[cynicole]

I noticed this being debated in a thread and thought I'd post it here in "poll form."

Choices, choices, choices.

 

[cynicole]

"The Serena Factor"

Kim, of course has the MOST to prove.

Venus ahs been there, done that!

Yes, Venus has been there. But she was last there 2 years ago. And, with the exception of the Zvonareva loss (and, if you want to throw her in, Monica), it was always Serena who eliminated her on the big stage. She has a grand total of ONE title this year. How people still rank her #2 in their minds based on that and some slam finals is beyond me.

If she wins the USO, she stamps her authority on, at least in "Slam-ist" minds (aka "Slams > everything else), the #2 spot of the year behind Serena.


As for Kim, it's not that Serena was the great barrier between her and a GS trophy. She lost horribly to Justine at RG and a hobbled Venus at Wimbledon.

The great obstacle for Venus is not in the draw. Should she lose, it just makes it harder for people to argue that she has been better than the Belgians this year.


(note: this is not necessarily what I believe. I'm sick right now and just want to make non-flame argument.)

 

[cynicole]

Perennial??

Biennial maybe, but perennial means a very long time.

Just looked it up:

per·en·ni·al adj.

Lasting or active through the year OR through many years.


I was exaggerating the first time around.

 

[cynicole]

LMFAO at this poll. what on earth does Venus have to proove, that she's injured??????

Well, there's a legion of fans (and critics) who say that a Venus at [insert low percentage number here] could beat practically anyone.

Heck, Wimbledon SF vs. Clijsters.

 

[cynicole]

Of the three tourneys she played this year, she won one of them. Do you people honestly believe that an uninjured Venus would only win one title this year?

My problem with this "Venus is the real #2" argument is that she doesn't have the results of a No.2 player this year. When I rank the players in my mind I don't want to base my assessments on their "potential" (the "what ifs", i.e. "if Venus wasn't injured..."; if Kim wasn't choking...", etc).

(Hmm...where is Monica Seles ranked? I guess she's the real top 10 player because, based on potential, she should be higher than Rubin. After all, she has had more Slams in her career, blah blah blah.)

I haven't even voted in this poll. I nearly cast my vote for Kim right off the bat...but the arguments for Venus having less to "prove" haven't been very convincing. But part of that is because I don't care about all the things that happened over a year ago.

The thing with Kim is that a lot of people are dismissive of her No 1 ranking anyway. Should she lose, it just confirms what lots of people believe.

 

[cynicole]

This is about TeeRexx's thread called "No Serena, no excuses for Kim..."

Now I find that thread really funny, and I've told myself a million times to ignore the trash he pumps out, but can't help myself, and there is this one thread he posted (which I could easily bump up) where he got his theory wrong in a matter of days. But I won't.

But to get back to the matter. Now what the hell does "no excuses for Kim" mean? Kim lost the French to Justine, Kim lost Wimbledon to Venus. Both are playing. So technically and historically, Kim could lose to either in the final. And she may well.

And so I said, shouldn't it be "No Serena, no excuses for Venus". Since in the last 7 slams she lost 5 finals to HER. That means, since there's no Serena, technically and historially speaking, Venus should win this. Right?

So then I happen to accidentally use the word "prove" and our resident Dr. Higgins "Volcana", comes along with his pompous ass noting that Venus has nothing to prove at slams or at the Open. (Which OF COURSE I agree to, but which wasn't my point). Furthermore, this poster cynicole has taken all that out of context and created this thread, without any background information or the argument at hand.

But whatever, from all this, all I know better is to ignore the clown and his sidekick further.

I actually didn't pay much attention to Mr. Rexx's thread, mostly because a lot of the posts in it show up as "ignore" messages for me.

Did I take it all out of context? Yes, most likely. I deliberately phrased the poll as I did. I think EVERYONE has something to prove. I thought of the two who I thought had the most to prove. I posted a simple question. I wanted to see the arguments people would come up with. And I responded with a counter-argument to the first response I saw.

I had no intention to cite examples from the original thread.

 

[cynicole]

Venus has been affected by this stomach pull since the French Open. Before that she was the runner up in Australia. But what people are referring to when they say she is the real number two is the fact that if you give Venus and (insert any player's name beside's Serena) two racquets, a can of balls, and send them out onto any court in the world, then Venus is the overwhelming favorite.

Meghann Shaughnessy? Maggie Maleeva?

I want results. "Potential" is good enough for lots of people but not for me.

Winning the US Open is a good enough result for me.

 

[cynicole]

Cynicole,

The Belgians have both won 6 titles this year, and Venus only won 1. Where then is the difficulty you're having deciding who has out performed whom this year...??? No one can argue with the Belgians' results this year...??? And, the number 1 ranking has determined that Kim has performed the most and attained the highest number of points, so what's the difficulty...???

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=79508

 

[cynicole]

Cynicole,

Your link to the thread you authored on the subject only verifies what I maintained earlier. You, a non-Williams fan I might add, created this entire controversy clearly with ulterior motives. Surely, no sane person can argue with the results the Belgians have posted. This thread then is only serving as an affirmation that "you" have proven the Williams fans less than willing to accept the Belgians results. You are a fake and a scoundrel and your posts have only proven that to be the case...!!! I guess you are indeed, "cynical"...!!!

*persond thinks to himself; more like someone who likes stirring up shite...!!!*

LOL :lol: Can you have an argument without making insults and exude the same amount of class that all the other posters (Williams, Belgian and fans of neither alike) in this thread have shown thus far?

BTW, the way I rank them in my head and going by past 52 weeks:
1. Serena, 3 wins, 1 SF
2. Justine, 1 win, 2 SF
3. Venus, 3 RU
4. Kim, 1 RU, 2 SF, TC win

Winning Slams >>>>>>>>> RU in Slams >>> Tour Championships Win >>>>> other titles

Also, anyone I chat with about tennis can tell you that I have always liked Serena way more than Kim.

 

[cynicole]

Actually in the end the questions he asked are legitimate, and he didn't force anyone to answer. You guys answered and dug your own graves.

First, I'm a "she."

Secondly, with that other thread, I was wondering how most people evaluate what makes certain players better than others...and the impression that I got with the people who chose Venus was that they were ranking her ahead on either H2H with the Belgians or based on "potential."

Kim was generally chosen by people who wholeheartedly follow the rankings.

And the people who chose Justine were the "Slam-ists." (Apparently a minority that I belong to, at least according to that thread.)

There really was no right or wrong answer, especially as I said, "based on your own criteria." But, according to one's point of view, some arguments appear weaker than others.

But, apparently, the views regarding Venus as second only to Serena were the most popular.

 

[cynicole]

Also don't worry about the other thread. It's just that their "switching around facts to suit their arguments" routine has come back and slapped them in their face, that's why some of them are annoyed.

I wouldn't exactly say "their" and refer to them in the plural. It seems to me like it's just persond who's going crazy in here.

 

[cynicole]

I wrote earlier that I think everyone has "something" to prove. I mean, the lowliest qualifier wants to prove that they have what it takes to make it on the tour.

If Serena was in the field, she would further prove herself as the best of her generation and the best player of this year. But then, if she lost, it really wouldn't matter because she already has two other slams this year (unless Justine wins anyway).

Kim has to prove that she can be a true slam champion rather than someone who wins all the other titles but never peaks at the big show. She also has to validate a No.1 ranking that many people view as "hollow."

Venus has to prove that she is, results-wise, really the second-best player to her sister.

Justine has to prove that she's more than just a claycourter. (IMO, I think she only has to go deep in the draw to prove that whereas the other two really need a win.)

Lindsay and Jen probably want to prove that they're still capable of winning slams.

 

[cynicole]

There can't a true sports fan on this who truly believes that Venus has anything to prove.

Going into the US Open last year there were a lot of people who were slagging Pete Sampras because he hadn't won so much as a title (any title!) for over two years, despite having been the US Open runner-up for two years running. He endured a few embarrassing early round losses in the three previous slams.

His place in the history books was already set. He would already be regarded one of the best players ever.

But a lot of critics were saying that it was embarrassing that Sampras was continuing on. They wrote that he should have retired. Rusedski said that Sampras had lost his aura, was beatable, wouldn't win again or such whatnot.

Sampras wanted to prove that he had one good slam left in him. He wanted to prove Rusedski (and the like-minded) wrong.

And he did.

 

[cynicole]

She's beat the current #1 twice this year and the last meeting was where her injury flared up.

Considering the injury and how it has hampered her play for a good portion of the year thus far, Venus has more than shown she is only second best for the moment to Serena.

Venus has proven she is the second best player this year and that she can make it to slam finals and win slams!

I'm not interested in the "ifs." To me, the injury thing is an "if." I also don't care about anything that happened over a year ago and all I know is Venus hasn't won a slam in the past year. I also don't assess players too closely on the H2H stuff...because that just gets extra confusing (Maggie Maleeva > Venus? :lol: ; if Serena is the best, but Venus is 0-3 against her and Justine is 2-2 in the past year, etc).

 

[cynicole]

Alright now hit us with your closing arguement.

LOL

I just like arguing (I'm actually heavily-inclined to vote for Kim in this poll despite everything I've written....but then again... ).

 

[cynicole]

What's funny about Maggie leading Venus in their h2h?
All the wins Maggie had over Venus were legit.
Get a life, mate!!

I meant that Maggie is not a greater player in general than Venus (of the 4 slams and numerous slam finals).

Might as well say that Justine is better than Serena THIS YEAR (2003) because she leads 2-1.

 

[cynicole]

So what Kim hasn't won one period!
Bored now!

In the past year, they're both losers to me.

Anyway, I think the answer is obvious NOW...by default.