WTA Tour/Non-India Fed Cup

[Atithee]

PKB, as I have written before, Sania' s performances against Serena and win against Kuznetsova were probably simply a matter of arrogance by the opposition or novelty factor. It is not that Sania wasn't good, but you can't necessarily read what you are trying to imply in those performances. The fact remains that Sania won a solitary WTA title, which was a low level tournament. To be honest, she had one or two good hard court US seasons that kept her in the rankings, but she was rarely consistent enough to bet the house on her likelihood of reaching top 10.

[PKBasu]

We can agree to disagree on this. But Sania not only beat Kuznetsova at Dubai, in their next meeting at Wimbledon (Centre Court, round 2) she played superbly again, taking a set off her -- and this could no longer be deemed a novelty factor, as they had played each other once before. I was there, and it was breathtaking tennis. She was 18+ at the time, and one could legitimately expect her then to be a future Slam singles contender in the future. That hard court season was superb too and she made R4 (pre-quarterfinal!) of the US Open that year.

[Prashant]

I love how you see the rosy side of everything PKB. But Sania's game back when she was 18 was completely based on a hit-or-miss go-for-broke approach. She didn't construct points at all, just waled an attempted winner at the earliest opportunity. When it worked, it was thoroughly spectacular, and capable of taking down top players. But the chances of it ever working for five or six matches in a row was basically zero. All the top players would have figured it out by the second time they played her.

[gbelday]

Whatever it was, it worked for a long time and she continues to have success on the tour even today (doubles). Am I disappointed at her and her team for not getting a full time coach during her prime? Yes, absolutely. But to belittle her achievements when others who have followed her (or not) have had so little success to show for is what I don't quite agree with. Yes, she could have been more successful with better coaching and planning but those are the only things I'll fault her on. It's a damn tough sport to succeed in and I don't think we are anywhere close to naming her replacement yet.

[Prashant]

Gautam, I have absolutely no argument with anything you say. At the same time, it doesn't help to be unrealistic. She was a solid pro, worth her ranking. She was not a potential GS winner. There's a difference.

[gbelday]

Prashant, I think she had the raw talent and the potential to win a GS. I don't think money was an issue either. I am in that camp which believes that with the right training and support staff, she could have won more WTA titles and maybe a GS. Li Na did it twice and I don't think Sania was that much behind in terms of talent. But the fault is entirely hers and her teams. You can't blame injuries for the lack of success. Training right is a big part of achieving success.

[Prashant]

We'll have to agree to partially disagree then. I do think she could have won a lot more with proper coaching et al, but I don't think she ever showed any indication of being of GS winner quality.

[Atithee]

GS = Four Slams

[suresh]

GS = Four Slams

?

[Atithee]

Just pointing out that expecting Sania to win a singles slam is a super stretch itself; winning a GS (that is all the four majors in one calendar year) is ______________ (fill in the blank with the hyperbole of your choice).

One thing that sticks in my memory of even Sania's best days is her inability to beat Anna Chakvetadze. I have watched enough tennis to say that Sania never had all the ingredients to be even a top-10 player, let alone a slam winner. That she never even progressed to a quarter- or semi-final of a slam is pretty telling, as is the FACT that she didn't win any WTA titles in her long singles career except that one in India. Rest is all coulda, woulda, shoulda -- all of which count for nothing. I guess I will join the agree to disagree crowd.

[kujo]

Atithee,

The term "Grand slam" is often used (actually 90% of time), to mean a single Major.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

The term Grand Slam also, and originally, refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships in a single calendar year within one of the five disciplines

kujo

ps: I know the other 10% usage as you described as well. gautam was using the 90% context of that word "Grand Slam"....

[Atithee]

Kujo, OK. This is a diversion from the original topic anyway, which itself is a diversion from the title of the thread. I got sucked into this argument. I am gonna unsuck (extract) myself. It is best to let this topic RIP. Sania is not playing singles anymore, so why waste precious energy on speculating how good she could have been.

[prashanthm]

The term "Grand slam" is often used (actually 90% of time), to mean a single Major.

Although it is used in practice, it is technically incorrect. The correct usage is 'Grand Slam Event'....

[gbelday]

Yes, by GS, I meant one Grand Slam Event (on hard courts). Agree with Atithee that we should let this topic RIP. And mods, please feeel free to move this discussion out of this thread.

I look at players like Marion Bartoli, Li Na and even Samantha Stosur who I never expected to win a GS event but they went on to. Sam especially (who has a great serve) worked very hard on her fitnesss and has most of her successes in her later part of her career.

Without results to show for, it's tough to argue in favor. My main arguement is that results don't come before they actually come. Having talent and potential is one thing but if you don't work on translating that potential, then there wil be nothing to show for. It is important to recognize early that hard work, proper planning, and the right training/coaching are very important. I remember an interview in which dad Mr. Mirza regretted not getting a full time coach early in her career (and also something about their lack of knowledge on biomechanics).

[PKBasu]

Sania WAS three years younger than Li Na when she lost that final a decade ago. In retrospect, I do wish that Sania had put together a physical training team that could have prolonged her singles career. If she had improved her serve a bit, I think Sania could have been a top-10 singles player -- and possibly a contender for atleast one Slam singles title.

That she played so superbly against Serena Williams when Sania was just 18 -- and that, later in the year, she beat the reigning US Open champion (Kuznetsova) at Dubai, when she herself was just 18+ -- suggested that she might have had the potential to win a Slam. But it would have required a completely revamped and professional team of the sort that the top pros have at their disposal.

Just highlighting what I said: IF she had improved her serve and put together a professional physical-training team, she COULD have been a top-10 singles player -- and possibly a contender for atleast one Slam singles title.

I didn't say Grand Slam, of course! I think (given my reputation as the resident optimist here) people tend to take my nuanced sentences and assume I am saying more than I am...

Happy to let this topic die here.