tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 19 Feb 2009 15:42:11
From: topspin
Subject: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).

If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
considering the achievements of these players:

Sharapova
Mauresmo
Henin

In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
- she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
credibility as a player.
- she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
- she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
specific champion

The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
any discussions about her tennis legacy

In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
tournament, the French.

Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
the AO or USO.

So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order

1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
is slight
5) the total number of slams is important
6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
can outweigh other prestige issues

Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!

:-)




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 13:15:29
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 21 Feb, 20:17, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:54:20 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >topspin wrote:
> >> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> >> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> >> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> >> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> >> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> >> considering the achievements of these players:
>
> >> Sharapova
> >> Mauresmo
> >> Henin
>
> >> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> >> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> >> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> >> credibility as a player.
> >> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> >> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> >> specific champion
>
> >> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> >> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> >> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> >> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> >> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> >> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> >> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> >> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> >> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> >> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> >> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> >> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> >> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> >> tournament, the French.
>
> >> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> >> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> >> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> >> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> >> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> >> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> >> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> >> the AO or USO.
>
> >> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> >> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> >> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> >> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> >> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> >> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> >> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> >> is slight
> >> 5) the total number of slams is important
> >> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> >> can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> >> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> >> :-)
>
> >Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
> >assumptions?
>
> Rich irony...
>
> All evidence you ever have is that you say so, and that you know that
> "99% of players/fans/experts" think so. To me, topspin's points sound
> much, much closer to what players, fans and experts think in 2000s
> than your points.
>
> BTW, Mauresmo is not a very good example, because her first slam was
> won lie it was (that was Henin's fault). At Wimbledon, she could
> really win the title, so that made it in a way better.

Maybe I am a bit biassed :-)

However, on a point of practicality, apart from Davenport, there 'are'
no other recent women multi-slam champions to use as examples, if I
wanted to avoid using the Williams sisters. Maybe that, in itself,
says something about women's tennis in the 2000s.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:51:33
From:
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 21, 5:01=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:35=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, but imagine Noah with a Wimbledon title - certainly nobody woul=
d
> > ever forget he won a slam like they sometimes now do.
>
> All of the single major winners are in a similar boat: =A0Cash, Stich,
> Noah, Krajicek, Korda, Ivanisevic. =A0Curious that so many one slam
> wonders do it at Wimbledon, eh?

No.

What about Chang, Gomez, Muster, Costa, Ferrero, Gaudio? All those
plus Noah won their only slam at the FO ...



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 00:27:11
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 21:35, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> drew wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 10:40 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> PS On another, related, topic you might like to ponder the relative
> >> legacies of one Yannick Noah against a certain Richard Krajcek. Both
> >> one slam wonders, but different slams. I wonder if one is held in
> >> significantly higher overall esteem than the other......
>
> > France was in love with Noah for years and was also frustrated because
> > early on it looked as if he would be winning more than he did.
>
> > Yannick Noah IMO. =A0He won his only major in his home country and for
> > France this is a very big deal becuase as everybody knows, =A0they have
> > a lot of great players but they can't seem to win the big ones.
> > Yannick's involvement in Davis Cup helps his profile also.
>
> > Krajicek is kind of a footnote in tennis history. =A0He's running that
> > event that they just played in Holland so he's keeping his name in the
> > tennis news but he wasn't a great personality either. =A0Noah was a
> > funny guy. =A0Good for the game.
>
> > Krajicek had a pretty forgetable game.
>
> Agreed, but imagine Noah with a Wimbledon title - certainly nobody would
> ever forget he won a slam like they sometimes now do.

Name 3 people who have forgotten.

My wife, the milkman, the butcher, and the candlestick maker, have all
forgotten Krajcek won a slam. That's 4 people...

:-)


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:01:21
From: drew
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 20, 4:35=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> Agreed, but imagine Noah with a Wimbledon title - certainly nobody would
> ever forget he won a slam like they sometimes now do.

All of the single major winners are in a similar boat: Cash, Stich,
Noah, Krajicek, Korda, Ivanisevic. Curious that so many one slam
wonders do it at Wimbledon, eh?


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:11:47
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 12:41, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:42 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > Sharapova
> > Mauresmo
> > Henin
>
> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > credibility as a player.
> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > specific champion
>
> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > tournament, the French.
>
> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > the AO or USO.
>
> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > is slight
> > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > :-)
>
> Sharapova's known for winning Wimbledon at 17, not a huge amount else.
> Henin only choked at one tournament - that was Wimbledon. Mauresmo is
> known for longevity and Wimbledon. And as everybody's pointed out -
> Serena/Venus - now what are they know for winning - Wimbledon plus
> thrashing younger-should-be-better-players at the Aussie Open, not
> specially the AO though.

Maybe, on the planet where you live, but not on planet Earth, where I
live.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:10:57
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 15:40, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 20 Feb, 09:54, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > topspin wrote:
> > > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the differen=
t
> > > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) i=
t
> > > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > > Sharapova
> > > Mauresmo
> > > Henin
>
> > > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > > credibility as a player.
> > > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > > specific champion
>
> > > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it ha=
d
> > > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another sla=
m
> > > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > > tournament, the French.
>
> > > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and thi=
s
> > > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, an=
d
> > > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > > the AO or USO.
>
> > > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > > is slight
> > > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....=
!
>
> > > :-)
>
> > Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
> > assumptions?
>
> > Sharapova's 61 64 thumping of Serena in Wimbledon final at age 17 is th=
e
> > most impressive achievement of her career. =A0Mauresmo winning Wimbledo=
n
> > almost makes AO disappear.
>
> Weelll...
>
> Evidence #1: =A0Your post is the ONLY one, of thousands I have read,
> that make the claim Mauresmo's AO victory almost disappears in the
> light of her W victory. However I will wait until *skriptis posts in
> support of your assertion. Then the evidence will be 2 posts....

Ooops. I've just read Iceberg's post. Make that 3 posts...


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 08:30:08
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 16:18, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:40 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PS On another, related, topic you might like to ponder the relative
> > legacies of one Yannick Noah against a certain Richard Krajcek. Both
> > one slam wonders, but different slams. I wonder if one is held in
> > significantly higher overall esteem than the other......
>
> France was in love with Noah for years and was also frustrated because
> early on it looked as if he would be winning more than he did.
>
> Yannick Noah IMO. =A0He won his only major in his home country and for
> France this is a very big deal becuase as everybody knows, =A0they have
> a lot of great players but they can't seem to win the big ones.
> Yannick's involvement in Davis Cup helps his profile also.
>
> Krajicek is kind of a footnote in tennis history. =A0He's running that
> event that they just played in Holland so he's keeping his name in the
> tennis news but he wasn't a great personality either. =A0Noah was a
> funny guy. =A0Good for the game.
>
> Krajicek had a pretty forgetable game.

I must say I think Noah is more remembered, for all sorts of reasons.
Krajcek is remembered more for beating Sampras than the Wimbledon win,
IMO.

If he had had a win against Sampras to break a similar streak at the
USO, FO, or AO, and won one of those slams, I suspect he would have
been remembered pretty much just the same as he is.

So it wasn't winning at Wimbledon that gives him a special cachet, it
was beating Sampras.

Which shows that in the end it is quality of opponents that is
important, more than the slam. Just now all slams are pretty much
equally competitive.

Competitiveness of eras? Well, as I say, a different can of worms


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 08:18:01
From: drew
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 20, 10:40 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> PS On another, related, topic you might like to ponder the relative
> legacies of one Yannick Noah against a certain Richard Krajcek. Both
> one slam wonders, but different slams. I wonder if one is held in
> significantly higher overall esteem than the other......
>

France was in love with Noah for years and was also frustrated because
early on it looked as if he would be winning more than he did.

Yannick Noah IMO. He won his only major in his home country and for
France this is a very big deal becuase as everybody knows, they have
a lot of great players but they can't seem to win the big ones.
Yannick's involvement in Davis Cup helps his profile also.

Krajicek is kind of a footnote in tennis history. He's running that
event that they just played in Holland so he's keeping his name in the
tennis news but he wasn't a great personality either. Noah was a
funny guy. Good for the game.

Krajicek had a pretty forgetable game.



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:35:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
drew wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:40 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PS On another, related, topic you might like to ponder the relative
>> legacies of one Yannick Noah against a certain Richard Krajcek. Both
>> one slam wonders, but different slams. I wonder if one is held in
>> significantly higher overall esteem than the other......
>>
>
> France was in love with Noah for years and was also frustrated because
> early on it looked as if he would be winning more than he did.
>
> Yannick Noah IMO. He won his only major in his home country and for
> France this is a very big deal becuase as everybody knows, they have
> a lot of great players but they can't seem to win the big ones.
> Yannick's involvement in Davis Cup helps his profile also.
>
> Krajicek is kind of a footnote in tennis history. He's running that
> event that they just played in Holland so he's keeping his name in the
> tennis news but he wasn't a great personality either. Noah was a
> funny guy. Good for the game.
>
> Krajicek had a pretty forgetable game.
>


Agreed, but imagine Noah with a Wimbledon title - certainly nobody would
ever forget he won a slam like they sometimes now do.



 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 08:01:28
From: drew
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 20 Feb, 07:58, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Feb, 23:48, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 6:42 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > > > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > > > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > > > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > > > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > > > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > > > Sharapova
> > > > Mauresmo
> > > > Henin
>
> > > > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > > > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > > > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > > > credibility as a player.
> > > > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > > > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > > > specific champion
>
> > > > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > > > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > > > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > > > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > > > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > > > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > > > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > > > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > > > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > > > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > > > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > > > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > > > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > > > tournament, the French.
>
> > > > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > > > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > > > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > > > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > > > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > > > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > > > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > > > the AO or USO.
>
> > > > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > > > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > > > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > > > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > > > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > > > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > > > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > > > is slight
> > > > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > > > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > > > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > > > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > > > :-)
>
> > > no mention of Serena Williams?
>
> > Sharapova, Mauresmo, Henin just seemed to be good 'neutral' current
> > examplars without a huge load of extraneous baggage, and are also non-
> > American/UK/Australian/Swedish/German/Federer/Sampras/Nadal/Graf/Seles
> > etc.
>
> > The Williams sisters carry a lot of fan and anti-fan 'baggage', and
> > are also American, which tends to skew discussion in an English-
> > language discussion group.
>
> > I wanted to get the discussion away from emotional fan issues as much
> > as is possible in these sort of discussions.
>
> > I think Blake, Gonzales, Tsonga, Murray,Jankovic,Dementieva, Safina
> > for example, would fit the 'rules' above, if they were to win a slam
> > (s). Also Djokovic for another slam.
>
> Just to wrap up. The important things with slams, right now, are
>
> - the total
> - the spread
> - special combinations (FO/W; CGS, CYGS)
> - streaks

For me it is the intensity of the competition every time beyond any
other consideration.

Nothing surprises me in the WTA anymore. The Williams could win a
major, any major or both could be knocked out before the semis. The
#1 player might not make it past the 1st round. The Wimbledon
champion might go out in the first round at the USO. The #1 player
might retire at age 26.

So I guess total slams is most important regardless of the mix.
Consistency is so lacking in the women's game that a player who can
defend her title means a lot. Not that it happens enough these days
to make it an issue.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 07:40:52
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 09:54, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > Sharapova
> > Mauresmo
> > Henin
>
> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > credibility as a player.
> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > specific champion
>
> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > tournament, the French.
>
> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > the AO or USO.
>
> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > is slight
> > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > :-)
>
> Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
> assumptions?
>
> Sharapova's 61 64 thumping of Serena in Wimbledon final at age 17 is the
> most impressive achievement of her career. =A0Mauresmo winning Wimbledon
> almost makes AO disappear.

Weelll...

Evidence #1: Your post is the ONLY one, of thousands I have read,
that make the claim Mauresmo's AO victory almost disappears in the
light of her W victory. However I will wait until *skriptis posts in
support of your assertion. Then the evidence will be 2 posts....

Evidence #2: Q: Could you say something about Justine Henin as a
player.

FEDERER: She plays a bit differently than your average female tennis
player, which is automatically because of her one-handed backhand. She
is rather small, which was more and more obvious during the last
years, because more and more tall players came on the tour. So her
successes were even more remarkable. She always had the big plus that
she could play on all surfaces. It's a shame for tennis when the
number 1 player announces her retirement out of the blue. But I hope
that she has good reasons and can live with them. But I'm sure she
can. A comeback is never out of the question, but usually on the day
you announce it you don't want to think of that. But of course I wish
her all the best.

I don't notice any comment about her not winning Wimbledon as being
particularly significant

Evidence #3 -.....: I could go on, but since I have already supplied
more evidence than you ever do, I think I'll rest my case.

PS On another, related, topic you might like to ponder the relative
legacies of one Yannick Noah against a certain Richard Krajcek. Both
one slam wonders, but different slams. I wonder if one is held in
significantly higher overall esteem than the other......

:-))


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 05:47:28
From:
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 20, 12:55=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > Sharapova
> > Mauresmo
> > Henin
>
> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > credibility as a player.
> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > specific champion
>
> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > tournament, the French.
>
> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > the AO or USO.
>
> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > is slight
> > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > :-)
>
> I agree with you in general but I think losses to S. Williams have
> hurt Sharapova's reputation. =A0 I was looking for a generation of
> players of her calibre to move the game beyond the Williams'. =A0This is
> partly because I don't like S. Williams but more because there is no
> good reason that a changing of the guard shouldn't have occurred by
> now. =A0S.Williams is a part-time player who should have been pushed to
> the sidelines by now by younger, fitter, better players.
> That she is still winning majors is a sad commentary upon the quality
> of the top female players today, not a testament to the greatness of
> S.Williams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It happens sometimes that there's a gap without a great player
emerging. On the men's side it was that
sorry (in historical terms) Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Henman, Rios,
Flipper, Moya group that did next to nothing to stopping Sampras and
Agassi from winning more Slams.

Eventually some new great woman player will obviously emerge but who
knows how many more titles the Sistas will rack up before that happens.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 05:40:42
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 20, 9:54=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > Sharapova
> > Mauresmo
> > Henin
>
> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > credibility as a player.
> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > specific champion
>
> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > tournament, the French.
>
> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > the AO or USO.
>
> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > is slight
> > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > :-)
>
> Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
> assumptions?
>
> Sharapova's 61 64 thumping of Serena in Wimbledon final at age 17 is the
> most impressive achievement of her career. =A0Mauresmo winning Wimbledon
> almost makes AO disappear.

What about some evidence for your system?... you've never shown anyone
this 'research' you are supposed to have done, you just lie and say
you are bringing out a book about it LMAO!


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:44:07
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:40:42 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 20, 9:54 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
>> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>>
>> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
>> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
>> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
>> > considering the achievements of these players:
>>
>> > Sharapova
>> > Mauresmo
>> > Henin
>>
>> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
>> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
>> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
>> > credibility as a player.
>> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
>> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
>> > specific champion
>>
>> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
>> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
>> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
>> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>>
>> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
>> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
>> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
>> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
>> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
>> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
>> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
>> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
>> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
>> > tournament, the French.
>>
>> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
>> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
>> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
>> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
>> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
>> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
>> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
>> > the AO or USO.
>>
>> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>>
>> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
>> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
>> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
>> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
>> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
>> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
>> > is slight
>> > 5) the total number of slams is important
>> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
>> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>>
>> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>>
>> > :-)
>>
>> Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
>> assumptions?
>>
>> Sharapova's 61 64 thumping of Serena in Wimbledon final at age 17 is the
>> most impressive achievement of her career.  Mauresmo winning Wimbledon
>> almost makes AO disappear.
>
>What about some evidence for your system?... you've never shown anyone
>this 'research' you are supposed to have done, you just lie and say
>you are bringing out a book about it LMAO!


whispy has dreams of grandeur !


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 04:41:20
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 19, 11:42 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> considering the achievements of these players:
>
> Sharapova
> Mauresmo
> Henin
>
> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> credibility as a player.
> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> specific champion
>
> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> tournament, the French.
>
> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> the AO or USO.
>
> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> is slight
> 5) the total number of slams is important
> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> :-)

Sharapova's known for winning Wimbledon at 17, not a huge amount else.
Henin only choked at one tournament - that was Wimbledon. Mauresmo is
known for longevity and Wimbledon. And as everybody's pointed out -
Serena/Venus - now what are they know for winning - Wimbledon plus
thrashing younger-should-be-better-players at the Aussie Open, not
specially the AO though.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 04:29:04
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 19, 11:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> considering the achievements of these players:
>
> Sharapova
> Mauresmo
> Henin
>
> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> credibility as a player.
> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> specific champion
>
> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> tournament, the French.
>
> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> the AO or USO.
>
> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> is slight
> 5) the total number of slams is important
> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> :-)

Makes more sense than the whispy system, that is for sure.....


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:54:20
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
topspin wrote:
> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> considering the achievements of these players:
>
> Sharapova
> Mauresmo
> Henin
>
> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> credibility as a player.
> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> specific champion
>
> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> tournament, the French.
>
> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> the AO or USO.
>
> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> is slight
> 5) the total number of slams is important
> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> :-)


Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
assumptions?

Sharapova's 61 64 thumping of Serena in Wimbledon final at age 17 is the
most impressive achievement of her career. Mauresmo winning Wimbledon
almost makes AO disappear.



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:17:14
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:54:20 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>topspin wrote:
>> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
>> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>>
>> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
>> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
>> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
>> considering the achievements of these players:
>>
>> Sharapova
>> Mauresmo
>> Henin
>>
>> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
>> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
>> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
>> credibility as a player.
>> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
>> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
>> specific champion
>>
>> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
>> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
>> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
>> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>>
>> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
>> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
>> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
>> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
>> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
>> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
>> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
>> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
>> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
>> tournament, the French.
>>
>> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
>> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
>> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
>> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
>> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
>> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
>> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
>> the AO or USO.
>>
>> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>>
>> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
>> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
>> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
>> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
>> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
>> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
>> is slight
>> 5) the total number of slams is important
>> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
>> can outweigh other prestige issues
>>
>> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>>
>> :-)
>
>
>Nice, but how about some fucking evidence to back these sweeping
>assumptions?

Rich irony...

All evidence you ever have is that you say so, and that you know that
"99% of players/fans/experts" think so. To me, topspin's points sound
much, much closer to what players, fans and experts think in 2000s
than your points.

BTW, Mauresmo is not a very good example, because her first slam was
won lie it was (that was Henin's fault). At Wimbledon, she could
really win the title, so that made it in a way better.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:35:26
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 07:58, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 23:48, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the differen=
t
> > > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) i=
t
> > > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > > Sharapova
> > > Mauresmo
> > > Henin
>
> > > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > > credibility as a player.
> > > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > > specific champion
>
> > > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it ha=
d
> > > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another sla=
m
> > > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > > tournament, the French.
>
> > > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and thi=
s
> > > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, an=
d
> > > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > > the AO or USO.
>
> > > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > > is slight
> > > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....=
!
>
> > > :-)
>
> > no mention of Serena Williams?
>
> Sharapova, Mauresmo, Henin just seemed to be good 'neutral' current
> examplars without a huge load of extraneous baggage, and are also non-
> American/UK/Australian/Swedish/German/Federer/Sampras/Nadal/Graf/Seles
> etc.
>
> The Williams sisters carry a lot of fan and anti-fan 'baggage', and
> are also American, which tends to skew discussion in an English-
> language discussion group.
>
> I wanted to get the discussion away from emotional fan issues as much
> as is possible in these sort of discussions.
>
> I think Blake, Gonzales, Tsonga, Murray,Jankovic,Dementieva, Safina
> for example, would fit the 'rules' above, if they were to win a slam
> (s). Also Djokovic for another slam.

Just to wrap up. The important things with slams, right now, are

- the total
- the spread
- special combinations (FO/W; CGS, CYGS)
- streaks

Wimbledon still has the prestige cachet, but it is a slight to
negligible thing in assessing players rank in the grand scheme of
things. The Australian is the junior cousin in terms of prestige, but
is just as significant as the other slams in assessing a player.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:00:45
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 20 Feb, 05:55, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > Sharapova
> > Mauresmo
> > Henin
>
> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > credibility as a player.
> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > specific champion
>
> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > tournament, the French.
>
> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > the AO or USO.
>
> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > is slight
> > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > :-)
>
> I agree with you in general but I think losses to S. Williams have
> hurt Sharapova's reputation. =A0 I was looking for a generation of
> players of her calibre to move the game beyond the Williams'. =A0This is
> partly because I don't like S. Williams but more because there is no
> good reason that a changing of the guard shouldn't have occurred by
> now. =A0S.Williams is a part-time player who should have been pushed to
> the sidelines by now by younger, fitter, better players.
> That she is still winning majors is a sad commentary upon the quality
> of the top female players today, not a testament to the greatness of
> S.Williams.

See my comment to Scott. Your comment is about the quality of
opposition in the 2000s - a whole different can of worms!!


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 23:58:48
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On 19 Feb, 23:48, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> > might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> > If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> > slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> > seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> > considering the achievements of these players:
>
> > Sharapova
> > Mauresmo
> > Henin
>
> > In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> > notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> > - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> > credibility as a player.
> > - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> > - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> > specific champion
>
> > The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> > outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> > more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> > any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> > In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> > slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> > been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> > really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> > from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> > tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> > nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> > the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> > another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> > tournament, the French.
>
> > Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> > compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> > the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> > because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> > recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> > Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> > not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> > the AO or USO.
>
> > So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> > 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> > 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> > 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> > credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> > 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> > 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> > is slight
> > 5) the total number of slams is important
> > 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> > can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> > Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> > :-)
>
> no mention of Serena Williams?

Sharapova, Mauresmo, Henin just seemed to be good 'neutral' current
examplars without a huge load of extraneous baggage, and are also non-
American/UK/Australian/Swedish/German/Federer/Sampras/Nadal/Graf/Seles
etc.

The Williams sisters carry a lot of fan and anti-fan 'baggage', and
are also American, which tends to skew discussion in an English-
language discussion group.

I wanted to get the discussion away from emotional fan issues as much
as is possible in these sort of discussions.

I think Blake, Gonzales, Tsonga, Murray,Jankovic,Dementieva, Safina
for example, would fit the 'rules' above, if they were to win a slam
(s). Also Djokovic for another slam.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:55:25
From: drew
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> considering the achievements of these players:
>
> Sharapova
> Mauresmo
> Henin
>
> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> credibility as a player.
> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> specific champion
>
> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> tournament, the French.
>
> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> the AO or USO.
>
> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> is slight
> 5) the total number of slams is important
> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> :-)

I agree with you in general but I think losses to S. Williams have
hurt Sharapova's reputation. I was looking for a generation of
players of her calibre to move the game beyond the Williams'. This is
partly because I don't like S. Williams but more because there is no
good reason that a changing of the guard shouldn't have occurred by
now. S.Williams is a part-time player who should have been pushed to
the sidelines by now by younger, fitter, better players.
That she is still winning majors is a sad commentary upon the quality
of the top female players today, not a testament to the greatness of
S.Williams.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 15:48:17
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Relative importance of slams in 2000s
On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I wanted to get clear of the chaff in some of the other threads. It
> might happen here (but I'm not holding my breath!).
>
> If you want to get a feel for the relative importance of the different
> slams in the 2000s (I want to keep it relevant to the here and now) it
> seems to me you can get a good feel for how they are related by
> considering the achievements of these players:
>
> Sharapova
> Mauresmo
> Henin
>
> In the case of Sharapova I think the general view is that the most
> notable things about her are, in a sort of order:
> - she has won a slam, any slam, unlike Kournikova. So she has
> credibility as a player.
> - she has won more than one slam, so she is not a one-slam wonder.
> - she has won three separate slams, so she is not a surface/venue-
> specific champion
>
> The fact that she has won Wimbledon does not seem, to me, to be
> outstandingly significant in discussions about her achievements. The
> more-than-one achievement was the biggest thing she has achieved, in
> any discussions about her tennis legacy
>
> In the case of Mauresmo, the great achievement was to win her first
> slam, any slam. It didn't matter that it was the Australian. If it had
> been Wimbledon she won first, it would have been nice, but it didn't
> really matter. Winning Wimbledon was a huge bonus - it moved her on
> from being a one-slam wonder, and gave her the most prestigious
> tournament, but in looking at her overall legacy it doesn't loom
> nearly as large as the first slam win. If she doesn't win another slam
> the big lingering regret will not be that she has failed to win
> another Wimbledon, or a US, but that she failed to win her home
> tournament, the French.
>
> Finally, in the case of Henin, the fact that she won 7 slams, and this
> compares with other great slam winners who got around that total is
> the important thing. The lack of Wimbledon is a hole in her legacy
> because then she would have one at every venue, and that is generally
> recognised as a really significant achievement. However the lack of a
> Wimbledon is not seen as a huge legacy knock, more a nice to have, and
> not (much?) worse than if she had won Wimbledon but failed at either
> the AO or USO.
>
> So, summarising.....in the 2000s, and not in any particular order
>
> 1) the most important thing is a slam win, any slam
> 2) next in importance is to win a second, preferably elsewhere
> 3) winning on all surfaces/venues is important for improved
> credibility, but is not a deal-breaker
> 3) Wimbledon has a bit more prestige, but it is not a huge thing
> 4) If one slam has lesser significance, it is the Australian, but it
> is slight
> 5) the total number of slams is important
> 6) winning a 'home' slam is recognised as important to players, and
> can outweigh other prestige issues
>
> Constructive discussion welcome, but not necessarily anticipated.....!
>
> :-)

no mention of Serena Williams?