Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I must've missed the discussion on this earlier; I just realized that Serena won the award for best female tennis player (forget the fact that Roger Federer lost out to Roddick on the men's side).

I have to say that I'm truly stunned. IMO Justine deserved this title hands-down, And if the criteria for winning is fan popularity, why not change it to the ESPY for most popular tennis player. Of course in a popularity contest Serena would win (and Roddick) but based on accomplishments in 2003 did they really deserve to win these awards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fleemke³

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,187 Posts
based on 2003 accomplishments Andy deserved it, but there's no way in hell Serena deserved it based on her accomplishments in that year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,240 Posts
doesn't really matter
both have a case
it's an american award thing
doesn't mean anything... not selected even by a panel but by the public :tape:
it is a little funny that the award for best tennis player can't just be decided by the rankings for which such a question is meant to be answered in the first place.

but serena won 2 slams, henin had a better year and ended number one.
i think federer had a better year, and andy ended number one by a few points.
so no, i don't really have a problem. bc if belgium had an awards show this year, they'd still say justine was best in 04 even if she doesn't end the year number one. the only people who will be disappointed are those who think this is any more than a popularity contest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,063 Posts
WF4EVER said:
I must've missed the discussion on this earlier; I just realized that Serena won the award for best female tennis player (forget the fact that Roger Federer lost out to Roddick on the men's side).

I have to say that I'm truly stunned. IMO Justine deserved this title hands-down, And if the criteria for winning is fan popularity, why not change it to the ESPY for most popular tennis player. Of course in a popularity contest Serena would win (and Roddick) but based on accomplishments in 2003 did they really deserve to win these awards?
Henin is #1 in the rankings, but it doesn't mean that she's the best tennis player. Serena was out for eight months, then came back to win a title. An argument can be made for both ladies. Depends on how one looks at it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,187 Posts
You were supposed to vote for their 2003 season. Henin's season was far more superior to Serena's.
 

·
.
Joined
·
49,001 Posts
Naldo said:
You were supposed to vote for their 2003 season. Henin's season was far more superior to Serena's.
That goes without considering the fact that Serena was forced out of competition due to injury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
I can see why many people would say henin deserved that title, especially when you consider henin had the edge 2-1 in their head to heads in 2003. But Serena had two slams just like Henin Hardenne and was ranked #1, longer than henin in that period, and I don't think too many people really think that Henin would have won the U.S. Open had even one Sister been there, so I still would have voted for Serena, but Henin was definitely a close second
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,226 Posts
The ESPY's are basically a joke and I'm pretty sure everybody knows that so really no harm done :shrug:

As for who should of gotten the ESPY for tennis, definetly Justine and Andy. They were year end number 1's in their respective tours so if the ESPY wants to give out an award for the best player in 2003, they should just go by the ranking. To bring injury into it and such is really useless, as is the 'who is really the best tennis player' arguement. If Serena were to retire at the end of 2004 should we give her the 2005 and 2006 ESPY's because she'd be best if she wasn't retired? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Last time i checked, Serena and Justine won the same amount of slams in 2003. And that was with Serena being out for half the year.

AND, the fans voted.

The US fans picked Serena over Justine...are we actually mad about that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Who's mad?

I think they were both ridiculous. Being No. 1 is no justifiable criteria because you can get to No. 1 in different ways.

This is especially for you, Naldo. There is no way Roddick was better than Federer last year, even if he ended the year No. 1. Roger had more titles than he did, not to mention that he dominated Roddick and capped the year with a TMS domination. That your preference is Roddick is fine with me but if you've based that on year-end rank it's unfair.

Next thing, to whomever missed it the ESPY was based on 2003 results only. And it's not based on whether or not a player was injured but for their overall results throughout that year. Therefore there's no way Serena's winning two Slams in six months overshadows Justine's two Slams and countless other successes. But so much for that, it's okay to win because she is American and it's an American award (or so I've been told).

I suppose that the results are more than correct since the two best players last year were European and with the coverage ESPN gives to non-American players it's no small wonder that the votes would swing that way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,187 Posts
WF4EVER said:
Who's mad?

I think they were both ridiculous. Being No. 1 is no justifiable criteria because you can get to No. 1 in different ways.

This is especially for you, Naldo. There is no way Roddick was better than Federer last year, even if he ended the year No. 1. Roger had more titles than he did, not to mention that he dominated Roddick and capped the year with a TMS domination. That your preference is Roddick is fine with me but if you've based that on year-end rank it's unfair.

Next thing, to whomever missed it the ESPY was based on 2003 results only. And it's not based on whether or not a player was injured but for their overall results throughout that year. Therefore there's no way Serena's winning two Slams in six months overshadows Justine's two Slams and countless other successes. But so much for that, it's okay to win because she is American and it's an American award (or so I've been told).

I suppose that the results are more than correct since the two best players last year were European and with the coverage ESPN gives to non-American players it's no small wonder that the votes would swing that way.
winning ONE more title isn't that much better. They both has a Slam, Andy has 2 TMS events which is bigger than Roger's one TMC title. that year, Roger has a 2-1 h2h vs Andy. the h2h for that year and the one more title is the only thing that Fed had over Roddick in 2003.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,240 Posts
Naldo said:
winning ONE more title isn't that much better. They both has a Slam, Andy has 2 TMS events which is bigger than Roger's one TMC title. that year, Roger has a 2-1 h2h vs Andy. the h2h for that year and the one more title is the only thing that Fed had over Roddick in 2003.
as well as LOADS more money...

$4,000,680. - $3,227,342

but i don't think that really matters on the mens side.

also, i DO think u need to add cinci to toronto to equal the season ender... roger had to beat andre, ferrero, nalbandian, roddick, and then andre.

BUT i do think it makes sense that andy got the award, totally. year end #1 says it all.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Everybody in America Thinks Serena is the best tennis player on the planet. No matter what the stats says.

They are right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,592 Posts
DUde it is the USA!! What do you expect? Probably 98% of the population here hasn't even heard of Justine.
In the USA: Serena and Venus are the WTA.

The espys are an american award, not many people elsewhere int the world have heard of it, so obviously americans are gonna vote for american athletes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
While the vote for best player of the year might slightly favor Justine for 2003 it's a lot closer than some people here are making it sound. In my opinion I think a very strong and solid case can be built for naming Serena player of the year for 2003.

In case you forgot:
2003 was the year Serena went on to complete her "Serena" Slam starting the year picking up where she left off the previous year resulting in 4 consecutive slam wins. (which is more impressive than winning your first US or French) (future Hall of Fame material)

2003 was the year Serena started the year winning every match she played for the first four months of the year, accumulating a 21 match win streak.

2003 was the year Serena was UNDEFEATED on hard courts going 19-0

2003 was the year Serena won her 2nd consective Wimbledon (which is more impressive than winning your first US or French)

2003 was the year that Serena ended her year winning her last 12 out of 13 matches.

2003 was the year that Serena only lost to two players on tour on her way to a 38-3 record

2003 was the year that Serena had an impressive Grand slam run winning 19/20 slam matches played

...knowing this, how can anyone argue she's not at least up for consideration as the best player of the year- to me it's obvious- and she's got the stats to back it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,059 Posts
I'm not surprised.:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
Martian KC said:
I'm not surprised.:rolleyes:
After reading my post (see above) you shouldn't be!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,059 Posts
Stefwhit said:
In case you forgot:
2003 was the year Serena went on to complete her "Serena" Slam starting the year picking up where she left off the previous year resulting in 4 consecutive slam wins. (which is more impressive than winning your first US or French) (future Hall of Fame material)
I'll give you that. But All That did not happen in a calender year nor in 2003.

Stefwhit said:
2003 was the year Serena started the year winning every match she played for the first four months of the year, accumulating a 21 match win streak.
And who ended her streak? Justine Henin-Hardenne

Stefwhit said:
2003 was the year Serena was UNDEFEATED on hard courts going 19-0.
Justine's hardcourt record is much more impressive. 24-1, which included complete domination of the summer hardcourt season and the US Open.

Stefwhit said:
2003 was the year Serena won her 2nd consective Wimbledon (which is more impressive than winning your first US or French)
Why is this significant? They both won 2 slams each. I would think winning your first two slams in the same year would be more impressive.

Stefwhit said:
2003 was the year that Serena ended her year winning her last 12 out of 13 matches.
The one loss being to Justine Henin-Hardenne.

Stefwhit said:
2003 was the year that Serena only lost to two players on tour on her way to a 38-3 record
Two of those losses being to Justine and having a losing record to Justine to boot.

Stefwhit said:
2003 was the year that Serena had an impressive Grand slam run winning 19/20 slam matches played
While Justine's record in slams were 24-2, with playing all four slams.

And not to mention, Justine ended the year at number one.
:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stefwhit
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top