Are Women's Slams Actually The EASIEST Women's Tournaments????

Folks make a bigger deal out of women's slam trophies than the non-slam WTA tournaments.

"Will Serena match Court?"
"When would Halep finally win one??"
"Was Wozniak a faux number one before she won?"... etc.

You don't really ever hear these career-defining questions about the rest of WTA tour matches.

But I've been thinking that maybe women's slams actually aren't the big triumph folks make them out to be compared to the rest of year.

Don't hate me. I'm not saying women athletes aren't amazing or admirable. They are. I am an ok intermediate male player and I know I would be destroyed by a serious High School female player.

But back to the question:

Slams do have a larger draw than the WTA tourneys, but they are best of 3 just like the rest of the WTA and ATP tour.

With the addition of a day of rest in between.

Women don't get a day of the rest between matches during the non-slam tourneys.

A whole day to recuperate is a big deal.

At best of 3 with a day of rest - doesn't that make the Women's Slams actually EASIER than the rest of their year??

(Quick! Answer before this thread gets deleted and I get banned!!)

Now with a beautiful poll.

I don't see that OP has made a valid point. Yes, there's no rest days in most one week tournaments and you can play every day for four or more days, but your opponent has the same schedule, so as tired as you may be, you're playing an opponent who's tired too.

ollinger said:

I don't see that OP has made a valid point. Yes, there's no rest days in most one week tournaments and you can play every day for four or more days, but your opponent has the same schedule, so as tired as you may be, you're playing an opponent who's tired too.

Click to expand...

But - is it really the challenge its made out to be compared to the rest of the WTA tour? For someone like Serena - at her age - isn't it actually an advantage over the other best of 3 tourneys?

Federev said:

Folks make a bigger deal out of women's slam trophies than the non-slam WTA tournaments.

"Will Serena match Court?"
"When would Halep finally win one??"
"Was Wozniak a faux number one before she won?"... etc.

You don't really ever hear these career-defining questions about the rest of WTA tour matches.

But I've been thinking that maybe women's slams actually aren't the big triumph folks make them out to be compared to the rest of year.

Don't hate me! I'm not saying women athletes aren't amazing or admirable. They are.

But back to the question:

Slams do have a larger draw than the WTA tourneys, but they are best of 3 just like the rest of the WTA and ATP tour.

With the addition of a day of rest in between.

Women don't get a day of the rest between matches during the non-slam tourneys.

A whole day to recuperate is a big deal.

At best of 3 with a day of rest - doesn't that make the Women's Slams actually EASIER than the rest of their year??

(Quick! Answer before this thread gets deleted and I get banned!!)

Click to expand...

Yep. Its totally different. It is still over two weeks, but on regular tour the women just like the men play best of three and most often without days off between.

For the men, the best of five format is more likely to have the top players come through by its very nature. For the Women its not really different and problably easier for younger players to make a run with all the days off.

The Women's game probably needs scoring reform much more than the Men's game. They need something better than standard three set format for slams, and they most definitely could use a less grueling week to week on tour. Both tours play too much with Poly strings turning most of the tour into Bjorn Borg from the baseline. Time to fix things as they are most definitely broken on the women's tour.

They still try harder for slems

I had already posted this kind of thread, or at least mentioned this.

I fully agree. A day rest between matches actually makes women's slams physically easier. The pressure is bigger though. So when we take everything into consideration, they are pretty much just glorified WTA events, or glorified Tier I events.

Of course, in this age of political correctness when free speech is almost COMPLETELY banned, you fear that the thread and you might be banned/deleted. Nobody is allowed to talk freely, which is a dangerous development in this pre-Orwellian western world. Pointing out that women's tennis is overrated or that their slams aren't anywhere close to the stature of men's slams is treated like a chauvinist attack on women themselves, which is of course utter nonsense.

We are being coerced and forced into only praising certain protected groups, as if telling the truth - or at least opinions - is somehow dangerous for the future of mankind. Whereas in fact, ironically, it is the fear of sharing opinions that is the real danger we are facing in this very moronic New World Disorder.

128

Winners or Errors said:

128

Click to expand...

If you expand that to 2048, then maybe even amateurs could get to play there.

The higher the number the tougher the event? Not really. That only works when there is extreme depth in the field, and that isn't really the case in either men's or women's tennis.

How dare you!?

Federev said:

Folks make a bigger deal out of women's slam trophies than the non-slam WTA tournaments.

"Will Serena match Court?"
"When would Halep finally win one??"
"Was Wozniak a faux number one before she won?"... etc.

You don't really ever hear these career-defining questions about the rest of WTA tour matches.

But I've been thinking that maybe women's slams actually aren't the big triumph folks make them out to be compared to the rest of year.

Don't hate me. I'm not saying women athletes aren't amazing or admirable. They are. I am an ok intermediate male player and I know I would be destroyed by a serious High School female player.

But back to the question:

Slams do have a larger draw than the WTA tourneys, but they are best of 3 just like the rest of the WTA and ATP tour.

With the addition of a day of rest in between.

Women don't get a day of the rest between matches during the non-slam tourneys.

A whole day to recuperate is a big deal.

At best of 3 with a day of rest - doesn't that make the Women's Slams actually EASIER than the rest of their year??

(Quick! Answer before this thread gets deleted and I get banned!!)

Click to expand...

This is actually the main reason why having Serena Williams in the GOAT discussion doesn't make any sense. She's not even top 3, imho, as she's won far less tournaments than Navratilova, Evert and Graf. Of course, "but, but--slams are everything!". Yeah. How about no?

No. The pressure is immense and on a different scale. I have heard some say this in interviews, such as Mauresmo, Stosur, Safina. Look at how much Serena feels it in her late 30s. Younger players never used to, that was often talked about in commentary booths, how they played without fear. I think the pressure has gotten worse with the rise in social media and general media coverage.
Granted, they get a day's rest, which I think really benefits the women who can take the pressure- the Serenas, Grafs, Seles, etc. They are outliers, though. Physically they can be fresher and this helps them really take advantage of their mental strength.

I've sort of brought this up before, in that, a WTA player that wins IW / Miami without a Bye has essentially won a slam, no?

Can't account for the pressure you feel at slams, but 7 wins against the top of the field is 7 wins.

Anyways, to answer the question, no, they are definitely not the easiest and are likely still the hardest due to 7 matches and the overall pressure that must be overcome, but I do think other big WTA tournaments should carry more weight than their ATP counterparts.

I understand where you're coming from and it's a valid point and not sexist to say that the tournament appears to be no different as it's over 2 weeks, players get days off and it's same sets. BUT as others have said, the pressure that comes with a slam is out of this world.

We saw it with Halep (who did eventually breakthrough) but we saw how it ruined Dinara Safina or how it eluded Jankovic and Radwanska and so many others who never won one despite being the best in the world.

It's about what is between the ears...