Indian Wells -- 5th Slam (WTA)

[tacou]

There are frequently conversations about Indian Wells, and to a lesser extent Miami (these days anyways), being a 5th slam, including this ongoing one. However, these threads almost always view things from an ATP perspective.

Women's majors are best of 3 sets, just like the masters, making me wonder, is winning IW (especially unseeded) a comparable, or even equal, achievement to winning the AO or USO on the WTA tour?

Consider Daniela Hantuchova. Her career highlights are far and away victories at 2002 and 2007 Indian Wells. Here's who she beat:

2002, seeded 18th--Bye, Poutchek, (16) Schett, (3) Henin, (12) Raymond, Gagliardi, (2) Hingis [top seed Clisjters lost in the second round, 4th seed Seles lost in the semis)
2007, seeded 14th--Bye, Kanepi, (18) Schiavone, (3) Hingis, (11) Pe'er, (12) Na, (2) Kuznetsova [top seed Sharapova lost in the fourth round]

I think the biggest knock is that the Williams sisters, the two best players of recent times, were not playing the event for so long. Still, outside of prestige/historical significance, is it much harder to win one of the hard court majors compared to IW, or Miami?

 

[insideguy]

There are frequently conversations about Indian Wells, and to a lesser extent Miami (these days anyways), being a 5th slam, including this ongoing one. However, these threads almost always view things from an ATP perspective.

Women's majors are best of 3 sets, just like the masters, making me wonder, is winning IW (especially unseeded) a comparable, or even equal, achievement to winning the AO or USO on the WTA tour?

Consider Daniela Hantuchova. Her career highlights are far and away victories at 2002 and 2007 Indian Wells. Here's who she beat:

2002, seeded 18th--Bye, Poutchek, (16) Schett, (3) Henin, (12) Raymond, Gagliardi, (2) Hingis [top seed Clisjters lost in the second round, 4th seed Seles lost in the semis)
2007, seeded 14th--Bye, Kanepi, (18) Schiavone, (3) Hingis, (11) Pe'er, (12) Na, (2) Kuznetsova [top seed Sharapova lost in the fourth round]

I think the biggest knock is that the Williams sisters, the two best players of recent times, were not playing the event for so long. Still, outside of prestige/historical significance, is it much harder to win one of the hard court majors compared to IW, or Miami?

Well not really but it is a little easier as the top women get byes in first round. Although they dont have as many days off tween matches so i guess maybe its a wash.

 

[Vanhool]

No, Miami is the 5th slam. It has a longer history and, more importantly, Serena has won it 8 times!

 

[tacou]

No, Miami is the 5th slam. It has a longer history and, more importantly, Serena has won it 8 times!

For sure, Miami fits the description as well, and with the Williams sisters playing it's definitely a stronger field.
Top seeds play one fewer match compared to the majors, true, but how often do the Williams/Sharapovas/Henins lose opening round matches at majors anyways?
Six matches across 9-10 days, 96 person draw ... when you remove the best of 5 vs. best of 3 situation on the men's side, I feel both IW/Miami take on a bit more significance.

 

[Vanhool]

I think slams are more important/difficult because no first round bye (for the top players) and because everyone saves their best for the slams. That's where history is made and that's where everyone brings their best.

And if #AngieB were still here, ahe would say something about the #ITFHallOfFame and #Don'tMajorInMinors

 

[insideguy]

For sure, Miami fits the description as well, and with the Williams sisters playing it's definitely a stronger field.
Top seeds play one fewer match compared to the majors, true, but how often do the Williams/Sharapovas/Henins lose opening round matches at majors anyways?
Six matches across 9-10 days, 96 person draw ... when you remove the best of 5 vs. best of 3 situation on the men's side, I feel both IW/Miami take on a bit more significance.

No doubt they are simliar in structure. One could probably argue that the slams have much more pressure placed upon the individual players though.

 

[tacou]

I think slams are more important/difficult because no first round bye (for the top players) and because everyone saves their best for the slams. That's where history is made and that's where everyone brings their best.

And if #AngieB were still here, ahe would say something about the #ITFHallOfFame and #Don'tMajorInMinors

Haha...Please, let the hashtags R.I.P.
Again, no way around the Byes. If you are a top 32 seed, you only need to win 6, not 7.
But as for making history, you yourself mentioned Serena has won there 8 times. That'd make Miami her most dominant slam.
Basically, if you want to win Miami these days, you usually have to go through the best.

That said, I don't see Wozniacki ever taking Serena out 6-4 6-4 in a grand slam QF.
Just an interesting take for me, as the ATP version of this conversation never really gets too far because of the Best of 5 thing.

 

[dgold44]

IW is far bigger and nicer than Miami

Cincy is nice too and quick

 

[123456789]

The 5th slam is Cincy. This is the reason why Djokovic even fails to receive GOAT consideration

 

[insideguy]

IW is far bigger and nicer than Miami

Cincy is nice too and quick

Yes but miami is in well....miami

 

[dgold44]

Yes but miami is in well....miami

True

I sat 4 rows behind Larry Ellison and his 4 body guards

 

[every7]

I'd never thought of it like this from a WTA perspective. I did think of IW as a huge tournament, so this idea convinces me more of it's importance.

When Panetta won IW, I thought the difference is that she could win this but never a major, and we know how that ended haha.

If Serena had suffered an experience like she had at Indian Wells at a major, and it remained unresolved as it did at IW, do you think she would have skipped the tournament for 10 years?

 

[Vanhool]

If Serena had suffered an experience like she had at Indian Wells at a major, and it remained unresolved as it did at IW, do you think she would have skipped the tournament for 10 years?

I don't think she would have skipped a slam for 14 years, and to me that shows how much less important these tournaments are to the players. Yes they are difficult and they are prestigious, but it's not the same. I do think of the players who win these tournaments as being of a higher caliber than those who haven't. I do think they are important (all of the Tier I/PM/P5s, though some are less impressive than others).

 

[Vanhool]

The 5th slam is Cincy. This is the reason why Djokovic even fails to receive GOAT consideration

Lol.

But seriously, I got to attend Cincy and it was epic and awesome! But I also got the distinct impression that most of the players were holding back a little, trying to keep something in the tank for NYC.

 

[Vanhool]

No doubt they are simliar in structure. One could probably argue that the slams have much more pressure placed upon the individual players though.

Yes, I meant to say that too. The pressure is way heavier.

 

[dgold44]

Lol.

But seriously, I got to attend Cincy and it was epic and awesome! But I also got the distinct impression that most of the players were holding back a little, trying to keep something in the tank for NYC.

Cincy is a warm up
IW is its own event

 

[dgold44]

Silly idea to have a major slam in Ohio ???

Why not put it in a major country like Germany ???

 

[dgold44]

I love cincy open and had great time there

 

[Man of steel]

There are frequently conversations about Indian Wells, and to a lesser extent Miami (these days anyways), being a 5th slam, including this ongoing one. However, these threads almost always view things from an ATP perspective.

Women's majors are best of 3 sets, just like the masters, making me wonder, is winning IW (especially unseeded) a comparable, or even equal, achievement to winning the AO or USO on the WTA tour?

Consider Daniela Hantuchova. Her career highlights are far and away victories at 2002 and 2007 Indian Wells. Here's who she beat:

2002, seeded 18th--Bye, Poutchek, (16) Schett, (3) Henin, (12) Raymond, Gagliardi, (2) Hingis [top seed Clisjters lost in the second round, 4th seed Seles lost in the semis)
2007, seeded 14th--Bye, Kanepi, (18) Schiavone, (3) Hingis, (11) Pe'er, (12) Na, (2) Kuznetsova [top seed Sharapova lost in the fourth round]

I think the biggest knock is that the Williams sisters, the two best players of recent times, were not playing the event for so long. Still, outside of prestige/historical significance, is it much harder to win one of the hard court majors compared to IW, or Miami?

If you look at the past winners of Miami and IW on the womens side you'd find that miami is the far more prestigious tournament.
Only 1 person has won miami that has never won a slam which was radwanska back in 2012.
While IW has multiple non slam winners and even non slam finalist winners.
Besides radwanksa miami has only ever been won by a multiple slam champion.

 

[dgold44]

If you look at the past winners of Miami and IW on the womens side you'd find that miami is the far more prestigious tournament.
Only 1 person has won miami that has never won a slam which was radwanska back in 2012.
While IW has multiple non slam winners and even non slam finalist winners.
Besides radwanksa miami has only ever been won by a multiple slam champion.

IW is much newer and bigger facilitates

Notice why Fed skips Miami a lot

Cincy is most historic and old
As old as us open almost

 

[Man of steel]

IW is much newer and bigger facilitates

Notice why Fed skips Miami a lot

Cincy is most historic and old
As old as us open almost

Did i mention anything to do with ATP. Fed skipping miami is his problem. Maybe the fact that he's not as effective there as he used to be and playing two PM's back to back isn't good for him now that he's in his 30's. IW has the benifit of coming before miami so naturally one can play IW and skip miami if its too much for someone.

Again no one is talking about cinci. When its months after miami/IW. This is about the prestige of IW/Miami on the womens tour. I'm simply stating miami is more prestigous on the womens side than on the mens where its the reverse.

 

[Man of steel]

And to answer op's question...it really depends. Sometimes its harder sometimes its not.
Just look at serena's draw in miami 2002. Imagine getting that in a slam. Beating the worlds top 3 players in the Qf, SF, and final.

 

[Bender]

I think slams are more important/difficult because no first round bye (for the top players) and because everyone saves their best for the slams. That's where history is made and that's where everyone brings their best.

And if #AngieB were still here, ahe would say something about the #ITFHallOfFame and #Don'tMajorInMinors

Heh, I thought this forum seemed to be less visually-draining. What happened, did she get banned?

 

[tacou]

If you look at the past winners of Miami and IW on the womens side you'd find that miami is the far more prestigious tournament.
Only 1 person has won miami that has never won a slam which was radwanska back in 2012.
While IW has multiple non slam winners and even non slam finalist winners.
Besides radwanksa miami has only ever been won by a multiple slam champion.

That's true, though Halep could very well go on to win some slams, Mary Jo was no schlub, and Zvonareva/Jankovic were playing basically the best tennis of their lives.
The latter two are actually sort of reason (not specifically, just in spirit) I started this thread; definitely the biggest title of their careers, along with Hantuchova, and I'm wondering exactly how distinct we should consider the win compared to the AO/USO. I agree it is not equal, but I think it's a step above winning some of the d32 an d64 masters events.

I totally admit I have no idea who Manuel Maleeva is, but that was the first year!*
*She had a pretty solid GS career herself.

 

[dgold44]

Did i mention anything to do with ATP. Fed skipping miami is his problem. Maybe the fact that he's not as effective there as he used to be and playing two PM's back to back isn't good for him now that he's in his 30's. IW has the benifit of coming before miami so naturally one can play IW and skip miami if its too much for someone.

Again no one is talking about cinci. When its months after miami/IW. This is about the prestige of IW/Miami on the womens tour. I'm simply stating miami is more prestigous on the womens side than on the mens where its the reverse.

I agree !!!

 

[Soianka]

I love cincy open and had great time there

I've been there too in 2013 and it was really nice.

 

[captainbryce]

There are frequently conversations about Indian Wells, and to a lesser extent Miami (these days anyways), being a 5th slam, including this ongoing one. However, these threads almost always view things from an ATP perspective.

Women's majors are best of 3 sets, just like the masters, making me wonder, is winning IW (especially unseeded) a comparable, or even equal, achievement to winning the AO or USO on the WTA tour?

Consider Daniela Hantuchova. Her career highlights are far and away victories at 2002 and 2007 Indian Wells. Here's who she beat:

2002, seeded 18th--Bye, Poutchek, (16) Schett, (3) Henin, (12) Raymond, Gagliardi, (2) Hingis [top seed Clisjters lost in the second round, 4th seed Seles lost in the semis)
2007, seeded 14th--Bye, Kanepi, (18) Schiavone, (3) Hingis, (11) Pe'er, (12) Na, (2) Kuznetsova [top seed Sharapova lost in the fourth round]

I think the biggest knock is that the Williams sisters, the two best players of recent times, were not playing the event for so long. Still, outside of prestige/historical significance, is it much harder to win one of the hard court majors compared to IW, or Miami?

Three things,

1) Despite Serena and Venus being absent from Indian Wells for so long, beating the likes of Henin, Hingis, Li Na, and Kuznetsov (all multiple grand slam champions), especially having to go through two of them to win the title is a huge accomplishment in its own. Those were all top tier players, and certainly (on paper) superior, more accomplished players than Hantuchova. So she should get recognized for that.

2) Miami is a tournament that featured all of the top women players over the years (including the Williams sisters). Granted, they've dominated that tournament (especially Serena who wins it most years she plays it). But outside of the 4 majors, it has certainly garnered the strongest fields, on par with the majors

3) Here's the caveat for IW and Miami: when you compare them to the majors, the top players play one less round. They don't get a "buy" in the first round. You actually have to win 7 matches, and most likely have to face at least 2 or more top ten players to do it. There are more opponents you have to face, and therefore more potential for an upset.

 

[tacou]

Three things,

1) Despite Serena and Venus being absent from Indian Wells for so long, beating the likes of Henin, Hingis, Li Na, and Kuznetsov (all multiple grand slam champions), especially having to go through two of them to win the title is a huge accomplishment in its own. Those were all top tier players, and certainly (on paper) superior, more accomplished players than Hantuchova. So she should get recognized for that.

2) Miami is a tournament that featured all of the top women players over the years (including the Williams sisters). Granted, they've dominated that tournament (especially Serena who wins it most years she plays it). But outside of the 4 majors, it has certainly garnered the strongest fields, on par with the majors

3) Here's the caveat for IW and Miami: when you compare them to the majors, the top players play one less round. They don't get a "buy" in the first round. You actually have to win 7 matches, and most likely have to face at least 2 or more top ten players to do it. There are more opponents you have to face, and therefore more potential for an upset.

Yep, I pretty much agree with all of that.

#1 I was just pointing out if IW was officially a major, I don't think any political dust up would lead to the world's 2 best players skipping it for 10 years or whatever. Like you said, Daniela not only played some great players, she duffed up Henin, Hingis twice, and Kuznetsova.
#2 As far as this thread is concerned, I see Miami and IW as equals. I think IW has become the "bigger" tournament in the last few years, but in the past Miami had the upper hand.
#3 Yep, this is of course the deal breaker, the Bye round. Like I said, the top 8-16 players, even in the surprising WTA, rarely lose in that first round. Doesn't change the fact you still have to play it, or even might suffer an injury/play a depleting three setter that screws you for the rest of the tourney.

Also forgot to mention, no tiebreaks at three of the women's majors.
IW is not a major, I get it, but I think Hantuchova being a 2 time champion is pretty dang impressive, more so than her Australian Open SF run.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The 5th slam is Cincy. This is the reason why Djokovic even fails to receive GOAT consideration

Yes, we need to bring Djokovic into every thread.

 

[tacou]

Yes, we need to bring Djokovic into every thread.

Well this is a WTA thread so Djokovic is welcome ;]

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Well this is a WTA thread so Djokovic is welcome ;]

Well since Djokovic is welcome, I sometimes smile at all the unique ways he goes about telling why a tournament is so special to him.

AO - This is my favorite court, where I had most of my slam success.
IW - This tournament is special to me, because it was the first big tournament that I played in final
Miami - This tournament is special to me, because it was the first big title I won
MC - This tournament is special to me, because this is my second home, I live and practice here
Rome - This tournament is special to me because I came here to practice when I was young
W - This tournament is most special to me, because it was the one event I wanted to win when I was a kid
Doha - This trophy is special to me because I grandfather called me Hawk when I young
Beijing - This tournament is special to me, because this court has been so good for my game

And the list goes on.

 

[dgold44]

I am on court 3

I like to text between games

Off to serve

 

[captainbryce]

Well since Djokovic is welcome, I sometimes smile at all the unique ways he goes about telling why a tournament is so special to him.

AO - This is my favorite court, where I had most of my slam success.
IW - This tournament is special to me, because it was the first big tournament that I played in final
Miami - This tournament is special to me, because it was the first big title I won
MC - This tournament is special to me, because this is my second home, I live and practice here
Rome - This tournament is special to me because I came here to practice when I was young
W - This tournament is most special to me, because it was the one event I wanted to win when I was a kid
Doha - This trophy is special to me because I grandfather called me Hawk when I young
Beijing - This tournament is special to me, because this court has been so good for my game

And the list goes on.

That's pretty funny.