Australian Open 2010

[Mertov]

First Slam of the year is beginning Sunday evening US time (7:00 PM ESPN).

I was going to write my thoughts but I thought Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim did it pretty good. I don't agree with his choice to win the Men's Side (Novak Djokovic) but I agree pretty much with the rest of his thoughts on the players.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ort/index.html

Fabrice Santoro playing one more Slam? Wow! This is his 4th decade as a player (played his first Roland Garros in 1989).

Mert

[Marc]

Excited for the first Slam, though it's too bad we have to wait several months for the French! Hopefully it'll air at a reasonable time on TV...

[Mertov]

It's on ESPN2 pretty much every evening, and then again during the day (afternoon). Sharapova is out the very first day of the tournament, she lost to Kirilenko. Somehow,it does not seem like that big a surprise. Roddick has moved on to the second round. But mos of the play on the first day has been sporadic due to rain moving in and out of the area.

Mert

[Marc]

Ya, I saw some of the Sharapova match. Big fan of Kirilenko, she's a cutie. Are Sharapova's injuries going to end her career early? She's only turning 23 and already seems like her best days are behind her. It's disappointing.

[Mertov]

Some big upsets on the women's side, but the men's seeds are moving through without much difficulty. Second week is going to be fun.

Mert

[Mertov]

Sidenote: How long will it take for Dick Enberg to learn how to pronounce Nadal correctly? That the second "A" of Nadal is not an "O"?

Mert

[Mertov]

Serena defeats Henin to take the title.

Murray to face Federer for the men's title. It's either #16 for Federer or #1 for Murray.

Mert E.

[Brad O.]

Where do you all think Serena ranks now on the all-time list of greatest women's players? This was her 12th Slam (tying Billie Jean King), and she's the rare contemporary player who is also an elite performer in doubles, winning her 11th Slam title with Venus this week.

I'm still partial to Navratilova, Evert, Graf, and Margaret Court Smith at the top, but I don't know that I'd put Serena any lower than 5th at this point. Monica Seles will always be hard to evaluate because of the way her career was derailed in its prime.

I don't hold this view myself, but I don't think it would be ludicrous to argue that Serena has a case now as the best female tennis player in the history of the sport.

[Marc]

Don't you think there was a lot more competition in the '70s, '80s, and '90s than now? The women's game has few dominant players, that has to contribute. But I really like Serena and would yield the floor to Mert on this.

Federer wins another Slam. Every year, people say he is done being great, and he keeps winning. Now with Nadal out with injuries (and his career in serious jeopardy), Federer has a clear path to more majors this year.

Looks like more of the same in tennis, with Federer and the Williams sisters... yawn...

[Brad O.]

Originally Posted by Marc

Don't you think there was a lot more competition in the '70s, '80s, and '90s than now? The women's game has few dominant players, that has to contribute. But I really like Serena and would yield the floor to Mert on this.

You're right that it's hard not to think slams were harder to win from the late '60s to mid '80s. I started to write a response arguing otherwise, and it got so long I just submitted it as an article instead. The short version is that I think there was actually a lot less competition then, though perhaps at a slightly lower level. There's no Evert to Serena's Navratilova. There are, however, a lot of Goolagongs and Mandlikovas.

Federer wins another Slam. Every year, people say he is done being great, and he keeps winning.

Just the last two years, really. I don't think anyone suggested that before Nadal beat him at Wimbledon 2008.

Looks like more of the same in tennis, with Federer and the Williams sisters... yawn...

Eh, I wouldn't count out Murray and Djokovic. Someone like Tsonga or Roddick or Cilic always has the potential to make a run, and if Nadal is healthy for Roland Garros...

I'd be surprised if a Williams wins the French or US Open. The returns of Henin and Clijsters make things more interesting, I think. Justine is probably the favorite for Roland Garros. Would you agree with that, Mert?

[Mertov]

Sorry guys, it's bad when you can't check one of your favorite boards because you are too occupied by library and research books !!!

Brad I feel that Serean has a bit more to go to crack the Margaret Court/Martina Navratilova/Steffi Graf group. Especially the Slam success of Court and Graf are outrageous (not to mention their calendar Grand Slam, the hardest accomplishment in tennis).

However one could argue, although it would be a subjective argument, that at 5-5, 30-all in the third set you would rather have Serena on your side than anyone else. She is as mentally tough if not tougher than anyone I have ever seen on the women's tour.

With Henin and Clijsters back, the road is a bit tougher for her now. But at this point, she is the number one player in the world without a doubt. Henin and Clijsters' successes combined with Serena's dominance in the Slams as of late shows that the group of newcomers on the WTA side that were so highly publicized, are not that great after all.

Take care
Mert E.

[Brad O.]

Originally Posted by Mertov

Brad I feel that Serean has a bit more to go to crack the Margaret Court/Martina Navratilova/Steffi Graf group.

I agree, but I do think she's solidly in the Billie Jean King/Monica Seles group. And, given the depth of the women's game, I understand why someone might argue that Serena's 12 Slams today are comparable to Court's 24 decades ago. Court won the Australian 11 times in an age when some top players still didn't even attend. Personally, I still rank Court, et al., ahead of Serena. I do think it's getting close. She's clearly the dominant player of her era.

Originally Posted by Mertov

Especially the Slam success of Court and Graf are outrageous (not to mention their calendar Grand Slam, the hardest accomplishment in tennis).

Serena has the Grand Slam, too. Or by "calendar slam", are you excluding the "Serena Slam" from 2002-03? I don't see what's harder or more impressive about winning the Australian as the first of four in a row rather than the last of four in a row.

[Mertov]

Hi Brad,

No I don't count it as a "Grand Slam". If it was a "Grand Slam" then we would say "Serena has a Grand Slam" and not a "Serena slam" or a "Non-calender-year Grand Slam"

If we are going to start calling things "just as impressive" because they are "close to a true Grand Slam", then I would have to call Federer's 10 Slam finals in a row just as impressive if not more, or find the fact that he is two sets away from being on a current 6 Slams in a row streak just as impressive.

Furthermore, if we categorize Serena's slam just as impressive as a Grand Slam, then Martina Navratilova's 6 Slams in a row would be the biggest accomplishment in the history of tennis and would eclipse both.

The truth is neither Federer, nor Serena, nor Martina have accomplished what Graf, Court and Laver have: the Grand Slam.

Mert E.

[Brad O.]

Originally Posted by Mertov

No I don't count it as a "Grand Slam". If it was a "Grand Slam" then we would say "Serena has a Grand Slam" and not a "Serena slam" or a "Non-calender-year Grand Slam"

Well, that's tough to argue with. Touché.

Originally Posted by Mertov

If we are going to start calling things "just as impressive" because they are "close to a true Grand Slam", then I would have to call Federer's 10 Slam finals in a row just as impressive if not more, or find the fact that he is two sets away from being on a current 6 Slams in a row streak just as impressive.

Furthermore, if we categorize Serena's slam just as impressive as a Grand Slam, then Martina Navratilova's 6 Slams in a row would be the biggest accomplishment in the history of tennis and would eclipse both.

The truth is neither Federer, nor Serena, nor Martina have accomplished what Graf, Court and Laver have: the Grand Slam.

I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, I do think Martina's 6 in a row is more impressive than a Grand Slam, and I do think the Serena Slam is equally impressive. Winning four Slams in a row isn't more impressive because you started in Australia rather than Roland Garros; it's an equally difficult achievement either way.

[Mertov]

True enough Brad, you make good points at the end.

Too bad that there is not a "distinguished" name for 4 Slams in a row or that the number of Slams in a row, for some reason, has never reached the status of a Grand Slam or total number of Slams (like 16 of Federer, 14 of Sampras etc.)

If you ever write to ATP and WTA for the recognition of this status, I would be the first sign under it and support it.

Mert E.