This has been an interesting year, because three of this year's slam winners reside outside the Top Three.
The consensus seems to be that Serena Williams is having an awful year. Though the lone title she won was the Aussie Open, she's been injured since then and has lost a few early round matches, even in relatively small tournaments.
My question then becomes, does winning the slam mean that Serena has had a better year than Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport and Amelie Mauresmo? I often hear players saying that slams are more important than rankings. If this is the case, would the above-three players trade their 2005s to have Serena's slam?
To make it more stark, let's say you're told your career ends after 2005, whose year do you want? Does one slam mean more than 3 non-slam titles? or how about 7 (if Clijsters hadn't won the US Open)?
Full Version: How Important Are The Slams?
In the comparisons of "who's the best ever, best of the Open era," etc., the number of majors is most often cited as the most significant stat. Of course, that's comparing the best of the best, all of whom not only reached #1 and held the position for a long time, but they also won numerous other tournaments (haha...one reason why they were at #1, stating the obvious).
In comparing a year, such as this past one, the majors are most significant. However, in the case of Serena, I'd say she really didn't have a "year", since she missed so much of the year due to injuries. JHH also seems not to have had a "year", more of a clay court year only. So the accomplishments over the course of the whole year are significant, and are actually reflected in the rankings.
I'd say that Lindsay and Amelie, at this stage in their careers, would probably rather have had a major than the titles they won this year, if they had to choose. While Maria seems very competitive and would love more majors, she's so young that this year could be considered successful for her because she established herself, showing that she's not a fluke. At this stage in their careers, can't imagine either Serena or JHH wishing to trade in a major for more regular tour titles.
In comparing a year, such as this past one, the majors are most significant. However, in the case of Serena, I'd say she really didn't have a "year", since she missed so much of the year due to injuries. JHH also seems not to have had a "year", more of a clay court year only. So the accomplishments over the course of the whole year are significant, and are actually reflected in the rankings.
I'd say that Lindsay and Amelie, at this stage in their careers, would probably rather have had a major than the titles they won this year, if they had to choose. While Maria seems very competitive and would love more majors, she's so young that this year could be considered successful for her because she established herself, showing that she's not a fluke. At this stage in their careers, can't imagine either Serena or JHH wishing to trade in a major for more regular tour titles.
I'd be willing to bet that Mauresmo, in particular, would trade all of her 17-ish titles for one Grand Slam. Especially if it were in Paris. The Slams are definitely what matters when it's all said and done.
But Serena has had a bad year. Alot of that is due to injury, yes, but it is a bad year ... particulary by her standards. At this stage of her career, she's already proven herself in the Slams. So she might be able to strike up a deal with Mauresmo.
But, if you have to choose, the Slams are more important.
[ October 07, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Gaga4Gaby ]
But Serena has had a bad year. Alot of that is due to injury, yes, but it is a bad year ... particulary by her standards. At this stage of her career, she's already proven herself in the Slams. So she might be able to strike up a deal with Mauresmo.
But, if you have to choose, the Slams are more important.
[ October 07, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Gaga4Gaby ]
I think they all would trade in their year for a slam. I know I would. Of course I only got to the semis in B doubles of a GLTA tourney, but I would trade that in for an Aussie Open title!
Seriously, everyone talks about how they have always dreamed of winning a slam and holding that trophy. You rarely hear anyone talking about how they've always dreamed of winning a few tournaments and then crash out early in the majors.
Seriously, everyone talks about how they have always dreamed of winning a slam and holding that trophy. You rarely hear anyone talking about how they've always dreamed of winning a few tournaments and then crash out early in the majors.
I suppose, but will more people remember Iva Majoli than Mauresmo? If you were casting for a commercial, who would you want?
Oh Mauresemo for sure, although I liked Iva a whole bunch and wished she could have parlayed that her French Open success to much more.
That's certainly a great way to think about it though. I wonder what Amelie's answer would be?
And I am basing my thoughts on just the titles, not the fact that this is how they make their living. Obviously, moneywise, you would want a more successful, long career than a one-slam wonder with weak results to follow.
[ October 07, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: shep71 ]
That's certainly a great way to think about it though. I wonder what Amelie's answer would be?
And I am basing my thoughts on just the titles, not the fact that this is how they make their living. Obviously, moneywise, you would want a more successful, long career than a one-slam wonder with weak results to follow.
[ October 07, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: shep71 ]
I think Gaga's onto something though with it being dependent to some extent on where they are in their career. For Mauresmo (or Clijsters), a year like Serena's would be better because they needed to get the grand slam monkey off their backs. But I kind of think Serena herself might feel her 2004 campaign was better than 2005 because by the end she had reestablished herself as an elite player, whereas at the end of 2005, her career is clearly in a crisis.
Also, some players have different priorities than others. The #1 ranking clearly never mattered to Venus or Serena, but it was an important goal for Martina Hingis. I have the impression Justine Henin-Hardenne is very ranking driven as well. I think Elena Dementieva said she would rather win a Olympic gold medal than a slam, whereas Hewitt and Clijsters didn't even bother to play. I get the impression that Fed Cup is far more important to Dementieva than most other players, as well.
Also, some players have different priorities than others. The #1 ranking clearly never mattered to Venus or Serena, but it was an important goal for Martina Hingis. I have the impression Justine Henin-Hardenne is very ranking driven as well. I think Elena Dementieva said she would rather win a Olympic gold medal than a slam, whereas Hewitt and Clijsters didn't even bother to play. I get the impression that Fed Cup is far more important to Dementieva than most other players, as well.
QUOTE
I suppose, but will more people remember Iva Majoli than Mauresmo? If you were casting for a commercial, who would you want?
I guess it depends on what you're selling, JC. I'm sure Reebok, Nike and Adidas would prefer Amelie, but I think Smirnoff, Bacardi and Boogie Fever: The Movie would be better "served" ( 
) by Little Iva wink I do agree with your take on Serena though. While the Australian salvaged her year on paper and pushed her further into rarified Slam air it wasn't a dominating performance, and the rest of 2005 was alarming for a player of her stature. In answer to airrunner's question I'd say Davenport and Sharapova had much better years despite being Slam-less...
I think Serena's year was symbolized for me in that scene of her picking up all those loose diamonds on court at the US Open when her $40,000 earings disintegrated ...she's got all the goods, but they're badly in need of repair...
[quote]NewBalls:
[QUOTE]
I think Serena's year was symbolized for me in that scene of her picking up all those loose diamonds on court at the US Open when her $40,000 earings disintegrated ...she's got all the goods, but they're badly in need of repair... [/quote]I think thats a perfect analogy NewBalls. This year is clearly one Serena would want to just forget. The knee continues to give her problems and the high sprain she suffered on clay and the loss of conditioning just added up to a mess of a season. But winning the Australian Open was still big regardless. It wasn't a dominating performance but it was just as good in the fact that she overcame 3 match points to beat Sharapova, who she lost to at Wimbledon and the year end championships, and came from a set down to beat the #1 Davenport; completely smoking Davenport in that 3rd set.
Clijsters is no doubt the player of the year with the most titles and a slam, but I bet Davenport would trade in her year for one of those 4 slams. The slams are ultimately what you will be remembered for. No one remembers how many tier 1s or 2s you win. Serena and Venus among others have proven that #1 doesn't always mean best player in the world, but simply that someone plays enough tournaments and gets deep enough to stay up there, but could still be slamless and consistently lose to players at the slams and major tier 1s, ala Miss Swiss Hingis for virutally the last 2 years of her career. The slams are the barometer and regardless of the up and down years it is a player's legacy.
[QUOTE]
I think Serena's year was symbolized for me in that scene of her picking up all those loose diamonds on court at the US Open when her $40,000 earings disintegrated ...she's got all the goods, but they're badly in need of repair... [/quote]I think thats a perfect analogy NewBalls. This year is clearly one Serena would want to just forget. The knee continues to give her problems and the high sprain she suffered on clay and the loss of conditioning just added up to a mess of a season. But winning the Australian Open was still big regardless. It wasn't a dominating performance but it was just as good in the fact that she overcame 3 match points to beat Sharapova, who she lost to at Wimbledon and the year end championships, and came from a set down to beat the #1 Davenport; completely smoking Davenport in that 3rd set.
Clijsters is no doubt the player of the year with the most titles and a slam, but I bet Davenport would trade in her year for one of those 4 slams. The slams are ultimately what you will be remembered for. No one remembers how many tier 1s or 2s you win. Serena and Venus among others have proven that #1 doesn't always mean best player in the world, but simply that someone plays enough tournaments and gets deep enough to stay up there, but could still be slamless and consistently lose to players at the slams and major tier 1s, ala Miss Swiss Hingis for virutally the last 2 years of her career. The slams are the barometer and regardless of the up and down years it is a player's legacy.
There's no doubt that the Slams are vital. In fact, as much as I've railed against Serena lately, the fact is she pulled out the Aussie Open. So, even in light of a terribly difficult year both because of injury and whatever else that girl's got going on, she took home a slam...JHH has had a disappointing year compared to her big 2003 but she still pulled out the French. Venus is nowhere near as consistent as she was during her big fat two years before Serena's reign but she still played a stellar, tough as nails Wimby and took home a 2005 Slam. Kim's the #1 player of the year regardless even of whether or not she pulls out the year end - she's rebounded from potentially career ending wrist problems to conquer all her demons - most of the top players consider her the best right now, and if she's rested - she is...The Slams are everything in women's tennis which is why Elena, Mary, Amelie and LD are terribly frustrated with their years regardless of the results on paper...
How important is a Super Bowl? Would you rather be a one-hit wonder or be the best player never to win a championship?
I'd say that the Slams define your career. When a player is introduced, he/she is referred to by their grand slam title. How many times do they refer to Steffi Graf without mentioning her 22 Grand Slam titles? Every time she sits in the stands watching a major, they put below her name the number of times she won that event: "Steffi Graf: 5-time US Open champion."
Thomas Johannsen and Richard Krajcek would not be remembered today if they hadn't pulled out their solo slams. Michael Chang had a lot of success, but his lonely 1989 French Open Championship is the pinnacle of his career.
The Aussie Open made Serena's year. She may not have played another event, but this year was a better year for her than Lyndsey Davenport has had in the past 5. In my opinion, the fact that Davenport can't win a grand slam negates all her weeks at being number one.
Ask Lyndsey if she would rather win a slam next year or end number 1. I'll bet she would pick the slam.
I'd say that the Slams define your career. When a player is introduced, he/she is referred to by their grand slam title. How many times do they refer to Steffi Graf without mentioning her 22 Grand Slam titles? Every time she sits in the stands watching a major, they put below her name the number of times she won that event: "Steffi Graf: 5-time US Open champion."
Thomas Johannsen and Richard Krajcek would not be remembered today if they hadn't pulled out their solo slams. Michael Chang had a lot of success, but his lonely 1989 French Open Championship is the pinnacle of his career.
The Aussie Open made Serena's year. She may not have played another event, but this year was a better year for her than Lyndsey Davenport has had in the past 5. In my opinion, the fact that Davenport can't win a grand slam negates all her weeks at being number one.
Ask Lyndsey if she would rather win a slam next year or end number 1. I'll bet she would pick the slam.
QUOTE
airrunner:
This has been an interesting year, because three of this year's slam winners reside outside the Top Three.
The consensus seems to be that Serena Williams is having an awful year. Though the lone title she won was the Aussie Open, she's been injured since then and has lost a few early round matches, even in relatively small tournaments.
My question then becomes, does winning the slam mean that Serena has had a better year than Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport and Amelie Mauresmo? I often hear players saying that slams are more important than rankings. If this is the case, would the above-three players trade their 2005s to have Serena's slam?
To make it more stark, let's say you're told your career ends after 2005, whose year do you want? Does one slam mean more than 3 non-slam titles? or how about 7 (if Clijsters hadn't won the US Open)?
This has been an interesting year, because three of this year's slam winners reside outside the Top Three.
The consensus seems to be that Serena Williams is having an awful year. Though the lone title she won was the Aussie Open, she's been injured since then and has lost a few early round matches, even in relatively small tournaments.
My question then becomes, does winning the slam mean that Serena has had a better year than Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport and Amelie Mauresmo? I often hear players saying that slams are more important than rankings. If this is the case, would the above-three players trade their 2005s to have Serena's slam?
To make it more stark, let's say you're told your career ends after 2005, whose year do you want? Does one slam mean more than 3 non-slam titles? or how about 7 (if Clijsters hadn't won the US Open)?
I agree with most of the above and certainly "on paper"a slam is a slam is a slam,though I think Lindsey gave the Oz Open away.
[ October 08, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Fedex ]
[ October 08, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Fedex ]
Lindsay must be the most giving player in the WTA then. If she gave away the Australian Open to Serena than I suppose she gave away Wimbledon to Venus and gave away last year's Wimbledon semi to Maria Sharapova. I thought Lindsay simply ran out of juice at the Australian Open this year. She got to the finals of the doubles with Morariu and needed to close out Serena in 2. She was up 40-love on serve in the middle of the second set and I remember she hit an easy put away shot long. She then proceded to lose the next 4 points and get broken. Then, Serena won the 2nd set and Lindsay simply had nothing left in the tank for the 3rd set.
Lindsay is also moody. She has always been moody. She was moody at the US Open match this year at the US Open against Dementieva. She had a running conversation with herself damn near the whole match. I was there and I remember my boyfriend asking "what the hell is she saying?" Thats something she had started to get better with but it came back full force in that match.
Again, regarding the slams, Dan Marino was one of the best quarterbacks ever in the NFL but he never won a super bowl and if anyone thinks that doesn't sting you best believe it does. I bet he'd sacrifice his position as having the most passing yards or whatever record he has for 1 super bowl ring.
Lindsay is also moody. She has always been moody. She was moody at the US Open match this year at the US Open against Dementieva. She had a running conversation with herself damn near the whole match. I was there and I remember my boyfriend asking "what the hell is she saying?" Thats something she had started to get better with but it came back full force in that match.
Again, regarding the slams, Dan Marino was one of the best quarterbacks ever in the NFL but he never won a super bowl and if anyone thinks that doesn't sting you best believe it does. I bet he'd sacrifice his position as having the most passing yards or whatever record he has for 1 super bowl ring.
Serena (Oct 7, 2005):
"This has been such a disappointing year for me because I'm such a competitive person and I like to win for myself and for my fans"
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/ne...tory?id=2183995
Lindsay (Oct 3, 2005):
"Especially the last two years I feel I've done a remarkable job with my career and when you feel like you're still playing well and have a chance to win lots of tournaments it's tough to walk away,"
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sectio...nnis&id=2180288
If the question is "How important are the Slams?" I'd certainly agree with y'all: they're what everyone plays for and for the most part, they define a player's legacy (although I personally think Chang will be remembered as much for his speed, heart, drive and tree-trunk thighs as for his one Slam title, as astounding as it was at the time)...
But "Who had a better year: Slam or no Slam" is a different question...I wouldn't judge the entire year of certain players on the basis of one two week tournament; if Serena can be disappointed in her year despite winning one, and if Lindsay can infer her year was "remarkable" without one I think it backs up what's in JC's post: it depends on where you are in your career and what your particular priorities are...
"This has been such a disappointing year for me because I'm such a competitive person and I like to win for myself and for my fans"
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/ne...tory?id=2183995
Lindsay (Oct 3, 2005):
"Especially the last two years I feel I've done a remarkable job with my career and when you feel like you're still playing well and have a chance to win lots of tournaments it's tough to walk away,"
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sectio...nnis&id=2180288
If the question is "How important are the Slams?" I'd certainly agree with y'all: they're what everyone plays for and for the most part, they define a player's legacy (although I personally think Chang will be remembered as much for his speed, heart, drive and tree-trunk thighs as for his one Slam title, as astounding as it was at the time)...
But "Who had a better year: Slam or no Slam" is a different question...I wouldn't judge the entire year of certain players on the basis of one two week tournament; if Serena can be disappointed in her year despite winning one, and if Lindsay can infer her year was "remarkable" without one I think it backs up what's in JC's post: it depends on where you are in your career and what your particular priorities are...
QUOTE
Thomas Johannsen and Richard Krajcek would not be remembered today if they hadn't pulled out their solo slams
Who? wink
I think the Slams are very important to players! As said b4 nobody dreams of winning the WTA event in LA or Philly or for that matter the Olympics! In tennis its 4 tournaments that define your career! 1-Slam wonders still achived more than the players that won multiple tourney's, but never a Slam.
Bryan, do you really think Mary Pierce was disappointed with her year? I suspect if someone had told her at the beginning of the year she would make the finals of the French and the U.S. Open, she would have been absolutely elated. I'm sure she's extremely satisfied with yer year, and particularly with her performance in the majors.
Mary has to be very happy about her year! After all she has gone through in her career, she is clearly the nost inspratinal player of the year! At an age where most girls have retired she keeps putting up gr8 results! In a previous post somebody asked if she should be in the "Hall of Fame" I say w/o a doubt! GO MARY!!!
I think the Slams are the most important, but you also want to make sure that you dont forget about the other tournments. Some of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournys are really competitive. For a player like Lindsay, she's already a Hall of Famer. She has won 50 titles and is the 3 leading career money leader. She does have 3 slams and im sure she would love another, but I dont think she discards her other tournments. I mean 50 titles is alot. Saying that, im sure Lindz would rather had won Wimby or Aussie and give back her other 5 titles this year.
Well, It's pretty clear where Roddick stands on the issue...
"I've won five titles this year now, which isn't bad for a terrible year, as people keep saying. Of course I would trade five titles for one Grand Slam but that's not the way it works."
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2005-10-31/d.php
If I were Andy I'd want to get the One-Slam-Wonder monkey off my back as well...
"I've won five titles this year now, which isn't bad for a terrible year, as people keep saying. Of course I would trade five titles for one Grand Slam but that's not the way it works."
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2005-10-31/d.php
If I were Andy I'd want to get the One-Slam-Wonder monkey off my back as well...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.