Tennis Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
All this damn Hype about Serena needing to play more if she wants to keep her ranking. Right now 1 Tournie is being the deciding factor on whether or not Serena will loose the ranking. With that said, i don't think playing "more" is the bid deal. No matter how much more Serena plays, kim has about 10 more than Serena. And we can all agree Serena isn't even about to try and come close to playing 17 tournies.

But look at Kim. Where would she be and how would she be doing if she played 17 tournies. With Serena playing few tournies, she has shown what she can do on the tennis court. Everyone wonders if she played more, would she continue to win? Would she start to loose more? Personally I think she would win more matches, than she would loose, but she would loose a couple more.

Having said that look at kim. She is playing well over 17 tournies a year. We wonder if Serena plays more she may loose more. Well Kim Clijsters is w/out a doubt playing more, and she is well over loosing half the time she is out there . She has played I believe 11 tournies, and only has 4 wins. Personally if you are heading to number 1 in the world based on "tournie's played" like Kim Clijsters is doing, these numbers don't look to great.

What Kills me is how people over look this. They say how the "think" if Serena plays more she will loose more matches. And talk about how they don't think Serena can do what Kim is doing and play more tournies. If Kim is playing more and loosing more, and you think if Serena plays more she will loose more. Than its very clear that Serena w/out a doubt could play the tour the exact same way Kim Clijsters is. Kim looses more than she plays.

I think Kim is going to have to realize that playing less is more effective. Serena got to number 1 playing less. Meaning she can always play more if she feels like it. Kim may/is getting number 1 playing more, if she ever wanted to eventually back off, points are just going to be rolled from 1 place to the other off her ranking. Again people, Serena got to number 1 playing less. So we know and realize that playing less isn't bad. But when you have an opponent out there playing more than half of what you are playing. Your tactics end up looking bad only b/c of the "number of tournies" your opponent is playing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
It worked for Steffi. And it works for Serena. She doesn't need to play week in and week out to maintain a high ranking. I'm sure she will end the year number one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,307 Posts
Serena is to blame for Kim getting to #1. Kim getting to #1 is not REALLY because she is the better player.

It is sad when you think about it.


Serena can't help it that she needs to rest her knees and prepare for her 7th slam title. So Serena will rest up and Kim will probably come out as the #1 player. In the end Serena is helping Kim to be #1 and yet more important Serena is helping herself to grandslams and ass spankins.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
The thing is, playing less fits some players' styles more than others. Serena is clearly happy with occasionally interspersing her acting career with a bit of tennis on the side now and then, whereas Clijsters needs to play regularly to keep up her form. It's the same with her boyfriend - he's reduced his tournament schedule, and look what it's done to his game. They both need to play on a consistent and regular basis to maintain their high level of play and world-class form.

BTW Serena Slam, it's very hard to read a post where the word lose is continually spelt wrong as it is in yours. I know that people who act as human spell-checkers are annoying, but if you're going to use the word lose as often as you are then please get it right.
 

·
Serena's #1 Hater
Joined
·
20,615 Posts
If Kim played a part-time schedule like Serena, she wouldn't be ranked in the top 10. Period. End of discussion. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I think Serena loves being #1 but I think she also recognizes that the slams are more important...I feel nad for Kim, because if she becomes #1 without a slam, the media will have a field day and that is not fair to Kim...It will be even worse that Serena has two slams this year and has beaten Kim both times they have played...

I hope the Media will be kind and respect the ranking system...and not degrade Kim's consistent play much like they tried to do to Hingis in the last two years...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
I agree with handouble that different schedules suit different styles.

Personally, I think Serena is more sensible in her purpose for playing tournamets as every tournament has a purpose, if you know what I mean. Kim, and many other players, play tournaments because they want to play matches, and win points, money etc, whereas Serena plays tournaments and uses them to tune up her game in preperation for the tournament taht actually matter - the Grandslams. Thats what every player lives for and Serena prepares her game to peak at the slams, and in that respect her schedule may not be that big, but she uses it to the best of her advantage to do the important things in tennis - win grandslams.

Players match records arnt that impressive unless they are winning the big matches. It doesnt matter how many matches you win - it matters WHAT matches you win, such as Grandslam semi finals and finals.

Many players live for ranking points and money, but Serena and venus both have their priorities right as far as tennis goes - preparing as best they can for the grandslams, and with the exception of this years RG, it appears to be paying off for them!!!

Steffi showed that by playing 10-15 tournaments a year, you can be teh best in the world and still win the most tournaments, and she prepared herself well for the grandslams by not playing week in week out just for the hell of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
darrinbaker00 said:
If Kim played a part-time schedule like Serena, she wouldn't be ranked in the top 10. Period. End of discussion. ;)
That is an absolute joke. She certainly wouldn't be challenging Serena for no. 1, but to say she wouldn't even be top 10 is ludicrous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,738 Posts
YOu know I was wondering the other day if Rossana Neffa De Los Rios plays a few less tournament would she be ranked as high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
SerenaSlam said:
All this damn Hype about Serena needing to play more if she wants to keep her ranking. Right now 1 Tournie is being the deciding factor on whether or not Serena will loose the ranking. With that said, i don't think playing "more" is the bid deal. No matter how much more Serena plays, kim has about 10 more than Serena. And we can all agree Serena isn't even about to try and come close to playing 17 tournies.

But look at Kim. Where would she be and how would she be doing if she played 17 tournies. With Serena playing few tournies, she has shown what she can do on the tennis court. Everyone wonders if she played more, would she continue to win? Would she start to loose more? Personally I think she would win more matches, than she would loose, but she would loose a couple more.

Having said that look at kim. She is playing well over 17 tournies a year. We wonder if Serena plays more she may loose more. Well Kim Clijsters is w/out a doubt playing more, and she is well over loosing half the time she is out there . She has played I believe 11 tournies, and only has 4 wins. Personally if you are heading to number 1 in the world based on "tournie's played" like Kim Clijsters is doing, these numbers don't look to great.

What Kills me is how people over look this. They say how the "think" if Serena plays more she will loose more matches. And talk about how they don't think Serena can do what Kim is doing and play more tournies. If Kim is playing more and loosing more, and you think if Serena plays more she will loose more. Than its very clear that Serena w/out a doubt could play the tour the exact same way Kim Clijsters is. Kim looses more than she plays.

I think Kim is going to have to realize that playing less is more effective. Serena got to number 1 playing less. Meaning she can always play more if she feels like it. Kim may/is getting number 1 playing more, if she ever wanted to eventually back off, points are just going to be rolled from 1 place to the other off her ranking. Again people, Serena got to number 1 playing less. So we know and realize that playing less isn't bad. But when you have an opponent out there playing more than half of what you are playing. Your tactics end up looking bad only b/c of the "number of tournies" your opponent is playing.
It wasn't necessary to make up a whole new thread for this. You said exactly the same in like what...? Ten other threads?? You've made your point by now.
 

·
Serena's #1 Hater
Joined
·
20,615 Posts
Hendouble said:
That is an absolute joke. She certainly wouldn't be challenging Serena for no. 1, but to say she wouldn't even be top 10 is ludicrous.

OK, I admit that statement was more than a bit hyperbolic, but if you were to take Kim's average points per event (5721 ÷ 17 = 336.53) and multiply that by 12, that would put Kim behind Venus in fifth place. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,880 Posts
Why should Kim reduce her schedule - shes a professional tennis playing young girl why shouldnt she be out thereas much as she can??? and to say if she played a smaller schedule and wouldnt be top 10 is just stupid - shes gotten to at least the semis in every event played this year - same as serena and better than Venus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,951 Posts
Why should Serena play more, when she's obviously reaping more rewards than any other player, even though she plays almost half the time? That, is a true testament to the strength of her game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,762 Posts
liuxuan said:
I agree with handouble that different schedules suit different styles.

Personally, I think Serena is more sensible in her purpose for playing tournamets as every tournament has a purpose, if you know what I mean. Kim, and many other players, play tournaments because they want to play matches, and win points, money etc, whereas Serena plays tournaments and uses them to tune up her game in preperation for the tournament taht actually matter - the Grandslams. Thats what every player lives for and Serena prepares her game to peak at the slams, and in that respect her schedule may not be that big, but she uses it to the best of her advantage to do the important things in tennis - win grandslams.

Players match records arnt that impressive unless they are winning the big matches. It doesnt matter how many matches you win - it matters WHAT matches you win, such as Grandslam semi finals and finals.

Many players live for ranking points and money, but Serena and venus both have their priorities right as far as tennis goes - preparing as best they can for the grandslams, and with the exception of this years RG, it appears to be paying off for them!!!

Steffi showed that by playing 10-15 tournaments a year, you can be teh best in the world and still win the most tournaments, and she prepared herself well for the grandslams by not playing week in week out just for the hell of it.

Finally one of the best posts on this subject and I notice that the haters have no reply. They just conveniently ignore your post because it makes too much sense for them to argue against. Thanks you made my day. :wavey:
 
1 - 14 of 14 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