Maria the Tigress roars

[Hs0022]

With a 6-0, 6-0 victory. She can kill the rest of the field now that the wicked witch is gone. Vamos!!

 

[Liberal Icon]

With a 6-0, 6-0 victory. She can kill the rest of the field now that the wicked witch is gone. Vamos!!

Now, who is the "wicked witch" if I may ask?

 

[Hs0022]

Now, who is the "wicked witch" if I may ask?

Lol! That would be her nemesis Serena. This can easily mimic a fairy tale where Maria is the princess and her nemesis the wicked witch is played by Serena. I was being sarcastic with my post btw, doesn't matter to me if Maria loses in the next round. She has won it once anyways.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Meow

 

[nuraman00]

Lol! That would be her nemesis Serena. This can easily mimic a fairy tale where Maria is the princess and her nemesis the wicked witch is played by Serena. I was being sarcastic with my post btw, doesn't matter to me if Maria loses in the next round. She has won it once anyways.

To me, in sports, defending a title or winning multiple means more than winning one. It's more of an accomplishment to win things multiple times, and makes things more legendary.

I don't like it when someone can't even provide a legitimate title defense (i.e. doesn't make the playoffs the next year, or loses early the next year in tennis). I'm not saying he/they have to win, but at least provide a legitimate defense.

For example, when a MLB team wins a title, then loses some players in FA and does terribly the next year, I don't like that. Or if they don't lose many players but can't make the playoffs the next year regardless.

 

[cezero]

To me, in sports, defending a title or winning multiple means more than winning one.

the main thing that posterity remembers is total number of major titles, both in tennis and in golf.

besides total number of majors, the next most talked about item is whether they won a bunch of 1 or more of the majors (i.e., Rafa with 8 FO's, and Roger and Pete with 7 Wimbledons, Martina with 9 Wimbledons, Chrissy with 7 FO's).

defending titles would be among the least important in isolation, though it often overlaps with the 2 items i discussed above.

comparing tennis to any team sport is absurd.

 

[cezero]

bleh, i realize that i'm being really snippy tonight. just not a good mood. sorry y'all.

 

[nuraman00]

the main thing that posterity remembers is total number of major titles, both in tennis and in golf.

besides total number of majors, the next most talked about item is whether they won a bunch of 1 or more of the majors (i.e., Rafa with 8 FO's, and Roger and Pete with 7 Wimbledons, Martina with 9 Wimbledons, Chrissy with 7 FO's).

defending titles would be among the least important in isolation, though it often overlaps with the 2 items i discussed above.

comparing tennis to any team sport is absurd.

Yeah, I guess the total number for one major alone isn't enough for me. I like looking at how consistent they were, how many Finals they made, Masters 1000s. Did they consistently go deep in majors? Or did they have have less prosperous periods (spanning years), only to have a good tournament later again?

For example, I don't like how players in the 70s and 80s would skip the AO.

Connors may have played in a lot of GS SF, but it's not the same to me because he skipped a lot of the AOs. And he didn't play the FO for some of those years either, because he was banned. So it's one of those "we'll never know" for me, about how he would have done.

Another example: Soderling made the 4th round or better at at 7/9 majors between the 2009 FO and 2011 FO, and made two Finals. I would like that more than if someone even won a major, had a lot of 1st week exits for the next 4 years, then won another major.

besides total number of majors, the next most talked about item is whether they won a bunch of 1 or more of the majors (i.e., Rafa with 8 FO's, and Roger and Pete with 7 Wimbledons, Martina with 9 Wimbledons, Chrissy with 7 FO's).

When someone starts to win that many total majors (12-13+), then it doesn't mean as much to me whether someone has 7 Wimbledons or 8. I'd rather see how versatile they were, and whether they could win the career slam, or how many they had on their worst surface.

I like that quirky stat that Connors won the USO when it was played on grass, clay courts, and hard courts.

Or I like how Agassi was not only able to win the career slam, but he made 2 other FO Finals, 2 FO SFs, and 4 FO QFs.

Back in 2011, after the season was over, I thought Djokovic could have arguably had the best season ever, when taking into account both majors and Masters 1000s wins. Yeah, it's tough to compare it to Laver's 1968 because the Masters 1000s weren't as big of a deal back then, but since tennis has evolved now, to having a lot of great high profile tournaments, I was impressed with what Djokovic did.


Also, I don't just mean defending a title in the strictest sense, but also just providing a credible run the next year. Don't lose in the 1st or 2nd round the next year.

For example, had Djokovic lost the 2012 AO Finals, it wouldn't have made a difference to how I viewed him. He gave it his all. Same in 2013, had he lost to Murray or Wawrinka. He played at a high level 3 years in a row there up until then.

And I think it's impressive to repeat or provide a good run the next year, because as the defending champ, the spotlight will be on that player even more than the prior year. There's arguably greater pressure. And the physical toll of playing more matches than the others, over time, at that major, in consecutive years.

Even if that player sucked right after winning that title the year prior, when it comes to next year, there's still going to be talk of what happened the prior year, and whether that player can find his/her game and play like he/she did the prior year.


I also think being able to dominate over a period of time, speaks greater to one's legacy, rather than having disjointed periods or out-of-the-blue wins. And again, it's not just about titles to me, but playing well and having good runs overall.

So some of that is liking Federer or Martina's consistency over sustained periods. Making a lot of Finals, winning a lot, defending titles, and even winning on their worst tourneys. Same with Graf.

Serena is up there too because when healthy, she's been great.

For Venus, I'd rather see her win another USO or an AO. I know she's great at grass, but she could still add to her hardcourt legacy. Make her more well-rounded. Ok, maybe not right now, but back in 2010, I remember during an interview, she said that Serena had AO and FO titles that Venus also wanted to win. Venus usually doesn't display that visible competitiveness that Serena does, but in that moment, as well as around 2010 when she talked about wanting to get back to # 1, it was nice to see her still have goals.

She played well at the 2010 USO, I thought she could have won that one had she beaten Clijsters. But in the SF, she played one of the worst tiebreakers I've seen, losing something like 7-1.

And I also root for the Williams Sisters Doubles Grand Slam, have been rooting for that for a while. They've been close in 2009 and 2010.

The Bryan Brothers were also close in 2013.

I think that's what the great ones do, have goals to try to keep winning, achieving things they haven't done before.

 

[nuraman00]

bleh, i realize that i'm being really snippy tonight. just not a good mood. sorry y'all.

I think you've been fine.