Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tenniswriter, Apr 16, 2013.
So? Nadal has had to deal with injuries throughout his whole career, yet he is STILL the favourite for Roland Garros and among the favourites to win every slam. If Seles worked as hard as Nadal, she'd be able to say the same thing, but she didn't, so she can't.
Of course she would have (won more slams, not necessarily more than Graf). Seles stabbing is the worst thing that's ever happened in tennis: the most absurd and the most tragic. It was traumatic and not just for Seles. I always worry about a repeat.
Would have been a lot closer between Graf and Seles, that's for sure. Already quite amazing that she had 8 by the time she was 20.
OP: This question comes up often, but Seles' "Kryptonite" was Wimbledon, and before anyone posts it, getting to a Wimbledon final does not always mean you are equppied to win it one day. That is the significant difference, a difference others majors winners such as:
Lendl (2 W finals, no title)
Rafter (2 W finals, no title)
Henin (2 W finals, no title)
Roddick (3 W finals, no title)
Sanchez Vicario (2 W finals, no title)
...can all swear to.
I cannot say Seles was better equipped than the members of this Wimbledon-free group to ever win the title, considering the scoreline of her lone W final (2-6, 1-6 to Graf), which did not suggest any particular edge on the surface.
So, if we remove Wimbledon from the discussion, how would she fare against the majors winners sans the stabbing? Would others simply "get her number" (eventually) and stop her from being dominant everywhere else? Would they roll over and take a beating? Would a still-active Seles fuel the competitive fire in Graf to play better than before (if thatr is possible for such a high level)? Who knows, but the big W is one major I do not see Seles adding to her collection of titles.
Could have been close. Like Navratilova and Evert both ended up with 18 majors.
What a pathetic post. Only you could turn a inquiry about women's tennis into something about Nadal. Wait, do you know something about Nadal's sexual identity that we don't?
Seles lived and breathed tennis from her childhood up to when she was dominating the game. Seles was a different person with a different mentality after the stabbing, much more serious and philosophical. I believe a main part of her dominance before the stabbing was the enthusiasm that she had for the game, enjoying all of the challenges etc. After her return, she only had this sporadically, had fitness problems most of the time and her on-court mentality was more unpredictable.
seles and graf would have ended up with same number of slams like evert and martina
It was seen as only a matter of time before the stabbing. Don't be fooled by the scoreline of the 1992 Wimbledon final, as that just showed factors like Seles not grunting and dealing very badly with the rain delays in the second set, while Graf did everything correct. The final was a dud as a spectacle. Seles would have learned from it.
I think she would have won more than 9 thats for sure,probably she would win 15 or 16 major titles.I dont think she would win more than Graf.I think Graf would probably end with 15 or 16 slams as well.I think Seles by no means what Nadal to Fed as well.This is a bit exaggerated by Seles fans.She never showed promising stuff on grass that she can cause Steffi serious problems.İt was Steffi who was so close to beating Seles in 92 RG.
Had Graf been stabbed at a similar point in her career in terms of number of times playing at Wimbledon, she also would have left the game with 0 Wimbledon titles to her name.
This is all right on the nose, but I think she still would have won a few more 97-02 (1 to 2 a year maybe), if not for the depth and competitiveness of the field. What a great time for women's tennis.
Without the stabbing, Monica would be sitting here with 22 majors, not fraulein nose.
Very true. And I assume her father's cancer in 1996 didn't help either.
For sure Seles would have had more majors. More than Graf? I don't think so. Graf lead their head-to-head and was getting closer to beating Seles in the big tournaments too. Seles may have won Wimbledon at some point, but its hard to tell. Graf's career ended somewhat early. Would she have continued if Seles had been able to keep up over those years? Would the pace of the game which started to take off during the time Seles was away have made it harder for the less athletic Seles to step into the court to take the ball early? Graf's athleticism certainly translates better to the modern game. I would say Graf would have had about 4 less majors and Seles probably 6 more.
Let's see, Graf won her first at Roland Garros in 1987. She had won 8 of the last 9 slams before Seles won her first at Roland Garros in 1990. From that point, until the stabbing (12 slams), Seles won 8 while Graf won 2 Wimbledons. After the stabbing, Graf won the next 4 slams and 10 of the next 15.
At the time of the stabbing, Graf was ahead 11-8. Concede the point that Monica would never win Wimbledon (which is highly unlikely, IMO) and give Graf her Wimbledon titles and Seles would have still blow past year. Because, in conceding that, you also have to concede that Seles would have won every non-grass major, especially the ones that Graf won because Seles proved she owned her at the majors on the clay and hard courts. At the very least, she gets the other 8 majors that Graf won outside of Wimbledon.
By the end of '93 it would have been 12-10 Graf. 13-12 Seles by '94. 16-13 by '95. 19-14 by '96. If you only give her the ones Graf won in '95 and '96 it would be 17-14 at that point.
Any way you look at it, you almost have to suspend belief in reality to think Seles would not have surpassed her.
Graf may be my favorite women's player ever, and was certainly my favorite in that era. I couldn't stand Monica Seles out there grunting and screaming and beating my favorite player. I can be more objective now that I'm older and it seems fairly obvious now. In the past, I was in denial.
since when Monica is favorite against graf on a fast hard court surfaces like US. As far as ı know she never beaten graf on a fast hard court.
From Seles' first slam win to the stabbing, she won 2 of 3 US Opens. Graf won 0. That's why. It matters little to me that she didn't beat Graf in those finals, because all that says is that Graf wasn't good enough to get to Seles on the "fast" hard court surface.
I doubt it. I suspect Graf's final total would have been around 20 (8 slams from 93-96, and 1 in 99) and Seles around 15 (6 slams from 93-96 and 2 sometime in 97-98 ). Graf would also still have her atleast 4 slams at each venue record IMO, which is really her main claim to being the GOAT, along with the Golden Slam, and 8 year end #1s. I still think Graf is overrated by some and the real GOAT is Serena, not Graf.
As for winning Wimbledon, I think it is possible Seles would have managed 1 Wimbledon in some really weak year (say maybe 1994). Basically 55% of never winning it, 40% of winning it 1 time only, and 5% chance of winning it more than once.
98-2003 was the great time for womens tennis. 1997 was a joke, although Seles had a myriad of problems that year unrelated to the stabbing, so probably wouldnt have been able to capatilize much anyway (plus Hingis the dominant vulture of that ultra weak year seemed to be an awful matchup for her, even taking into account the stabbing).
Yes, definitely. On the day when Monica was stabbed, her father wasn't at the match because he was ill in bed back at the hotel. Her father was diagnosed with prostate cancer less than a week after the stabbing, in early May 1993, had chemotherapy treatment and was hoping for the all clear. By October 1993, the doctor told him that the cancer had spread to his stomach, and he contemplated not bothering with chemotherapy treatment and just living out his days, until an already traumatised Monica convinced him to change his mind. He eventually recovered after this particular battle, and was back on tour with Monica in 1995 and 1996, although in late 1996, his health started suffering and it was confirmed that he had cancer again. On 31 December 1997, the news came through that the cancer had metasasised, and that he probably had months to live. He lived for just over another 4 months before passing away in May 1998.
Here we are with the overrating Serena again...
Let's say Seles won:
US Open '94
Australian Open '95
(I am giving Graf US 95 as she was super fit by then and she did actually beat Seles in that final)
(I am giving Graf French Open '96 because of the way she beat Sanchez in that final- she wanted that title!)
And then Hingis would have come along and her reign would have started.
So I am giving Seles 17 slams in all and Graf:
US Open 95,96
French Open 96,99
So 18 slams.
So they would have been about even.
However things don't work like this. If Seles had not been stabbed, a whole load of other things could have happened:
She could have gotten another injury
Graf could have upset her in another Major final
Another player could have had a hot day a la Pierce RG'94 and beaten her.
One more reason Seles' majors count does not suddenly rise.
Rational. Some seem to overestimate Seles as a player to the degree that theories usually end up with Seles as some super-woman impossible to beat. Graf was not going anywhere, and as you point out, other players were on the rise.
I still believe she was not equipped to win Wimbledon (as in the case of others who ended up in more than one final, but could not seal the deal), as her baseline-centric game was not exactly best suited for grass court play.
I gave her Wimbledon '94 but then again had Seles been the number 1 seed, she would have met O'Niell and so who knows what could have happened. But I agree that she was not likely to win Wimbledon due to her lack of all court game. Of course, she might have adapted her game a la Nadal but it might have meant another aspect of her game suffering and thus a different Major going unwon.
Your assessment is incredibly generous to Seles, yet even with it she still comes out behind. That pretty much says enough as far as the thread title question goes.
A fluke win is not leading to "easily happen again," since the aftermath is one of the most lopsided H2H in tennis history. What's Sharapova's excuse for all of the years of being defeated like a rookie?
It was no fluke, Sharapova overpowered and outplayed Serena that day; Serena still bears the scars (and a grudge) many years later.
Serena has a positive h2h against all her top opponents so I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that Sharapova on form can beat anyone, including Serena.
Your false premise was that based on one fluke result:
..as in win. If is so easy, then W '04 would not be the fluke it turned out to be, as Sharapova would have proved the "ease" in defeating Serena over the long years to follow.
Sharapova could not, because W '04 was a fluke result. Any evidence to counter this--particularly at the majors?
1.Unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck: "their triumph was no fluke".
Your premise that Sharapova's win was a fluke is incorrect, because there was no luck involved in what she did to Serena that day.
Serena is greater than Sharapova overall, and also has a particular psychological focus when playing her (because she is still so annoyed about what was done to her at Wimbledon 2004). Thus why she hs won their recent matches.
However, it's certainly not impossible that Sharapova can beat Serena again. She has now fully recovered from the injuries which blighted her career, and is getting closer to beating Serena again as evidenced in their latest match. I am confident that one day soon, she will pull off a W 2004 repeat performance.
It was a fluke, hence the reason she would never be able to repeat that career hiccup ever again. You are only proving my point by highlighting that single match.
Hardly. Sharapova is just plain inferior compared to Serena. Serena has no noted "psychological focus" regarding Azarenka, but she is able to defeat her often (11-2 H2H)--along with many top players. Sharapova is just another one among the crowd.
She was fully recovered last year, especially during the clay season--a season all of her fans cried was Sharapova being "back" (and on the rise) and into the Olympics. How did the Gold medal match go for her?
1). You are not using the English language correctly, "fluke" implies luck. There was nothing lucky about Sharapova's performance against Serena that day.
2). Sharapova beat Serena again in the YEC later that year.
Yes Serena > Sharapova, but the point is, she (Serena) is especially pumped up against Sharapova due to the memory of W 2004. This doesn't mean it's impossible for Sharapova to beat Serena LOL. How absurd the things some of you Serena fanboys say.
I'd say winning the FO (completing the Career Slam in the process) does count as being back, not sure why you've put it in speech marks.
Yes, poor match from her perspective.
Then you are the member with language comprehension issues, as she (Sharapova) was lucky to win that W '04 title, and in the chain of evidence to follow, her increasingly poor results against Williams only hammers that point home--proven (again) in their most recent match up.
You cannot spin or alter history. If Sharapova had the goods to be a true competitor and/or threat to Serena, this pro-Sharapova story would have turned into reality nearly a decade ago.
Again, how did the Olympic Gold medal match turn out? How about their last match up, where MS had to throw everything she had to even get her short-lived lead, then it was business as usual.
Good, so now that you agree that she made her comeback at the FO, there's no excuses (injury / shoulder, etc.) for being defeated by SW moving forward...other than being inferior.
That returns the discssion to the essential point--your point:
Then by your own conclusion, you have no reason to believe Sharapova is going to turn the age-old situation around.
Looking at her now she obviously had some weight(eating problems) as well.
But a very much overweight Seles still was untouchable which makes you wonder how good she would have been if she was fit.
You are so stupid. Beating someone NINE years ago does not make you the biggest threat to an in form Serena which is what you voted for and insisted upon in the prior thread. Considering Serena might play until she is 35 or 36 yeah it wouldnt be a huge surprise if Maria gets a win sometime in Serenas old age, her first win in 10-13 years or something if it even ever happens, and probably in some minor event if she ever does, but in no way would that prove your ridiculous and absurd claim that Maria is the biggest threat to an in form Serena. All their matches prove that these days is Maria gets 1-4 games typically off an in form Serena, and is only respectable when Serena plays poorly. She is probably the easiest opponent in the entire top 10 for an in form Serena.
Like I have already said many credible experts have started calling Serena GOAT or putting her in the discussion. Your array of excuses such as they are American, they are trying to hype up Wimbledon, are meaningless, the fact is people whose opinions are 1000 times more credible than yours share the opinion I have. So you can stop wasting your time following me around saying the same thing all the time, which does nothing but prove even futher you are an idiot.
And that makes Serena's FO win was a fluke too.
I think you misunderstand the word "lucky" - Sharapova thoroughly deserved to win that match, and the YEC 2004 clash.
What spin on history? I have said Serena > Sharapova, but not to the extent that the latter has absolutely no chance of winning, as some claim.
She's getting closer to beating Serena again, it will happen soon.
There are no excuses for losing to Serena. And I never claimed that Sharapova was greater than Serena, just that she has the game to beat her and will do so again soon.
LOL....I guess this is a small step from you. Previously you have claimed that Sharapova will NEVER beat Serena again.
Don't be ridiculous. Sharapova is the only one who can come close to Serena in power and psychological strength.
People who say Serena is GOAT and mean it (i.e. are not hyping the current game, or saying she is "best ever at peak", which is a different thing), are, in my opinion, the stupid ones. Your whole argument consists of saying "so and so's opinion is more valid than yours therefore you are wrong". You have not proven that Serena is greater than Graf, Nav and Evert.
It's not a waste of time if it makes you change your silly and biased opinions.
Oh, come on. Azarenka is physically strong & pretty much fearless on court. She does not care what anyone thinks, so she never cracks (see: Kvitova)--traits which makes her the credible runner up rather than Sharapova.
Well Sharapova might well never beat Serena again. It is probably atleast 60% likely she wont. However if she does it would probably be her first win over Serena in 10+ years and over a 32 year old or older Serena. Nothing to crow about, and nothing that comes even 1% of the way to justifying your ridiculous and absurd claim Sharapova, who everyone knows is Serenas slave, is her toughest opponent on tour, LOL!
Lets break down the top 10 and their matchups with Serena shall we:
Sharapova- has lost to Serena 11 times in a row over the last 9 years. In their last 10 meetings has only managed 2 sets, and ate a bagel and breadstick in the decisive 3rd set those two times. In 5 of the 10 last encounters has managed between 1-4 games only.
Azarenka- won her last match with Serena, and served for their match in last years U.S Open final.
Radwanska- took Serena to 3 sets in last years Wimbledon final. The last time Maria took a set off Serena in a slam was 2005.
Na Li- has taken Serena to 3 sets in most of their matches to date. Last win over her was more recent than Maria.
Kerber- beat Serena last year.
Errani- she and Serena have barely played.
Kvitova- has been respectable and managed atleast 8 games in all her limited # of meetings with Serena thus far. Very nearly beat her their last match.
Stosur- has beaten Serena 3 times the last few years, including twice in slams.
Woziacki- beat Serena in straight sets just last year.
Yes your beloved Sharapova is Serenas easiest opponent in the top 10, other than maybe the meaningless Errani whom she barely plays against. As usual it is YOU who is being ridiculous, suggesting Maria is Serenas toughest opponent, hahahahahaah!
That is nice, but nobody gives a twat about your opinion, and I certainly dont either.
and you have not given the tiniest ounce of proof to justify your insistence Maria is the toughest opponent amongst the current top players for Serena, which is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard, yet keep insisting on it anyway.
Here is some friendly advice for you, someone like you will never change a single one of my opinions. You are the last person who would ever manage this. So give up your gig and move on.
It is close between Sharapova and Azarenka, admittedly. I would put Azarenka in 3rd among the current women.
This is all irrelevant, because Serena often has lapses/isn't constantly psychologically focused as she is against Sharapova, when playing these lesser opponents. Hence they can occasionally get a win against her.
Serena knows she has to be on top form to beat Sharapova thus is always up for those matches. Much like Sampras was against Agassi.
Such an immature fanboy.
Actually you do, because I have already made you modify your opinion about Sharapova never beating Serena again, and you have gone to great lengths to disprove me so you must care about my opinion.
No sir! :twisted:
You are spinning it when you believe that Sharapova--after a decade of losing to Serena--is going to suddenly start winning against her, which only leads you to fight against your own point of:
As a majors contender, Sharapova is barely hanging in her career (take a look at the large gaps of years between her majors), and even when she's "back" (in the words of her defenders) she still finds herself defeated by the same person, no matter how old the opponent (SW) is at the time.
The point i'm making is that you are still cheerleading for a Sharapova comeback--but what does it say if it takes a decade of flat-out defeat (when she was in her "prime") to one day win another match? That is nothing to look forward to (unless desperate), as it is a hollow victory, and history (that word again) tells us that it is no guarantee when it matters most.
I'm not really sure what point you're making any more. The h2h vs. Serena is not the entirety of Sharapova's career and she has still won the Career Slam, YEC and been world #1 even if her career ends tomorrow. All I'm saying is that it's likely she will beat Serena in a match again soon.
I don't know why you Serena fanboys are so argumentative about this, it's not like it will harm Serena's legacy or make her fall from 4th place on the GOAT list (which is where she currently sits).
Large gaps between her majors titles illustrates how she is not all you continue to say she is, as evidenced by this:
Pure fantasy. Your line screams you believe Sharapova is some sort of tough competition for Serena, when the evidence of their H2H says the opposite: it is and always has been about SW's superior talent/ability vs. Sharapova's inferior ability. Serena does not need to psychologically "fuel" herself in order to play Sharapova, and you have not demonstrated anything of the sort.
Considering H2H, even a psychological disaster such as Capriati presented stronger competition than Sharapova--ever, which--again--sends up red flags of suspicion everytime you paint Sharapova as this force (your "Serena knows she has to be on top form to beat Sharapova") with no record to support your statement.
It is not about argument. This is about acknowledging the truth of history, and avoiding inflating the status of a player with a record proving the opposite of your postition.
Again, I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing here, quite amusing really. I have already said that Serena is greater than Sharapova (it would be ridiculous, given their comparative records, to claim otherwise).
However, it's also pretty obvious that Serena is more 'pumped up' and determined to 'put Sharapova in her place' when they face off, than she is with many other opponents. This is evident in their mutual dislike and barbed comments towards each other.
Capriati is one of my favourite female players and yes, is a headcase. She did indeed match up very well against Serena in terms of power. In fact, Capriati seemed to be very 'up' for beating Serena in her matches against her, and was not averse to taking controversial means to do so (see USO QF, 2004 - I think that's the right year).
Oh and what is with the "red flag of suspicion"? What do you suspect me of? :-?
For Christ's sake man, I'm going to put this in very simple language so you can understand:
I do not believe Sharapova is greater than Serena. I do believe she is very capable of beating her in a tennis match. You do not have to be an overall greater tennis player than your opponent to be able to win a particular tennis match against them.
Steve Flink has these 5 top greatest female players:
For the greatest male players:
Would have Hingis owned her left and right if no stabbing happened?
Martina was owned by Steffi while she owned Seles who was owning Graf (except at Wimbly)
There is greater evidence for tension between SW and Capriati (H2H, emotionalism during matches, etc.) than between SW & Sharapova. Noting that, SW never pumped herself up to face the greater challenge in Capriati, thus the notion of Sharapova inspiring this behavior is less than paper-thin. This reads as you being such a fanboy of Sharapova, that you continue to look to a fluke Wimbledon '04 win as some imagined "great agony" to Williams--enough to drive her repeated defeat of Sharapova for a decade.
Sharapova is no thorn (psychological or otherwise) in the side of Serena Williams.
See the reply above.
This is not about "greater" in the historical sense. This is about talent/ability in a match-up, and it seems unusually desperate for you to hope beyond hope for Sharapova to have an 11th hour (on the career clock) victory over Serena, when it was impossible for her to do this when she was in her prime, when it counted most.
Separate names with a comma.