it's possible to get hit by lightning twice.


Let's face it, it was always stupid to group players just for the number of slams they won. At least in the lower stages. It's criminal that Sabatini with a single slam could be considered as "good" as Bartoli, Ivanovic, Stosur, Pennetta, Stephens, etc.
I agree, I don't like the "slam is everything" mentality.


Think it has to do with the way one-slam winners are valued with respect to the top slamless players. Nobody could genuinely say that Bartoli's career was better than Dementieva's or Jankovic's, for example. And differentiating one-time from two-time Slam winners is not a bad classification to make imho.
I think you know, having been here much longer than I have, that some people here only see slams and don't consider other achievements. Jankovic for example is ridiculed as a slamless #1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
He wrote "so to me the new distinction seems to be between slamless/single slam winners and multi-slam winners rather than the old distinction between slamless and slam winning players" (there's no consideration for results outside of slams) with the obvious intent of devaluing a slam now that either Woz or Halep is going to be a slam champ and that haters won't be able to use the good ol'-but always funny-"stay slamless", "slamless #1", etc. One-slam wonders are well and good and respected-until Halep or Woz are one of them, and then 1 slam is not worth much after all. And if Halep wins this AO and then RG, then maybe the bar should be set at 3 slams, after all, it's possible to get hit by lightning twice.
I don't agree with the timing either. In fact I think a slamless No.1 finally winning a Slam actually increases its prestige rather than another random unseeded player doing so. But I still agree with the general premise.

And OP should've worded that sentence a bit differently, I agree, because nobody in their right mind would argue a Slam is worth the same as any WTA title.


I agree, I*don't like the "slam is everything" mentalit.

I think you know, having been here much longer than I have, that some people here only see slams and don't consider other achievements. Jankovic for example is ridiculed as a slamless #1.
Ok, then we're actually on the same page. I thought you were defending the "Slam is everything" notion, sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Right, because Azarenka or Tracy Austin deserve to be in the same category as Kuznetsova or Na Li....
"Deserve" doesn't exist in tennis. We have all these "what if?"s and none of them are tangible. I don't necessarily think that Kuznetsova and Li were that less important to the tour than Azarenka tbh. Maybe if we want to talk about "deserved" slams, Azarenka would have 1-2 more than those two.

Let's face it, it was always stupid to group players just for the number of slams they won. At least in the lower stages. It's criminal that Sabatini with a single slam could be considered as "good" as Bartoli, Ivanovic, Stosur, Pennetta, Stephens, etc.
I disagree. This is like the argument that Dementieva is actually the GOAT but "just couldn't" win a slam. Mentally being able to actually win the slam, no matter who is in front of you, is as important as having the serve, forehand, backhand and movement. It is no less important at all.

It may be a bit misrepresentative of the overall tennis scene if you only look at that statistic because Sabatini was more of a threat overall, but that's why we don't look at things in isolation. It's not criminal, it's just not entirely representative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,721 Posts
Nobody could genuinely say that Bartoli's career was better than Dementieva's or Jankovic's, for example.
You'd be surprised. There is a strong irrational bias among tennis fans in favor of the slams.

Recently, @mckyle. did a thread where he rated all currently active players on their career accomplishments. It was a good thread, with a lot of work put into compiling the data, and he wrote some fantastic and humorous summaries of lower-ranked players' careers. Yet, there was so much bias in favor of the slams: a slam winner got 500 points in mckyle's rating, while winning the YEC gave 100 points, winning a PM 75 points, and winning the Olympics 60 points. So a player that won all four of Indian Wells/Miami/Madrid/Beijing in a year and the YEC and the Olympics would still be rated below a fluke slam winner that year. A player would have to be #1 for five straight years to equal one slam win (and in addition, players who were #1 with a slam were getting a 50% bonus for their weeks at #1 as those were considered more valuable than an equal number of weeks at #1 by a slamless player).

With this kind of thinking, I am sure there are several TF members that would place Bartoli above Dementieva, Jankovic, or Halep/Wozniacki (right now).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Wow, you tried! Stripped off its veil, this is nothing but an attempt at putting down the 2018 AO finalists in Wozniacki and Halep period. Like we don't know how fearful and jealous your base is regarding this two? Of the current bunch of players, the two are the most consistent and have proven over time, they can down Sharapova any day particularly Caroline Wozniacki and perhaps more from Halep going fwd. Since Sharapova can't win anything significant anymore other than some pathetic Tianjin title, I guess there is a reason to hate on Halep and Wozniacki, right? I'm not even a fan of both players, still, it was difficult to pass on your backhanded attempt at insulting their accomplishments in an effort to elevate a tainted player that Sharapova is and why? Because pova holds 5 tainted slams that ordinarily should have been revoked from the books had justice not been perverted? What a disgrace!!!

To even try to equate 1 slam achievement for Wozniacki or Halep as equal to that of Stephens and the like, is insulting on many levels. Caroline attained no.1 ranking on her merit and sustained it for almost 2yrs with many titles. Halep for a period that best pova already and with titles to back it up. WTF has Stephens won that wasn't by accident? I mean, but for Kerber saving tennis, we potentially will be having the like of Madison Keys in another slam SF. What a joke!!!

Here is what you can look fwd to in 2018. This two players (Wozniacki and Halep) will be taking pova to the woodshed in 2018. Let's see how the deer in headlights deal with the two before you start talking nonsense. At least, honor, integrity, and playing fairly still mean something to Caroline and Simona. Can the same be said of Sharapova? NOT!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,365 Posts
Well we could, you know, actually look at the player's other achievements :lol: Instead of pretending slams are the entire resume.

In the category of 1-slam winners there's a lot of variation; some have only a few other minor titles in addition to their one slam (e.g. Ostapenko, Stephens) while others have multiple GS finals, Tier 1 titles, and world n.1 (e.g. Ivanovic). Either Halep or Wozniacki is joining the latter category this week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
"Deserve" doesn't exist in tennis. We have all these "what if?"s and none of them are tangible. I don't necessarily think that Azarenka and Li were that less important to the tour than Azarenka tbh. Maybe if we want to talk about "deserved" slams, Azarenka would have 1-2 more than those two.
Well, for sure part of the discussion is speculation ("What would've happened if Vika had Angie's draw at the 2016 USO?"), but then there's another part that's very tangible. To continue with the example of Vika, she was number one for 51 weeks, reached the finals of four consecutive HC slams (2012 and 2013) + an additional GS SF each of those years, won 3 PM/P5s in 2012 and 2 in 2013 (and faced Serena to win them)... Just two tremendous seasons.

While Na Li or Kuznetsova could only dream of achieving any of those feats. The one closer to her in that regard could be Austin or Kerber/Mauresmo (those two only had one great season but an argument could be made for them because of their longevity in the top ten).

I disagree. This is like the argument that Dementieva is actually the GOAT but "just couldn't" win a slam. Mentally being able to actually win the slam, no matter who is in front of you, is as important as having the serve, forehand, backhand and movement. It is no less important at all.

It may be a bit misrepresentative of the overall tennis scene if you only look at that statistic because Sabatini was more of a threat overall, but that's why we don't look at things in isolation. It's not criminal, it's just not entirely representative.
I never said she was "the GOAT". Of course Slams matter, the point here is that a SINGLE Slam result doesn't trump the rest of the achievements you can have on the tour. I wouldn't go as far as to say Dementieva is better than Vika/Kerber/Mauresmo, but it's definitely not the case that she's one level below the one slam wonders just because she was unlucky and/or couldn't capitalize her opportunities (I'd put her in the scale of two time GS winners like Sveta or Na Li... an argument could be made in favor of their careers' over Elena's).

You'd be surprised. There is a strong irrational bias among tennis fans in favor of the slams.

Recently, @mckyle. did a thread where he rated all currently active players on their career accomplishments. It was a good thread, with a lot of work put into compiling the data, and he wrote some fantastic and humorous summaries of lower-ranked players' careers. Yet, there was so much bias in favor of the slams: a slam winner got 500 points in mckyle's rating, while winning the YEC gave 100 points, winning a PM 75 points, and winning the Olympics 60 points. So a player that won all four of Indian Wells/Miami/Madrid/Beijing in a year and the YEC and the Olympics would still be rated below a fluke slam winner that year. A player would have to be #1 for five straight years to equal one slam win (and in addition, players who were #1 with a slam were getting a 50% bonus for their weeks at #1 as those were considered more valuable than an equal number of weeks at #1 by a slamless player).

With this kind of thinking, I am sure there are several TF members that would place Bartoli above Dementieva, Jankovic, or Halep/Wozniacki (right now).
Well, that's why I agreed with the idea of OP. In fact it only reinforces the claim that Halep/Wozniacki are better players than many one slam wonders even if they stayed slamless.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top