PDA

View Full Version : Venus not "clutch"


Coria
02-21-2005, 08:04 AM
Venus Williams will never go down as one of the all-time greats. She has consistenly shown over and over again that 80 plus percent of the time, she simply can't rise to the occasion. After 2000, it looked like she could be a double digit grand slam winner and maybe someday be put in that top 10 class.

But, her game has not improved. She has never developed a consistent second serve and forehand--particulary under stress and pressure. She has not learned to attack the net at an elite level and close points off--not to mention taking advantage of her huge wingspan.

She is not a particulary intelligent player, often staying with a strategy that won't allow her to overtake an opponent. She has not developed great touch on the court, something that is long overdue in her game.

Under pressure, she usually fails to seize the moment and comes up small--as she did AGAIN yesterday to Mauresmo--also somebody who is often not very good in pressure matches. Venus has underachieved in her career and will never even come close to approaching the mental toughness of her younger sister and the game's all time greats.

goober
02-21-2005, 08:09 AM
Tell us how you really feel :D

I agree that Serena >Venus

But Venus will hang around the top 10-15 for a long while.

Coria
02-21-2005, 08:15 AM
So what? She was one in the world for several years and she's only 25 years old. Top 10-15? Not real good considering she should be BETTER now than four years ago.

goober
02-21-2005, 08:31 AM
So what is exactly right. Dude you sound like you are personally offended by her lack of improvement in her game. I could personally care less. I would rather watch more interesting players anyways.

Coria
02-21-2005, 08:39 AM
Hey, it's a public forum deal right? I really don't care that much either. I'm just making a point that Venus' act has gotten old. Believe me, I'm not going to spend time thinking about it. It was just on my mind after seeing her come up small again. Peace.

Chadwixx
02-21-2005, 08:41 AM
what most ppl dont understand about the williams sisters is their lack of match play. since venus was 10 til pro she didnt play matches, im even not sure if serena ever played a tournament before she was pro. match play = a mental game, anyone that plays tennis knows this.

congrats to venus though for making it to the finals

"She played great and deserved the title,'' Williams said.

hopefully some of that will rub off on her little/BIG sister

Coria
02-21-2005, 08:58 AM
I will agree that Venus does have a bit more class than Serena, but there were plenty of times in the past where Venus would talk more about her own poor play than congratulate her opponent. She has matured into a better person--just not a better player.

Brettolius
02-21-2005, 09:42 AM
i guess losing more and more often forces you to admit that you are getting beat some of the time. because if if you are losing as much as she has been (compared to the past) and saying you just played poorly, that's admitting after a time that you just suck rather than got beat. i'd rather be under the impression that i'm getting beat in big matches than choking and playing like crap.

Camilio Pascual
02-22-2005, 06:36 AM
Venus Williams will never go down as one of the all-time greats.

You are wrong now and you would have been wrong 2 years ago.
In singles, she has 4 Majors titles and Olympic Gold.
In doubles, she has 6 Majors titles, a career Grand Slam, and Olympic Gold.
In mixed doubles, she has 2 Majors titles.
That is 12 Majors titles and 2 Olympic Gold.
The only thing delaying her entry into the Hall of Fame is that she is continuing to play tennis. If you are in the HOF, you are one of the all-time greats at something.

davey25
02-22-2005, 07:04 AM
All-time great means top ten usually. She is not and will never be close to a top tenner all time, thus not an all-time great. Hall of Fame makes you an all-time great? So Nancy Richie, Jana Novotna, Ann Jones, and Virginia Wade are all time greats in tennis? Great players yes, but not all-timers by any means. The hall of means means you are of a certain level of greatness, it can still be below that of an all-time great, Venus will be a hall of famer but never an all-time great.

laurie
02-22-2005, 07:13 AM
This is an interseting thread. It could be that things haven't clicked for Venus because of lack of matches and low confidence. If she keeps playing and getting far in tournaments, that confidence could come back. I agree though that her second serve needs some work but when I look at women players, a lot of them seem to have flaws somehere compared to the men. So I think it really comes down to confidence and belief that she still belongs in the top five and winning big tournaments. If she gets that back I think she can still do well. Davenport has got back to the top so anything is possible.

Yesss - I know Davenport put in a miserable performance in the Aussie final but she got there and was number one in the world.

davey25
02-22-2005, 07:41 AM
Davenport still hasnt wont a major in 5 full years, and has reached only 1 slam final in the last 4 years. Her #1 ranking was a result of the ridiculous ranking system now in place.

Venus will not get back to the top 5, and heaven forbid win a major tournament, unless she hires a new coach to fix her second serve and forehand. I know she wont and she wont be able to do either.

Rabbit
02-22-2005, 08:53 AM
what most ppl dont understand about the williams sisters is their lack of match play. since venus was 10 til pro she didnt play matches, im even not sure if serena ever played a tournament before she was pro. match play = a mental game, anyone that plays tennis knows this.

congrats to venus though for making it to the finals

"She played great and deserved the title,'' Williams said.

hopefully some of that will rub off on her little/BIG sister

Chadwixx- well said.

Venus and Serena have been doing exceptionally well considering they are both part-time pros. I think both of them have discovered that they are not able to dominate the game being part-time pros and must choose one of three options.

1) Devote the next 5 years to tennis and be a dominate champion
2) Continue to have other interests and not have consistent results on the WTA and accept the fact that they are not the greatest because they lack the drive and desire to be the greatest.
3) Quit the tour all together and pursue their other interests

One of the knocks against Agassi has been his wavering attention to the sport. The same is true of the Williams. That said, Serena is on the top 15 list for Grand Slam titles, tied for 11th with Maria Bueno, Evonne Goolagong, and Dorothy Chambers.

It would appear that Venus has interests that lie in design, both clothes and interiors. Serena, the extrovert of the two, appears to be more Hollywood. The whole time they were coming up, their father always said that Serena would be better than Venus because she was "meaner".

As to the Hall of Fame, both are locks. They are locks because 1) they are black and as such new to the top ranks of the game, and 2) because they are sisters and appeared in four or five straight Grand Slam finals against each other. Think about it, had it not been for Serena, Venus would've won those finals.

Camilio Pascual
02-22-2005, 10:30 AM
All-time great means top ten usually. She is not and will never be close to a top tenner all time, thus not an all-time great. Hall of Fame makes you an all-time great? So Nancy Richie, Jana Novotna, Ann Jones, and Virginia Wade are all time greats in tennis? Great players yes, but not all-timers by any means. The hall of means means you are of a certain level of greatness, it can still be below that of an all-time great, Venus will be a hall of famer but never an all-time great.

Yes, HOF is for all-time greats. I think people forget that for every Jana Novotna or HOF'er, there are thousands of players who did not come even close to their accomplishments. For example, Pete Sampras. He is one of the all-time greats, but not in doubles. Had a really good singles record that Jana cannot match.

Coria
02-22-2005, 11:00 AM
You are wrong now and you would have been wrong 2 years ago.
In singles, she has 4 Majors titles and Olympic Gold.
In doubles, she has 6 Majors titles, a career Grand Slam, and Olympic Gold.
In mixed doubles, she has 2 Majors titles.
That is 12 Majors titles and 2 Olympic Gold.
The only thing delaying her entry into the Hall of Fame is that she is continuing to play tennis. If you are in the HOF, you are one of the all-time greats at something.

You're not serious, are you? I'm talking about singles. there are MANY women who have won way more than 12 total majors. All time greats? Unless she wins a couple more majors and some big events, she's not even in the top 20, maybe even 25 of all time. do you know the game's history?

Dedans Penthouse
02-22-2005, 11:20 AM
sorry...double post....(below)

Dedans Penthouse
02-22-2005, 11:21 AM
You're not serious, are you? I'm talking about singles. there are MANY women who have won way more than 12 total majors. All time greats? Unless she wins a couple more majors and some big events, she's not even in the top 20, maybe even 25 of all time. do you know the game's history?

Name me 19. If you can, she's not top 20.

But "maybe not even 25 of all time?" Name me 24, and I THINK I'll be able to shoot holes in a few of 'em. Oh, btw, does Camilio know the game's history? Yeah, I'd say so. Enough to know, for example, that Coria (for all his '04 hype) has yet to win ONE.

laurie
02-22-2005, 12:35 PM
Why write off players so soon? Things are constantly evolving and changing due to many factors like confidence, injuries to rivals etc. These people are so young it seems strange to write them off. Its really down to them to prove to themselves they could still get the job done. If they do that, they will prove all doubters wrong. Just look at Agassi in 1999, Goran in 2001 and Sampras in 2002.

Camilio Pascual
02-22-2005, 12:49 PM
All-time great means top ten usually. She is not and will never be close to a top tenner all time, thus not an all-time great.

You've added quite a bit of criteria since your original statement such as that above and saying you are now talking about singles. Remember your tennis history, Ann Haydon Jones played Wightman Cup for 13 years when it was a big deal and Davis Cup was a much bigger deal to Americans back then, too. I think your criteria are ridiculously stringent (I certainly wouldn't say Venus is one of the Top 10 all-time female singles players though she played the best tennis by a woman I've ever seen for the summers of 2000 and 2001). Maybe I'm wrong and you're not being too stringent, so here's a test. Name the Top 10 all-time great male players in singles. Now remember, you said all-time, so let's make sure you have about as many players before 1950 (we'll check into your knowledge of tennis history,too) as since. This should be fun and my hat is off to you if you come up with a list, any list. I think you will get a LOT of disagreements with your list. Let's see, off the top of my head: Lendl, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Kramer, Trabert, Hoad, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Emerson, Newcombe....all since WWII and then you've got to go back before that for the other 5. Presumably 11 of those aforementioned players, going by your criteria, are not one of the all-time greats. I'll be interested to see what people think of the 11 you leave off. It will also be interesting to see how many of the players you pick played mainly between 1945 - 1968. This could be a lot of fun and I hope you make a stab at using your own criteria. Who are some of your earlier front runners? Tilden, Sears, Cochet, Budge, Perry, LaCoste, Renshaw (William), Doherty (Laurence), Vacherot, Decugis, Ayme? That is a tough list to figure out since back in those days travel was slow and expensive, few played in more than 2 Majors in a year.
Anyway, let's see your list and maybe I'll have a clear idea of your concept of the Top Ten All-Time Greats. Or make a list of the women, but I'll bet that will be even harder to do.

TommyGun
02-22-2005, 01:03 PM
Truth of the matter is that if you win a major, even one, you are on your way to the Hall of Fame. With the exception of winning the Aussie from 1977-early eighties, if you win a major, you will eventually make it into the hall.

The Williams have stats good enough to put them there. As for how good they were/are, that will always be debated.

Coria
02-22-2005, 07:13 PM
Better all time players than Venus--

1) Graf 2) Martina 3) Evert 4) Margaret Court 5) Gibson 6) Billy Jean 7) Goologong 8) Seles 9) Serena 10) Helen Wills Moody 11) Nancye Wynne Bolton 12) Mo Connolly 13) Suzanne Lenglen 14) Mandlikova (won more tournaments) 15) Davenport (has won more events and has been way more consistent 16) Lotti Dodd 17 ) Dorthea Douglas 18) Justin Henin 19) Sanchez vicario DO YOU WANT ME TO ADD MORE????

Yes, Venus' career is not over but she is not an elite all time great--not even close. Will she make the Hall of Fame? I'm sure she will with her four slams, just like Capriati will with her three, and Novotna did with her one and some final appearances.

I don't dislike Venus--I'm giving an objective opinion based on her career thus far. Her inability to be consistent and improve her game does not bode well for however much longer she decides to play. In the prime of her career, she has regressed--it's as simple as that. You who defend her as a top 10 player are incredibly misguided. Has she had a good career? Of course. But, for her talent, and the promise she showed early, she has underachieved and not become a truly great player.

Camilio Pascual
02-23-2005, 03:38 AM
Nancye Bolton? Nice pick.
I would agree that Venus looks to be a "second tier" HOF'er and Serena will be, too, if she doesn't win about 3 more Majors. But, any HOF'er is one of the all-time greats. Novotna didn't really get into the HOF on her singles credentials, her doubles accomplishments are what got her in.
Here are some other viable candidates with their Majors wins, year of 1st Major win and how many Majors they were RU (if any):
Molla Mallory 8US (1915) 3RU
Suzanne Lenglen 2F 6W (1919)
Dorothea Douglass Chambers 7W (1903) 4RU
Blanche Bingley Hillyard 6W (1886) 7RU
Nancye Bolton 6A (1937) 3RU
Alice Marble 1W 4US (1936)
Charlotte Cooper Sterry 5W (1895) 6RU
Daphne Akhurst 5A (1925)
Helen Jacobs 1W 4US (1932)
Lottie Dod 5W (1887)
Pauline Betz 1W 4US (1942)
Bessie Moore 4US (1896)
Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman 4US (1909)

There are probably 3 or 4 other good candidates I've overlooked. Pro matches amongst the women are even more scarcely documented than among the men. Now, the Majors records of some of these women do not match up to Venus, but players traveled much, much less to other Majors, hardly any one went to Australia for decades and many Americans played just Wimby and the US. So, I would not quibble with Dod, Betz, Moore, and Wightman as being rated above Venus. I see Ann Haydon is 11th all time for women's SF appearances in Collins' book, though the list is from 1925 for some reason. I'm interested to see what Davey 25 comes up with for a list and what it's distribution through the years is.
Kudos to you for doing the work, Coria. I think it is WAY too heavily weighted towards the last 50 years of tennis and you've exceeded the Ten that Davey 25 wants, but I think 10 is too small a number anyway. I think everybody on your list would make my Top 30 except for Henin, Vicario, and maybe Davenport, Gibson, and Goolagong. That is still a pretty high agreement rate.

davey25
02-23-2005, 06:07 AM
I think most people agree tennis greatness is almost exclusively singles success. Doubles greatness is there but another category altogether, more or less. If one chose to factor in doubles equal to singles somehow, it would push Venus past some people she wouldnt otherwise be past, but it would also push people like Elizabeth Ryan, Pam Shriver, Gigi Fernandez, Natalie Zvereva, who wouldnt normally be ahead of her, ahead of her.

davey25
02-23-2005, 06:28 AM
My top ten men:

1)Ken Rosewall-he is the only really hurt by the pro circuit standard
2)Pancho Gonzales-only had so much people didnt see extra due to pro-am split
3)Rod Laver-his 62 split was a sham, but his 69 split was legit in tough field, would not have as many slams as people think with open tennis, but double digits for sure
4)Bill Tilden-dominated Wimbledon and U.S open for long period, albeit in less competitive time, and remained contender for another long period once dominance ceded
5)Pete Sampras-Sorry just dont find him greater than the above with his shabby French Open record(for great standards)at a time all four players were premiere importance. Also never won more than two slams in one year in open era with all four slams of high prestige.
6)Bjorn Borg-unbelievable slam record at French and Wimbledon, less slams than Sampras though with them being only two with benefit of open era tennis. Retired in the face of tough young rival, and never won the U.S open, or the Australian(albeit of lesser importance then and partially by choice).
7)Don Budge-only other slammer than Laver
8)Fred Perry-won half of the slams between 33-36
9)Ivan Lendl-8 slams is impressive to a point, yet also considering he has appeared in more slam finals and semis than any other player. That could be seen a minus to his inability to win more big matches, but also a sign of his strength to be that close that often in addition to his wins.
10)John McEnroe or Andre Agassi-for accomplishment Agassi, for sheer talent definitely McEnroe. I guess that would mean Agassi more likely, but needed to throw John an honorable mention. :)


Women:

1)Margaret Court-her 11 Aussies were a sham some say? Atleast 9 of her 11 wins featured one significant rival in the field. With the home crowd behind she likely wins atleast 7 even with full field, for 20 slams. Anyway anybody forgetting how Graf got over 20? Anyway more on that later. I think Margaret with her complete slam and slam record is tops.
2)Martina Navratilova-amazing longevity, incredable streak in 82-84 with only 6 losses in 200+ matches. Record 9 Wimbledons. What is there to say. Might have put her above Margaret with another French and another U.S.
3)Maureen Connoly-nobody was so dominant as such a young age, not even Monica Seles.
4)Suzanne Lenglen-most unbeatable women ever, losing only 1 match in 7 years. Still could have had even longer career, and was in early era of more limited competition.
5)Wills Moody-second most unbeatable women ever, losing only 1 match over 6 year span. Lost only meeting with Lenglen when both were probably in part of their prime.
6)Steffi Graf-I know everybody would put her higher but if Monica Seles had not been stabbed, not a normal what if, since it was a criminal altering of the natural course of events of life, we would be asking why she is so high likely.
Her only grounds to be higher is her 4-slam-each-slam record. Without Monica's stabbing I would be shocked if she won either the U.S twice more, or the French twice more, to get that record, once maybe not twice. At Wimbledon the place possably least affected by Monica's tragedy she didnt catch Navratilova or Wills anyway.
7)Chris Evert-incredable consistency, and fairly high level of dominance between 74-77. Won atleast one slam for 13 years. French Open record.
I guess I could have her higher but even at most dominant not as dominant as ones above. Also never won more than 2 slams in one year, although in time where Aussie and French were less important, but still some top players chose to enter, she did not. Unless she pulled off two wins over Goolagong in same year on grass(I highly doubt it)she would not have won 77 slam even with equal prestige to all slams.
8)Monica Seles-would be much higher without stabbing. Still not winning Wimbledon even in prime, and not as dominant as young Connoly in her few year span, I cant give her the same recognition as Connoly with shortened peak.
9)Billie Jean King-12 slams, 6 Wimbledons.
10)Serena Williams-7 slams in very competitive modern era, and 3-slam year as her highlight so far. Will be higher by career end probably. Venus is nowhere near her though.

Rabbit
02-23-2005, 07:16 AM
My top ten men:

1)Ken Rosewall-he is the only really hurt by the pro circuit standard


Pro circuit standard? You'll have to explain this. If you're saying that pros couldn't compete in Slams, then Laver, Gonzales, Hoad virtually everyone who was excluded was hurt.


3)Rod Laver-his 62 split was a sham,

Disagree here. Sham is more than harsh. Laver's four finals that year were against two people, Emerson and Mulligan. Roy Emerson distinguished himself as the record holder for Grand Slam singles titles. Prior to 62, Emerson had won two Grand Slams, he was/is a great player. Granted Emerson said he didn't go pro because of the increased competition, but prior to them going pro, Emerson played them.

would not have as many slams as people think with open tennis, but double digits for sure

I don't know how many Slams you think he has, but Laver is already in double digits with 11 (and tied with Borg). IMO, he would've had more than 14, closer to twenty had he been allowed to compete. Especially when one considers that 63 - 68 were probably Laver's prime years. One slame a year from 63 - 68 would've given Laver a total of 16, and being that 3 were played on grass, he'd have picked up at least 4 more in six years.

9)Billie Jean King-12 slams, 6 Wimbledons.


Disagree here. She deserves to be ranked higher. Not only for her career, but her impact on the game as a hole. She held every record at Wimbleon in the Open era until her former doubles partner broke them, Navratilova.

davey25
02-23-2005, 10:42 AM
Pro circuit standard? You'll have to explain this. If you're
saying that pros couldn't compete in Slams, then Laver,
Hoad, Gonzales, virtually everyone else excluded was hurt.

I don't agree at all with your accessment. Whether or not all noteables were hurt, they in no way were all hurt to a similar degree. Rosewall and Gonzales were hurt much more so than Laver or Hoad were. Laver for example won 7 slams between 60-62, yet was regularly beat up on by Rosewall, Hoad, and Gonzales, his first year in pros in 63. Based on what happened on the "pro" curcuit he likely would not have won his first slam until 64, and started regularly winning slams until 66. Many of the slams he likely would have won between 64-67 would be negated by the many slams he likely would not have won between 60-62. 15 at most would seem a generous estimate for him, only a fair margin more than the 11 he has. Rosewall and Gonzales on the other hand likely would have an enormous amount more than the 8(Rosewall) or Gonzales(2)that they managed to win if one evaluates the results of the pro circuit, how the new amateurs did turning pro, the length of time they were ineligable pros, and the limited number of slams(relative to Laver)they won before turning pro.

As for Hoad he was diminished by injuries after his first pro year, and after giving Gonzales a good run in the tour his first year, never won a single major pro title largely due to his back problems.



Disagree here. Sham is more than harsh. Laver's four finals
that year were against two people, Emerson and Mulligan.
Roy Emerson distinguished himself as the record holder for
Grand Slam singles titles. Prior to 62, Emerson had won two
Grand Slams, he was/is a great player. Granted Emerson said
he didn't go pro because of the increased competition, but
prior to them going pro, Emerson played them.

Butter it up however you want but in 62 a slam without facing Rosewall, Hoad, and Gonzales was a total sham. Laver was regularly beaten by all three of those his first year in the pro's in 63. He was quoted as saying many times they just kicked his *** around the following year, before he started to become somewhat competitive with them in 64. As for Emerson, almost all historians in the game seem to think he would have been lucky to win 1 or 2 slams in his career had it been open tennis. He is on nobodys short list of all-time greats even with his 12 slams. He also was not the toughest opponent in 62, the toughest opponents for Laver were pro and he was able to avoid them, as we saw in 63 much to his benefit.


I don't know how many Slams you think he has, but Laver is
already in double digits with 11 (and tied with Borg). IMO,
he would've had more than 14, closer to twenty had he been
allowed to compete. Especially when one considers that
63 - 68 were probably Laver's prime years.

I never said Laver wasnt in double digits in slams won. I said I believed he would atleast have been in double digits without the pro-amateur split of the time, meaning I doubt he would not have dropped to single digits by losing that many more slams from it, than he gained from it. I was always fully aware he had won 11 slams and nothing about my previous post was meant to indicate otherwise.

One slame a year from 63 - 68 would've given Laver a total of
16, and being that 3 were played on grass, he'd have picked up
at least 4 more in six years.

Wait a minute here, you are only assuming the slams he would have won had there been open tennis in the years from 63-67(end of 67, start of 68, whichever way you prefer to term it, either way five years), yet you are ignoring the slams he might/likely would not have won between 60-62 had there been open tennis those years! Lets say one is very generous and assumes he wins 8 of the 20 slams between 63-67, and 2 slams in 60-62
(and that is being extremely generous given his results in the 63 pros), to go with his 5 slams 68-beyond. That still would give him a total of 15, which is my maximum estimate, a gain for him, but not near the gain Rosewall and Gonzales who were pro so many more years than Laver, and on top in pro so many of those years, likely would have gained.


Disagree here. She deserves to be ranked higher. Not only for
her career, but her impact on the game as a hole. She held
every record at Wimbleon in the Open era until her former
doubles partner broke them, Navratilova.

My list is based predominantly on singles tennis greatness. If doubles, or off-court influence on the game, were factored in, or are factored in on somebody else's list, yes I/they would have her much higher. Then again I would have Todd Woodbridge in the top ten for his doubles prowess, and Althea Gibson in the top ten for breaking color barriers with her rise to being a champion. I choose to make my list based mainly on singles tennis greatness though. Based on that #9 is perfectly logical for King.

Dedans Penthouse
02-23-2005, 12:04 PM
Better all time players than Venus--

1) Graf 2) Martina 3) Evert 4) Margaret Court 5) Gibson 6) Billy Jean 7) Goologong 8) Seles 9) Serena 10) Helen Wills Moody 11) Nancye Wynne Bolton 12) Mo Connolly 13) Suzanne Lenglen 14) Mandlikova (won more tournaments) 15) Davenport (has won more events and has been way more consistent 16) Lotti Dodd 17 ) Dorthea Douglas 18) Justin Henin 19) Sanchez vicario DO YOU WANT ME TO ADD MORE????

Just because you came up with 19 names and added "DO YOU WANT ME TO ADD MORE?" in caps does not mean I'll buy that all 19 are better. I'm not giving free passes based on number of G.S. titles....because when you consider the variables for the different eras, the "denominators" aren't common. Different strokes for different folks especially when we're talking different eras. And the era's preceeding Tilden/Johnston/4 Muskateers were a different world (e.g. Lotti Dodd). What comp was there back then? Tennis was a esoteric tea party. Goologong I've seen. Pretty player (like a Maria Bueno), but better? Imo put them both on the same court with their "A" games, Williams wins. Davenport? same thing. Henin? Jury's still out--I didn't realize she's already passes Venus. Btw, where's she been for the last weeks, months, years. Nancye Wynne Bolton? The Aussie Open in a limited field. Check the "NAMES" she beat. Doris Hart would've been a better guess, imho.. Suzanne Lenglen dominated and racked up huge numbers, but she was "big fish/small pond" personified. She was #1 in a field of 2: her and Helen Willis Moody. The "beak" drank brandy on the changeovers for goodness sake. And btw, those strokes of Lenglen's? She's like a Sonja Henning. Great for her time, but you see Henning compared to the ice skaters of today? She's got no flash, no panache.

If you're basing "greatest" on winning Grand Slams in a very limited field in a different world imo, with a very limited (elitist) talent pool), then I'm going to picture Suzanne Lenglen as some leaping troll in a long dress hitting absurdly rediculous "chip" shots playing a Venus when Venus had her "bleep" together. I agree with your assessment of V. Williams not "coming close" to her potential. But in seeing her (for those 10 minutes) when Williams seemed to have a clue about coming to net and swarming over her opponents, I don't see every one of your above list as being better than V. Williams if both were on the same court on their "A" days.

Don't get me wrong, some good blasts-from-the-past. As a matter of fact, in the "Mo Connolly" dept., I think you could add this little killer: Tracy Austin.

Rabbit
02-23-2005, 12:47 PM
don't agree at all with your accessment. Whether or not all noteables were hurt, they in no way were all hurt to a similar degree. Rosewall and Gonzales were hurt much more so than Laver or Hoad were.

Well you must agree with it to some degree since you've now altered your first statement to include Gonzales.

Butter it up however you want but in 62 a slam without facing Rosewall, Hoad, and Gonzales was a total sham.

Nope, no matter how you slice it, there were some great players still in the amateur ranks. Yes, the majority of the greats went pro, but not all.

My list is based predominantly on singles tennis greatness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the records Martina broke at Wimbledon was a record for singles victories that was held by Billie Jean King. Every female player from Chris Evert on down regards Billie Jean King as one of the most successful, fiercest singles players to ever step on court. Her Wimbledon record alone puts her in the top of any list of greats. The fact that she also exceled at doubles, including a Grand Slam in mixed (all four) with Owen Davidson makes her even more of a topper.

davey25
02-23-2005, 01:02 PM
Actually Martina did not break Billie Jean's Wimbledon singles record. Martina broke Wills Moody's Wimbledon singles record. Martina N. has 9, Wills Moody 8, Douglas Dorethea Chambers 7(although in very renaissance era), Billie Jean was behind atleast 2 noteables already when Martina broke the record. I agree Billie Jean is one of the greats, I see no reason she deserves to be ahead of any of the 8 woman on my list. You have said I have her too low but you have not told me who I have ahead of her that shouldnt be as of yet. I also think many experts in the game would rate her near the bottom of the top 10, if their list was based on singles greatness.

Andy Zarzuela
02-24-2005, 06:44 PM
Henin and Davenport over Venus.... Davenport for now and Henin is no means better than Venus. Their head-to-head proves that 7-1 edge to Venus! Oh and I have to disagree with Sanchez-Vicario being better either.
________
Chilean recipes (http://www.cooking-chef.com/chilean/)

Agassi
02-24-2005, 07:35 PM
[QUOTE=davey25]Davenport still hasnt wont a major in 5 full years, and has reached only 1 slam final in the last 4 years. Her #1 ranking was a result of the ridiculous ranking system now in place.

Davenport came back to the number 1 spot because of her hard court season. She won 22 straight matches (including all three titles in California) all the way up to the semifinals of the U.S. Open. That's no joke. She lost that match because of ankle injury. She earned that spot back because she gained confidence and picked up her game.

Venus should be able to do the same if she gains confidence. She showed that at the Diamond Games. If she keeps playing like she did in Antwerp, she'll pick up her game again and become a top contender like she was when she won her majors.

davey25
02-25-2005, 10:20 AM
I agree Davenport would have won the U.S open hands down but for her injury, and I feel for her that it happened. However the final result was still a semifinal, rankings cant(and arent since they are statistically based)be based on what would have happened but for injuries or other handicaps. The ranking system should have a bigger difference in value between slams wins and masters series(men) or tier 1 events(women) than they do, bigger difference between winning events and being runner up or semifinalist than they do. Basically there should be no reason for two players having not reached a slam final to be #1 and #2 in the year-end rankings unless they won almost every other tournament and the slam winners crashed and burned all year. Right now a slam finalist gets 70% the value of a slam winner, a slam semi 45% a slam winner, which is totally off base. Also a tier 1/Masters Series winner getting 50% a slam winner is completely wrong.

Last year marks the 3rd time in the last 5 years a non-slam winning women has ended the year #1, a true embarassment.

davey25
02-25-2005, 10:29 AM
Henin and Davenport over Venus.... Davenport for now and Henin is no means better than Venus. Their head-to-head proves that 7-1 edge to Venus! Oh and I have to disagree with Sanchez-Vicario being better either.

Actually I am not sure if Davenport would be better than Venus now all-time. Davenport has an outstanding tournament record but has failed to convert it very well into slam success(relative to her overall tournament record). She has one fewer slam than Venus, has never won two slams in the same year(Venus has twice). She has won three of the four majors, while Venus only two of the four, but it is not as meaningful as if she had won all four. Davenport has three year-end #1s but only 1 of the three do the results seem to warrant it, while Venus offically never has but should have atleast once(2000). Venus has won Wimbledon and the U.S open twice, some considering all slams equal but some consider those two bigger. I would say it is almost a toss up.

I agree with you that right now Venus is over Henin-Hardenne. However you make it sound like Venus is certain to pass Davenport, if she is not already ahead because she is younger though. Well keep in mind Henin is younger than Venus, so the same philosophy could go there as well. Head to head is a poor indicator because often head to heads contradict each other. Also Venus has not played Henin since Henin won any of her three slams. Her last meeting was January of 2003.

Sanchez Vicario might be easy not to give her due since her game doesnt seem as impressive as her results. She definitely was a huge overachiever. However based solely on results I would put her over Venus based on longevity, since many other aspects are similar. On sheer tennis ability Venus all the way, but there is a tendency not to give some players like Sanchez who greatly overachieved on sheer tenacity, guts, fighting spirit, and intangibles there due.

TheNatural
02-25-2005, 01:38 PM
I think Venus is an overachiever too. For someone with such a shaky forehand and serve, and with little variety, she's done remarkably well. She has made the most out of her good backhand and her athletic ability.

Agassi
02-25-2005, 05:34 PM
[QUOTE=davey25]Actually I am not sure if Davenport would be better than Venus now all-time. Davenport has an outstanding tournament record but has failed to convert it very well into slam success(relative to her overall tournament record). She has one fewer slam than Venus, has never won two slams in the same year(Venus has twice). She has won three of the four majors, while Venus only two of the four, but it is not as meaningful as if she had won all four. Davenport has three year-end #1s but only 1 of the three do the results seem to warrant it, while Venus offically never has but should have atleast once(2000). Venus has won Wimbledon and the U.S open twice, some considering all slams equal but some consider those two bigger. I would say it is almost a toss up.

Davenport is now 14-12 in head to head against Venus. This includes there meeting at the 4th round of the U.S. Open. She has been playing a lot better than Venus and the ranking points show. Venus has been doing better since the Austrailian Open;there's no doubt about that. Venus did very well at Antwerp and beat Myskina en route to the finals(Venus lost to her in the quarterfinals of the French Open last year). Davenport has done better overall so far this year (finals of the Austrailian) She is more consistent and has a stronger game. I would say that Davenport barely has the edge. The thing is, Venus has time to improve. Davenport is really considering retiring this year (most likely will). I'd say after looking at all results between both players, I'd say Davenport is the better one of the two.

davey25
02-26-2005, 06:13 AM
Davenport is now 14-12 in head to head against Venus. This includes there meeting at the 4th round of the U.S. Open. She has been playing a lot better than Venus and the ranking points show. Venus has been doing better since the Austrailian Open;there's no doubt about that. Venus did very well at Antwerp and beat Myskina en route to the finals(Venus lost to her in the quarterfinals of the French Open last year). Davenport has done better overall so far this year (finals of the Austrailian) She is more consistent and has a stronger game. I would say that Davenport barely has the edge. The thing is, Venus has time to improve. Davenport is really considering retiring this year (most likely will). I'd say after looking at all results between both players, I'd say Davenport is the better one of the two.

Well I was trying to analyze who is better right now, career-wise. Of course right now Davenport is until Venus comes up with some more results.
Career-wise I find it a very close call.

Agassi
02-26-2005, 06:41 PM
I agree with that completely.