Tennis Forum banner

21 - 40 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #22

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62,858 Posts
For now, by far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,512 Posts
I mean, an irrelevant comparison, which is the point I suppose, but I'll bite.

Ostapenko obviously is superior in singles, and while Black is currently leagues ahead in doubles she could never succeed in singles the way Aljona has, while Aljona has proven in her short career that she actually has great doubles potential. I mean she will never get close to having Cara's touch and volleying skill which was practically unparalleled, but she has shown great ability to hold her own against both the girls and guys on a doubles court, her serve is more reliable and her strokes are ridiculously powerful as ever. She's looking good to potentially win the mixed at Wimbledon too.

So I'd say sooner rather than later she'll have a clear margin over Cara, though a singles grand slam arguably already gives her this depending on how much you value doubles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,949 Posts
I'm pretty sure more people have witnessed Ostapenko's RG run than all of Black's doubles wins combined.
Ouch, but yeah - it is very likely. Doubles vs singles in terms of publicity & prestige is like comparing basketball with modern pentathlon in terms of popularity nowadays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Winning a Slam vs never even coming close kinda does.

As for greatness, doubles = no one cares = irrelevant. Or otherwise, that Dutch wheelchair player would be the greatest ever.
Ostapenko isn't 1/100 as known as Anna Kournikova even today. It's not all about publicity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,775 Posts
Winning a Slam vs never even coming close kinda does.

As for greatness, doubles = no one cares = irrelevant. Or otherwise, that Dutch wheelchair player would be the greatest ever.
I agree 100%.
Sammo here has been pushing this narrative that doubles success is equal to singles success because of his fave Hingis coming back to vulture the doubles tour a few years ago. But the reality is that singles is what is used to measure the metric of "greatest of all time" when it comes to tennis. The only reason we have "doubles specialists" at all is because the top singles players rarely play it and the doubles specialists were not good enough to make it in singles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Hominan

·
always getting what i want
Joined
·
17,842 Posts
Yeah, no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ascanius

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
I agree 100%.
Sammo here has been pushing this narrative that doubles success is equal to singles success because of his fave Hingis coming back to vulture the doubles tour a few years ago. But the reality is that singles is what is used to measure the metric of "greatest of all time" when it comes to tennis. he only reason we have "doubles specialists" at all is because the top singles players rarely play it and the doubles specialists were not good enough to make it in singles.
Players like Mima Jausovec, Virginia Ruzici, Kerry Melville or Ostapenko are literally nothing compared to someone like Gigi Fernández, hence why she's in the Hall of Fame and they aren't. And for every top singles player who could've made it in doubles there are many who are complete hacks at it.

But anyway, spoken like a true casual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,774 Posts
Winning a Slam vs never even coming close kinda does.

As for greatness, doubles = no one cares = irrelevant. Or otherwise, that Dutch wheelchair player would be the greatest ever.
That's a pretty big logical fallacy as that's a completely separate event from women's doubles.

And saying no one cares is a huge generalization as quite a lot of people do care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
That's a pretty big logical fallacy as that's a completely separate event from women's doubles.

And saying no one cares is a huge generalization as quite a lot of people do care.
True. Also many more people in the world care about soccer than they care about tennis, does that mean Cristiano Ronaldo is a greater sportsman than Roger Federer?

Top players (the ones who would be good at doubles) prioritizing singles over doubles and thus making doubles competition not as tough is the only objective reason why singles should count more regarding career achievements, not each discipline's popularity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
Esther Vergeer is greater than Martina Hingis.
Across all disciplines, she won 48 Grand Slam titles (nearly twice that of Hingis), 23 YECs, 7 Paralympic gold medals. She ended her career on a 470 match winning streak, something Martina never came close to.
Vergeer won 284 titles across all disciplines over the course of her career. Martina won 114.
The point of this comparison is to show that two random players, one who absolutely dominated her sport from the start of her career to the end, is far more relevant to tennis history and better than the other who was phased out by greater and more powerful/physical players and by also being a cokehead .
Dominating for nearly 20 years > fluking single Slams before the real players of the new Millennium-WTA arrived and then making a "comeback" to vulture an empty doubles tour that had lost all top players to singles in the era of an increasingly physical WTA.

Come at me :eek:h:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,074 Posts
So many haters try to talk Jelena's French Open title bad :rolleyes:

Maybe you should watch her GREAT French Open 2017 final again :p


Fantastic tennis from Jelena :worship:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,747 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
Esther Vergeer is greater than Martina Hingis.
Across all disciplines, she won 48 Grand Slam titles (nearly twice that of Hingis), 23 YECs, 7 Paralympic gold medals. She ended her career on a 470 match winning streak, something Martina never came close to.
Vergeer won 284 titles across all disciplines over the course of her career. Martina won 114.
The point of this comparison is to show that two random players, one who absolutely dominated her sport from the start of her career to the end, is far more relevant to tennis history and better than the other who was phased out by greater and more powerful/physical players and by also being a cokehead .
Dominating for nearly 20 years > fluking single Slams before the real players of the new Millennium-WTA arrived and then making a "comeback" to vulture an empty doubles tour that had lost all top players to singles in the era of an increasingly physical WTA.

Come at me :eek:h:
Sweetie, being a Mertens fan is pitiable enough. Even I have limits.

 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
Top