View Single Post
Old 02-18-2013, 07:30 AM   #105
NadalAgassi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would add you are right about the Premier Mandatories. I had assumed the Premier Mandatories and Premier 9s were the same, and on many players bios they are listed as such. However you are wrong about Tier 1s, there were always 9 annual womens tier 1 events back in the day they were termed as such, and 9 tier 2 events. Moscow was a tier 1 event back then. So a Premier Mandatory or Premier 9 (which total to the top 9 tournaments today outside the slams) are both equivalent to an old tier 1, and as there was no division between the tier 1s technically speaking I would count either a Premier Mandatory or Premier 9 today as equivalent to a tier 1 then if one attempts to crossover the value of tournaments that way. I also am not surprised you failed to address my point Myskina and Majoli both had far bigger wins to win her tier 1 equivalent or even some of her tier 2 equivalent tournaments than Wozniacki to win any of the tournaments she ever won. Lastly who cares about a 32 vs 64 player draw in the WTA, even in the WTAs better days, there is virtually no talent outside the top 32 anyway.

So Wozniacki has won 5 former tier equivalents (Premier Mandatory or Premier 9) vs 3 for Majoli and 2 for Myskina. In no way is only 2 or even 3 tier 1 equivalents worth more than the value of a slam as far as the greatness of a career, sorry. When you win roughly half the tournaments and tier 1 equivalents of someone else, when both are relatively small numbers, plus the one with less has a slam to boot, there is no comparision between the careers.

Also regarding Nalbandian you have to be braindead to not realize it is 10x more impressive to win 3 Masters titles in an era Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray win every bloody Masters for about 5 years at one point minus 1, than to win 5 tier 1 equivalents in the scavenger hunt WTA of the several years Wozniacki was on top when numerous former journeywomen gobbled up slams (yet still not the hapless Woz even peaking in that field). Look at Nalbandians wins to win some of those Masters too, beating Federer in 2 of them, beating Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer all in a row in one, and compare them to Wozniacki and her wins to win hers. The funniest thing of all is you seem to think none of that matters which in itself is laughable. Anyone who actually followed the game while these players played would care about such things, whether you do or not. Anyway YEC + 3 Masters/tier 1/Premier top 9 whatever equivalents > 5 Masters/tier 1 equivalents. You already showed yourself Nalbandian has done better in the slams as well, even competing in a field 10 times harder than the one Wozniacki was in. Nalbandian is respected and revered for his talent in his prime, even today long past his prime, and well remembered for denying Federer an Open Era best tieing season in 2005 in the YEC final (the biggest match in tennis outside a slam final), and for his run of destroying Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, et al in winning the back to back indoor Masters in 2007. By contrast Wozniacki today is just remembered as the worst ever #1 along with Jankovic, and is basically a bit of a laughing stock having plumetted out of the top 10 so quickly after her laughable "reign" as the so called #1.

Last edited by NadalAgassi : 02-18-2013 at 07:42 AM.
  Reply With Quote