Tennis Forum banner

Who is best?

81 - 94 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Are ya really rating Radwanska and Pliskova higher then Stephens and Brab Krej ? lmao
Of course. Stephens has been far too inconsistent to be above them. She’s qualified for one YEC in her entire career. According to wiki her win percentage in singles is 58.6% while Radwanska is 67.8% and Pliskova is 64.3%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,968 Posts
So ya wanna use her inconsistency as reason she not ranked above Radwanska, however she won slam over both Radwanska and Pliskova. I guess tennisfourm now cherish Wta 250 titles now more then the slams
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
So ya wanna use her inconsistency as reason she not ranked above Radwanska, however she won slam over both Radwanska and Pliskova. I guess tennisfourm now cherish Wta 250 titles now more then the slams
In 100 years’ time, Sloane’s name will be in the history books. Radwanska’s, not so much.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
182,399 Posts
its definitely not Miss Constipated
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,968 Posts
As a grad slam fluke, unlike Radwanska who will be considereded as one the best player not to win a GS.
so they putting ppl in history book for Being considered best player not to win a slam. Lol they have whole a lot ppl ahead her if that the case
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,203 Posts
In 100 years’ time, Sloane’s name will be in the history books. Radwanska’s, not so much.
People make claims like this a lot, but it's untrue. There are plenty of slam winners no one gives a shit about who are remembered less vividly than non-slam winners. I have more vivid memories of David Nalbandian than his fellow Argentine contemporary Gaston Gaudio. Marcelo Rios is a more memorable player than Thomas Johansson was. Dementieva is a lot more relevant on this forum than someone like Myskina was. Anna Kournikova would still be more recognized on the street today than even Ostapenko that is an active, top player now. Sure, winning a slam still has the greatest potential of rocketing your fame to a new stratosphere, but it's not automatic. The notion that fluking a slam makes you automatically greater than any other player without a slam regardless of other achievements to be factored is obviously nonsensical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
They're no less likely to have heard of her in a hundred years than they are to have heard of some random fluke slam winner in 2017.
Except that they are - because when they look at the history books, they shall see the name of Sloane Stephens. They won’t see the name of Radwanska anywhere, and her fanboys and fangirls who squeal about her being “one of the best to never win a slam” shall long since have expired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
People make claims like this a lot, but it's untrue. There are plenty of slam winners no one gives a shit about who are remembered less vividly than non-slam winners. I have more vivid memories of David Nalbandian than his fellow Argentine contemporary Gaston Gaudio. Marcelo Rios is a more memorable player than Thomas Johansson was. Dementieva is a lot more relevant on this forum than someone like Myskina was. Anna Kournikova would still be more recognized on the street today than even Ostapenko that is an active, top player now. Sure, winning a slam still has the greatest potential of rocketing your fame to a new stratosphere, but it's not automatic. The notion that fluking a slam makes you automatically greater than any other player without a slam regardless of other achievements to be factored is obviously nonsensical.
Er, we’re talking about somebody’s name being in the history books of tennis. In 100 years’ time, Sloane Stephens’ name shall be there as a USO champion. All this subjective crap about who is more memorable will have long since gone to the grave with those who watched players of that era.
 
81 - 94 of 94 Posts
Top