View Single Post
Old 02-18-2013, 06:42 AM   #106
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 976

Continue to point out factual errors since there's no point discussing opinions.
Originally Posted by jmnk View Post
Not correct. Tournaments formerly known as Tier 1 are not the same as currently 'Premier Mandatory'. There were about 14 Tier 1 tournaments (depending on exact year you want to talk about). There are only 4 Premier Mandatory tournaments: Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Bejing. Indian Wells and Miami are 128 draw, Madrid and Bejing are 64.

Kremlin Cup, when the tour was reorganized, was categorized as a merely Premier tournament, below Premier Mandatory and Premier 5. It was always just 32 draw.

To claim that two Kremlin Cup wins (by Myskina) are somehow comparable to two Premier Mandatory wins (by Wozniacki: Indian Wells and Bejing) is simply not correct.
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
No they were better. I already pointed out the wins Myskina had to win such tournaments which Wozniacki didnt come close to as far as the caliber of opponents she beat to win any tournament. Wozniacki would never be beating prime Henin, prime Davenport, and prime Mauresmo to win tournaments, so that alone already makes Myskina's better.
Let's see.

Kremlin Cup 2003:
highest ranked player participating: 5
8 seeded players ranks: 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17
draw: 32
Matches needed to win the title: 4

Kremlin Cup 2004
highest ranked player participating: 2
8 seeded players ranks: 2,4,5,6,11,12,13
draw: 32
Matches needed to win the title: 4

Beijing 2010
highest ranked player participating: 2
first 8 seeded players ranks: 2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11
next 8 seeded players: 12,13,14,15,17,18,19,20
draw: 64
Matches needed to win the title: 5

Indian Wells 2011
highest ranked player participating: 1
first 8 seeded players ranks: 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6,7,9
next 8 seeded players: 10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
draw: 128
Matches needed to win the title: 6

if that doesn't scream that Kremlin Cup is a more significant tournament than either Indian Wells or Beijing - I do not know what does

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Hung around the top 6 in the World for about 5 years, something Wozniacki will only manage to do for less than 3 (as it is clear that phase of her career is already over).
Incorrect again. Nalbandian was year-end top 10 during a five year span starting in 2003: 8,9,6,8,9. Apart from the best year in 2005 (when he finished 6) during other years he was not 'hanging around the top 6'. He was 'hanging around in top 10'. You know, that's what being 8 and 9 ranked means. Just to clarify - never managed to finish top 5. Ever. (Still a very good player by all means.)

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
Check again, Kvitova was killing Wozniacki in the poll, and rightfully so as Kvitova's career >>>>> Wozniacki's, despite how much you want to trump Wozniacki's #1
You were asking if anyone else besides me and TMF believes that Wozniacki career was better than any of the one-slam winners. Judging from the thread you yourself referenced it clearly looks like there are more people that think so. Perhaps you should read up on what it means 'anyone else'.
jmnk is offline   Reply With Quote