2015 Western & Southern Open (WTA) | Premier 5 | General Discussion Thread

Who will win the 2015 Western & Southern Open?

  • Serena Williams

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Maria Sharapova

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Simona Halep

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Petra Kvitova

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Caroline Wozniacki

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ana Ivanovic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lucie Safarova

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Angelique Kerber

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Belinda Bencic

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Other...

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
If you find me a player who in the wta served 120 on the lines on a consistent basis and was good off the ground as well at any age get back to me.

I don't know what you're talking about. I was arguing about the nature of the playing field (if it's competitive or not). It can't be determined with any type of empirical evidence. You're talking about something else.
 
It can be determined that there has never been a a player like serena so anyone who starts weak era talk is a moron.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Granted, she could be absolutely unique in that respect - and I believe she is - and that would still mean nothing in terms of the level of competition. The two variables don't interfere with each other.
 
She is.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Granted, she could be absolutely unique in that respect - and I believe she is - and that would still mean nothing in terms of the level of competition. The two variables don't interfere with each other.
She is unique. Thats not even a debate.
 
I am actually more curious to see if serena can beat grafs weeks at number 1 record more than the grand slam this year. That would.be something else

Are you kidding? Weeks at #1 means nothing compared to the Grand Slam, which would assure Serena ranked as one of the GOAT. But, I don't see her winning it, so that will not be a point of debate in any case.
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding? Weeks at #1 means nothing compared to the Grand Slam, which would assure Serena ranked as one of the GOAT. But, I don;t see her winning it, so that will not be a point of debate in any case.
Yea i guess i am not as grand slam obsessed as many. Being number 1 for long periods of time impresses me more.
 
Are you kidding? Weeks at #1 means nothing compared to the Grand Slam, which would assure Serena ranked as one of the GOAT. But, I don;t see her winning it, so that will not be a point of debate in any case.

Based on absolutely nothing but a feeling. And I'm the one with the irrational shtick!

But hey, it's alright. Let's shake hands and never discuss this topic again. :)
 
Well, obviously. Based on what he said, that is.
;):confused:

Weeks at no 1 became meaningless after it changed in 1996(i think 96/7)
and a lot of players could become no 1 withought winning or holding any majors or even the biggest titles. It just became all about how many tournaments you could play and in the case of woz to make the semi's at least as much as possible. Also the fact that those no 1 players who ended up being slamless got their no 1's from the injured real no 1's and still couldn't capitalise winning majors.
 
In some ways. Sharapova has no consistency what so ever. That tells me alot. But i was talking about the calendar slam. I just dont put as much importance on that as weeks at number 1 or career slams.
Well pova had mostly been in the shadow of an all time goat and other great player. Plus she's actually more consistent than woz.
Woz became no 1 all because serena got an life threatning injury.
 
;):confused:

Weeks at no 1 became meaningless after it changed in 1996(i think 96/7)
and a lot of players could become no 1 withought winning or holding any majors or even the biggest titles. It just became all about how many tournaments you could play and in the case of woz to make the semi's at least as much as possible. Also the fact that those no 1 players who ended up being slamless got their no 1's from the injured real no 1's and still couldn't capitalise winning majors.

I don't mind players getting recognition for different kinds of achievements. Why not? Not everyone is realistically in contention for 20+ Slams. I just wish a player I liked better had done it instead of Safina or Wozniacki (like Dementieva or Safarova). That's my only complaint.
 
I don't mind players getting recognition for different kinds of achievements. Why not? Not everyone is realistically in contention for 20+ Slams. I just wish a player I liked better had done it instead of Safina or Wozniacki (like Dementieva or Safarova). That's my only complaint.
True. I'd definetly would have preferred dementieva. She was really strong of the ground and one of the most athletic girls ever in the game. So much talent and yet no slam and only an olympic gold to show for it.
 
True. I'd definetly would have preferred dementieva. She was really strong of the ground and one of the most athletic girls ever in the game. So much talent and yet no slam and only an olympic gold to show for it.
If u think about how many really good Russian players there have been but none really great except maybe sharapova its kinda strange. Russian players have weird careers.
 
Well pova had mostly been in the shadow of an all time goat and other great player. Plus she's actually more consistent than woz.
Woz became no 1 all because serena got an life threatning injury.
Wozniacki made her name by benefiting from the absence of Williams in 2010/11 and now they are best friends
Sharapova made her name by beating Williams at Wimbledon 2004 and now they hate each other
Figure that one...
 
I think azerenka, keys, Stephens are probably bigger threats than bencic at this point as a slam. Bencic's big advantage is getv recent win but if history holds up, that's actually not a good predictor of as future win

Especially keys who had the serve and powerful groundies to hurt Serena

Keys is still too much of a head case to beat Serena, IMO(the one win was years ago and had extenuating circumstances).
 
I don't mind players getting recognition for different kinds of achievements. Why not? Not everyone is realistically in contention for 20+ Slams.

Well, they should try, and not be content with just winning every other event or getting a #1 ranking. The majors are the majors. There's no way Caroline Wozniacki is content with that once-held ranking. She competes because she desires majors. Only a fool like Safina made the statement:

People will remember you by number one, not by winning a grand slam

She deserved the criticism for that statement, as it flies in the face of all of those champions who fought to win majors. All of that history.
 
Well, they should try, and not be content with just winning every other event or getting a #1 ranking. The majors are the majors. There's no way Caroline Wozniacki is content with that once-held ranking. She competes because she desires majors. Only a fool like Safina made the statement:



She deserved the criticism for that statement, as it flies in the face of all of those champions who fought to win majors. All of that history.

She DID win Rome and Madrid. ;)
 
Back
Top