Graf vs Serena, who's more complete?
- Thread starter skaj
- Start date
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I've been very consistent that I'm basing my view on a whole career and comparing the two.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I would counter you needed to be more specific when you posted your OP. If you meant who has the more complete game at 'their best' l will stick to my pick of Graf and leave it there.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Graf has 22 singles titles, Serena has 23. What are you talking about?
vaillancourt
Rookie
Obviously counting doubles.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Pretty irrelevant, Graf never played that much doubles after 1988, even though she was pretty good at it.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Its a trade off, but Graf's advantages were overwhelming, which is why she won the zenith of the sport, Grand Slam.
Sander001
Hall of Fame
Actually, very relevant when you’re talking about the sport of tennis.
skaj
Legend
Well, it's not like she won the calendar slam because of her advantages over Serena(who basically won the same thing, just not in a calendar year).
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I thought this thread was going to be about who was more complete in terms of their career achievements.
In terms of their physical games, I'd say they're pretty similar in terms of completeness.
In terms of their physical games, I'd say they're pretty similar in terms of completeness.
bigjimbofan
Rookie
Very close but I will go with Graf who was a class act. Serena.... not so much.
When you get into grand slam singles titles, Serena slight advantage 23 vs 22 BUT........
Graf in 13 years from 1987 to 1999 played in 31 grand slam finals going 22 -9
Serena from 1999 to current played in 32 Grand Slam finals going 23 -9.
Pretty equal on the surface until you realize that Graf's Grand Slam was over a period of 8 years less than Serena.
Now I know Grand Slam singles aren't the only criteria in judging one over the other, but what Steffi did was amazing in 8 less years.
Steffi during those years played in an average of 2.38 Grand Slam finals a year.
When you get into grand slam singles titles, Serena slight advantage 23 vs 22 BUT........
Graf in 13 years from 1987 to 1999 played in 31 grand slam finals going 22 -9
Serena from 1999 to current played in 32 Grand Slam finals going 23 -9.
Pretty equal on the surface until you realize that Graf's Grand Slam was over a period of 8 years less than Serena.
Now I know Grand Slam singles aren't the only criteria in judging one over the other, but what Steffi did was amazing in 8 less years.
Steffi during those years played in an average of 2.38 Grand Slam finals a year.
Last edited:
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Why did Graf retire at 29/30? She wasn't on the motherhood track; I don't remember her being injured (at least not seriously). She was an intense person and it's an intense lifestyle. She probably just had enough.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
1st Serve: Close, I'd probably call it a tie. Serena has the pure power edge but I think Graf had solid placement.
2nd Serve: Probably Serena, Serena up the T on the 2nd serve...scary
Return: Again...Close. I'd probably say Serena
Forehand Graf, not to say Serena's is bad, its one of the best all time. However I'd call Graf's the absolute best of all time so she wins this category
Backhand this is just...well. Serena's is a better offensive weapon to me. Graf's backhand always seem like a shot to throw the opponent off balance to get back in position or to hit her forehand. That slice was killer if she landed it low, but I think Serena's is better in terms of defense turn to offense. I don't hate Graf's backhand by any means, and its better than many..but I think she comes up short.
Volley Despite all of Serena's doubles experience....Graf. If Serena comes in to net she needs to finish it quickly. Asking Serena to hit repeated volleys is almost error bating, especially now. Plus forward movement is not Serena's strong point.
Movement Graf...again this is not a knock to Serena, who at her best moved beautifully. Graf just had a lot of natural fluidity and could move in all directions well. Forward movement is a weakness of Serena's that Graf doesn't arguably have. Also if we factor in pure Speed, I think Graf could win a short distance race best to best. If you want the Williams sister with the most graceful movement, I'd nominate Venus, not Serena
Mental strength another category where to pick one is of no insult to the other. I think each at their peak, its a near tie. Graf could just keep going and the number of times Serena has waited out a losing situation and seen her opponent crack and fight herself back is just mind boggling.
2nd Serve: Probably Serena, Serena up the T on the 2nd serve...scary
Return: Again...Close. I'd probably say Serena
Forehand Graf, not to say Serena's is bad, its one of the best all time. However I'd call Graf's the absolute best of all time so she wins this category
Backhand this is just...well. Serena's is a better offensive weapon to me. Graf's backhand always seem like a shot to throw the opponent off balance to get back in position or to hit her forehand. That slice was killer if she landed it low, but I think Serena's is better in terms of defense turn to offense. I don't hate Graf's backhand by any means, and its better than many..but I think she comes up short.
Volley Despite all of Serena's doubles experience....Graf. If Serena comes in to net she needs to finish it quickly. Asking Serena to hit repeated volleys is almost error bating, especially now. Plus forward movement is not Serena's strong point.
Movement Graf...again this is not a knock to Serena, who at her best moved beautifully. Graf just had a lot of natural fluidity and could move in all directions well. Forward movement is a weakness of Serena's that Graf doesn't arguably have. Also if we factor in pure Speed, I think Graf could win a short distance race best to best. If you want the Williams sister with the most graceful movement, I'd nominate Venus, not Serena
Mental strength another category where to pick one is of no insult to the other. I think each at their peak, its a near tie. Graf could just keep going and the number of times Serena has waited out a losing situation and seen her opponent crack and fight herself back is just mind boggling.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
She had had enough. Plus the last few years she had a ton of issues with her back, her knee I believe as well? I don't think she was physically motivated anymore. She had won everything. She didn't seem to wait to chase the Wimbledon record, or Courts 24...so she just stepped away
skaj
Legend
Yes, but with her main rival being sidelined from the game and scared mentally for the rest of her career.
Anyway, the thread is about their games, not careers.
skaj
Legend
Some odd choices, I must say.
1st serve a tie? Graf had a very good first serve, but Serena's is much more powerful plus with a great placement.
2nd serve probably Serena? She has the best second serve ever, at least I can't think of anyone better(Stosur at her best is close maybe).
Return close? Graf could punish a weak second serve with her forehand, but Serena is much more aggressive and can kill a slower serve, first and second, with both forehand and backhand. I think it's obvious that it's Serena.
With the rest I agree, except for Graf's forehand being the absolute best of all time. As great as hers was, there were a few girls who's forehands were as good plus more powerful(Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic, Stosur). Steffi's was just supported by her superior movement and therefore more solid hit from different parts of the court and more consistent, but as a shot itself it wasn't better.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Power is not the be all and end all, get over it
skaj
Legend
I am guessing she was also aware of the great new generation overtaking. Hingis and Davenport were already there, the Williamses were becoming very dangerous, plus the experienced player that she was, she recognized the new up and coming talents at the time(Henin, Mauresmo, Clijsters...).
Too bad, 30 is still young, I think we could have seen a lot more of her great tennis and many exciting matches against all the great stars of the 2000s.
skaj
Legend
Get over what? Where? I have just said that she has great power on a top of great placement of her serve, therefore hers is better. I think that was clear.
vaillancourt
Rookie
It could be argued Serena never had such a rival in the first place to begin with. Graf atleast had her for awhile even though she got stabbed. I do think Serena faced a lot more depth but who was her biggest career rival. Venus who is only a fast court/mostly grass specialist, and breeds no opposition outside Wimbledon and sometimes the U.S Open. And is her protective older sister and lacks any fire when they play. And while I am pretty sure Venus would have a pretty one sided winning head to head over Seles even without the stabbing (maybe not 9-1) due to the match up situation, being at her peak in the early 2000s when Seles would already be well past hers, and the fact Venus mostly sucks on slower courts where Seles is better and would rarely even reach her while Seles would often reach Venus on grass/medium to fast hard courts to lose to her, Seles overall is still clearly better than Venus. She got stabbed and still won more slams than Venus. Head to head is super overrated anyway, it is mostly Nadal vamosers who created the myth of it being so important. Head to head alone does not indicate much to the better player.
Henin meanwhile retired at 25, to pave an easy path for Serena, and they played maybe 2 months prime to prime in mid 2003, so they were hardly a real rivalry at all ever. She too is overall clearly behind Seles as a player, probably as good on clay and slighty better on grass (but both very weak), but way behind on hard courts. And more importantly 3 years of prime Seles is way more than 3 months of prime Henin, since Henin's prime was mid 2003-2007 and Serena's various primes were something like 99-mid 2003, 2008-2010 (until accident), 2012-2016. Not only Seles but even Navratilova in 86-89 was probably a better rival and tougher single opponent than any Serena ever faced considering 1 of the 2 best she was playing being a nuturing older sister who lacked determination to beat her, and the other (Henin) someone she almost never faced in her prime when Serena was winning slams, and who retired super young.
Last edited:
vaillancourt
Rookie
Davenport's forehand was less technically sound and more error prone than her backhand, while still a powerful and effective shot, and she was losing most forehand rallies to even a granny way over the hill Graf in 98-99 (yes I know movement is part of it but still). The only way of those who might have an equal or better forehand on her A+ days is Pierce, and those were extremely rare. I already exposed your comical overrating of the Stosur forehand in another thread so I will not get into that again. Serena has the best forehand of her era over Stosur and Ivanovic though, although Ivanovic is close and would have a case if her career didnt go off the rails completely.
skaj
Legend
Serena did not have one rival, she is a part of the toughest WTA generation. Venus, Henin, Hingis, Clijsters... Capriati and Davenport were still there in that period, "the Russian revolution" started... It's ridiculous to argue what you are saying. Maybe later in her career Serena had more luck with the competition, but in her 20s she was dealing with the toughest field there ever was.
vaillancourt
Rookie
Yes but my point is Seles was still better than anyone Serena faced, particularly factoring in the "sister factor" for Venus, and that she never played prime Henin basically so you cant even pretend like she did. Well she did in 2007 only, when Serena herself was not prime, and maybe for a couple tournaments on clay in 2003. While I agree Serena overall had a tougher field, she is often overcredited too. Hingis retired at 21, and had already been on decline for atleast 2 years prior to that. Henin retired at 25 and had her best years when Serena was AWOL apart from 2 Australian Opens that Henin didnt even play. Clijsters retired in her early 20s for years before a brief comeback. And Venus was her sister and did not play the same kind of tennis vs Serena she played vs everyone else.
And apart from Sharapova the Russians are all ridiculously overrated. The only other slam winners are the giant headcase Kuznetsova who lucked out with easy draws to win 2 slams, and Myskina who is easily one of the weakest slam winners in the Open Era. Most of the better Russians like Safina, Dementieva, Petrova, could not even win a slam.
Last edited:
skaj
Legend
Davenport's forehand was technically great, clean, flexible, creating angles well, consistent. If she did lose most of their forehand to forehand exchanges it was because of Steffi's superior movement, and she did not lose significantly more of those exchanges.
You did not expose my anything, go back and see how badly you lost that debate in the two threads.
As for Serena, as great her forehand is, when she was playing Ivanovic and Stosur, it was visible that those girls' forehands were more naturally dangerous shots than hers.
vaillancourt
Rookie
Haha clown a former French Open Champion came in to side with me and post numerous stats to expose your stupidity and basically called you an idiot. It is you who were badly humiliated and sent off crying in that debate, basically told by a Slam Champion you were a dufus and that I was right on everything.
Davenport's forehand was still great, but definitely technically a bit more flawed and more prone to errors when rushed than her backhand. No her forehand was not better than Graf's, her forehand is not even better than Serena's and probably Henin's (match her matches with Henin), which most knowledgable people would agree on. And again the matches I was referring to were WAY lower than prime Graf in late 98-99 when Graf was about 60% of her prime level, so if Davenport really had a superior forehand to prime Graf she wouldnt be losing most of the exchanges even factoring in the movement which is more than negated by a massively declined Graf forehand/Graf abilities.
And you obviously have never watched Serena playing Pierce, although in fairness she not play prime Pierce that often.
skaj
Legend
Even if Seles were a better player than anyone Serena played(and she wasn't), Serena played a bunch of amazing players, while Graf had to play Seles for a few years and Martina and Chris who were on a decline.
Serena played 4 matches against prime(2007) Henin, and more when Henin was very solid too, plenty against prime Venus and Hingis; there was Capriati in the early 2000s, playing some very solid tennis; Sharapova was extremely dangerous before the shoulder injury in 2008, Kuznetsova was great when she was on; Myskina was an amazing player, much better than most slam winners of today, if you don't see that you don't know much about tennis, and Dementieva when she improved her serve was another tough opponent, especially for Serena(she could return her serve well, retrieve as well as attack from the baseline equally well).
vaillancourt
Rookie
So you dont consider Seles better than Venus and Henin? She got stabbed and still won numerous more slams than them, what other conclusion is there than she was better than them.
And Martina was not way past her prime in the late 80s, at one point in 89-early 90 she went 67-3 with the only 3 losses being too Graf. The only reason some think that is since Graf kicked her off her throne. Graf was in fact much further from her peak level most of the early 90s than Navratilova in 86-89, when she was losing regularly to Sabatini, and losing slam semis 6-2, 6-0 to Sanchez, and Seles basically vultured a badly slumping Graf period for the most part (atleast prior to RG 92), so by your logic Seles's achievements that period are bloated and due to weak competition too.
Myskina an amazing player, LOL! I have seen her play in her prime numerous times and no she was not. Her tennis even to win her lone slam was just solid, not spectacular, and she mostly benefitted from self destructing opponents in her last 2 rounds. Mary Joe Fernandez even called her one of the worst slam winners and lacking any big weapon, but I am sure your tennis knowledge surpasses a 3 time slam finalist. And I guess by your words this 3 time slam finalist doesnt know much about tennis, but the almighty skaj is the one who does.
skaj
Legend
Speaking of stupidity, the poster who apparently presented yourself as Francesca Schiavone and you believed them, is not only very unlikely the great Italian player but someone who was demolished in that debate and who quit it after that, as were you. Do you suffer from dementia maybe or you have some other psychological problems that prevent you from remembering that? Good god...
And yet again you are answering to something I did not say, in this case that Davenport's forehand is better than Graf's... Of Serena's it is however, to answer what you did write, it was more consistent and technically more solid, more flexible. No, most knowledgeable people would not agree on opposite...
I did see Serena playing Pierce, another of your many wrong conclusions...
vaillancourt
Rookie
You just keep deluding yourself honey. Yes I do believe said poster is Schiavone, how is that far fetched, it is a known fact numerous ex and occasionaly current WTA and ATP players post here, although never the most famous ones which Schiavone certainly is not. If she isnt though who cares, she still schooled you with numerous stats that backed up her opinions while you presented nothing except repeating "Stosur hits her forehand with lots of spin, and I say it is the best ever, and even though nobody but me thinks that i am right, so f-ck off." I am not the one who has been called "one of the dumbest posters here and that is saying something" by several people in the last month.
OK if you saw Serena playing Pierce and you think Serena had trouble keeping pace off the forehand side in almost all their matches, apart from Indian Wells 2000 when Serena was playing awful the entire first 5 months of 2000, then you are apparently just blind as opposed to not seeing the matches. My bad.
skaj
Legend
First of all Seles won only two slams more than each. Second, the number of slams is not enough to conclude who was a better player, it's oversimplifying.
And again, you are answering to what I did not say and that is that Martina was way past her prime in the late 80s. And yes, you are observing well, only you need to apply that to the previous paragraph - competition for Seles in the early 90s was weaker than the one Henin and Venus had to face a decade later.
Speaking of tennis knowledge, I love your "I have seen her play and she was not" arguments. Did, how, why and when Fernandez call Myskina that, we don't know until we find out the context, then I can explain to you what she meant. Anastasia was a great player. No big serve, but she had a very solid return, was hitting the ball extremely well of the ground, off both sides, flat, deep, precise, consistently, was able to defend, counterpunch, as well as attach, could play very well at the net too, had an excellent touch, and was one of the smartest tacticians in the game. Her career was short(finished at 25), and she played the strongest field that ever was, that combined with her lack of mental toughness resulted in lesser number of titles.
skaj
Legend
You just keep deluding yourself honey. Yes I do believe said poster is Schiavone, how is that far fetched, it is a known fact numerous ex and occasionaly current WTA and ATP players post here, although never the most famous ones which Schiavone certainly is not. If she isnt though who cares, she still schooled you with numerous stats that backed up her opinions while you presented nothing except repeating "Stosur hits her forehand with lots of spin, and I say it is the best ever, and even though nobody but me thinks that i am right, so f-ck off." I am not the one who has been called "one of the dumbest posters here and that is saying something" by several people in the last month.
OK if you saw Serena playing Pierce and you think Serena had trouble keeping pace off the forehand side in almost all their matches, apart from Indian Wells 2000 when Serena was playing awful the entire first 5 months of 2000, then you are apparently just blind as opposed to not seeing the matches. My bad.
I have explained, although it was really extremely bizarre that I had to explain something that obvious(speaking of dumbness...), why is it highly unlikely that the poster is Francesca Schiavone. I think Schiavone should sue the poster(or whoever made that up) for slander, because they are falsely presenting themselves as her plus posting comments full of anger, bad manners and nonsense. I have explained the unintelligent arguments "Francesca" was posting, as well those you were posting, it is all in the thread, so I am leaving it here for you to remember and for people who are reading this to see for themselves: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-best-ever-wta-forehand.650168/#post-13621576
I have never presented my arguments the way you falsely quoted me, nor did everybody disagree with me. The posters who are immature enough to in frustration and anger call someone 'the dumbest poster" because they don't have arguments against what they are replying to, or can't understand what they are replying to because of their own cognitive limitations, are not the posters I would refer to if I were you.
And yet AGAIN, you are fabricating, and answering to what I have never said. This is like the 20th time. I have never said that I think Serena had trouble keeping pace off the forehand side in almost all their matches, apart from Indian Wells 2000. I am not sure how do you come to these conclusions, is it just a problem with your attention or something more serious. Please think about it, because you keep commenting on things that I have never said, and wasting everyone's time here that way.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Well, she was but her game structure and her obduracy combined to have the effect of her not using this aspect as much as she should have. So that, in crunch matches, she either lacked the confidence to exploit it (Seles 93 AO) or botched the execution on clutch points and lost anyway (Garrison W 90 or Novotna AO 91). Likewise, her topspin backhand. She could use it effectively at times but because she eschewed it so much, she also couldn't summon it up under pressure a lot of times. Again, aforesaid Novotna match is a good exhibit of this where Graf did make some backhand passing shots but botched others because she was not used to having to hit so many TS backhands.
One thing people don't mention often about the Graf forehand is it was far better inside in/inside out rather than CC or DTL from the FH corner. On the days when she was really confident, she could do magic with it but a lot of times her forehand running towards the FH corner just wasn't as effective as IO/II. By comparison, Serena's FH strength is more consistently distributed across the different angles and I would rank her short angle CC higher than Graf.
Which brings me to the weakest part of Graf's game - her lack of imagination and tendency to seek comfort in predictable patterns. She would go again, again and again to the long angles looking for an opportunity to hammer the inside out (by the way, while her IO didn't go AWOL in the AO 93 final, it was nowhere near as potent as it could be and one of the defeat factors imo). So you could figure out how to play her and the question was more whether you could match up to the incredible athlete she was. I feel Serena has more patterns, more options which she puts into use more often, making her far more unpredictable for the opponent.
Lastly, the serve is pretty much the clincher. Graf's serve was good but by no means the lethal weapon that Serena's is. And I have seen her serve out those bombs going back to 99 when she had no significant, if any, equipment advantage over Graf or other older players. I don't believe anyway that the equipment argument is as important in the WTA context as it is at the ATP. With the kind of serve Serena has, she takes the pressure off her service games and can take a bigger cut while receiving. Having a great double hander further enables her to take these big cuts in a way Graf never could with her slice. It is deeply ironic that Serena haters often resort to saying, "Oh, she just wins because she is so much stronger physically" when Graf relied almost entirely on her athleticism rather than court craft to prevail. Take away that BH slice and Graf was the archetypal power baseliner and ballbasher. And she didn't nearly exploit the all court potential her slice could have given her, feeling more comfortable in the back court than at net even though she wasn't a bad volleyer by any means (for all that, both were clumsy with really tough shoelace volleys or diving volleys). Basically, neither is the Federer of WTA and neither had/have the patience to be the Nadal or Djokovic either in terms of defence attrition.
vaillancourt
Rookie
I actually agree Henin and Venus had much tougher competition than Seles and each won only 2 less slams. The reason I am saying it is pretty clear Seles is better than Venus and Henin is since she got stabbed and STILL won 2 more slams than Venus and Henin. For me that is enough to say she is better, even considering her weaker competition. You of all people who is always trumpetting how Seles was a sure future GOAT and 20 slam winner had she not gotten stabbed (which I certainly do not do, nor agree with) should understand that logic.
I am guessing you might think Venus is better than Seles due to the head to head, and I already conceded I am pretty sure Venus owns their personal head to head even without the stabbing. However head to head is overated in tennis, and it is mostly Nadal fanboys and their alterior agenda who has pushed that warped logic. There are many factors that go into a head to head, and tennis is full of conflicting head to heads anyway. Venus is a better fast court player than Seles, but Seles is a way better slow court player than Venus by a much bigger margin than Venus is better on fast courts, minus grass of course. Henin is atleast equal to Seles on clay, and clearly better on grass (although both are capable to win sh1t on grass so it is pretty moot), and close to equal indoors and on very fast hard courts, but clearly weaker by a good margin on slow to medium hard courts which puts her behind overall.
Fernandez said that about Myskina during talking about her during the 2004 Australian Open, 2004 French Open, and after her win at the 2004 French Open. She that when going back to the broadcast studio in various breaks during the Rubin-Myskina match when she said "Rubin has no business losing to Myskina" which FWIW I totally disagree with so am not nearly as hard on Myskina as Fernandez is. And during the Venus-Myskina quarter and before and after the Capriati-Myskina semi at the 2004 French. Bottom line though is you can think Myskina was great, but like the majority of your tennis related opinions the vast majority of people would disagree with you, start a thread on Myskina on a womens tennis website and see the responses you get. And by your logic the 3 time slam finalist knows nothing about tennis as she thinks Myskina is certainly not great, which apparently "nobody knowledgable" would ever think, and goes against the opinion of the almight Skaj, the one who really knows his/her tennis (lol).
Also Myskina peaked in 2004-2006, not in the truly golden age of womens tennis of 98-2003, so her competition was not even as amazing as you are potraying. 2004 and 2005 were still deep but a bit of a mess at the top with both Williams injured and erratic, Henin having all kinds of health problems post Indian Wells 2004, Clijsters missing almost all of 2004 and the first part of 2005 with an injury, and Capriati on decline and done post U.S Open 2004.
Last edited:
vaillancourt
Rookie
She seemed to just not be motivated anymore. She was motivated by getting back on top after everyone wrote her off after her 97/98 injuries and decline, and by winning RG and reaching finals of Wimbledon she had briefly returned to being basically the best player in the world again, and that was enough for her.
I think in the back of her mind she wasnt as confident as she wanted to be not getting injured again, or being able to come close to her former dominance against an improved field of huge hitters like the Williams and Davenport, and the talented Hingis, and now starting her 30s; and despite her resurgence already having lost some clear power and speed permanently through her injuries and multiple surgeries already.
skaj
Legend
Yes, I know that is enough for you to say she was better, it's not the first time you are showing that you are limited to very simple logic. And AGAIN you are fabricating - where on earth did you hear me say, write or even insinuate that Seles was a sure future GOAT and 20 slam winner had she not gotten stabbed???!! What is wrong with you??
To answer to your next paragraph, and In addition to my previous sentence: please don't guess anymore about what I think, not only because you are terribly bad at it, but because there is no reason for you to answer to what you think I think, please answer to what I wrote, and try to take time to understand it so you don't get to more wrong conclusions. - You made an assumption about what I think, commented on what you think I think, writing a hole paragraph, please stop doing that, you are wasting everybody's time, including your own.
As for Fernandes, first of all just because someone was in a few slam finals it doesn't make them a good commentator. e.g. Wilander won way more than what's her name, and he is a horrible commentator. Not to mention that the comment was made in 2004(the context I was talking about), before all the one hit wonders we have today. And again you are first giving your opinion about who would agree or disagree with me as if that is an argument, then using the logic that says that if the masses say something is the case, that must be the case in reality(as we know, masses are usually highly knowledgeable and smart...).
p.s. 2004-2006 was a very tough period, the Williamses were less consistent but still around and winning slams, same goes for Henin who was even more present, especially in 2006 which was a great year for her, Mauresmo played her best in that period, arguably Davenport too, Pierce came back in 2005, Clijsters had the best year then too, Sharapova was super dangerous etc.etc.
vaillancourt
Rookie
I sincerely hope English is not your first language.
As for Seles you have said many times you think she was as good as Graf, and if anything she is underrated and not overrated as others are voting her as, since she would have so many more slams and Graf less without the stabbing. Yet suddenly are now not even willing to admit she is better than 1 surface wonders Venus Williams and Justine Henin. You are right on one thing, nobody should guess what you are thinking, since it is clear even you can not figure that out half the time.
skaj
Legend
I sincerely hope English is not your first language.
As for Seles you have said many times you think she was as good as Graf, and if anything she is underrated and not overrated as others are voting her as, since she would have so many more slams and Graf less without the stabbing. Yet suddenly are now not even willing to admit she is better than 1 surface wonders Venus Williams and Justine Henin. You are right on one thing, nobody should guess what you are thinking, since it is clear even you can not figure that out half the time.
I did not write one letter when typing, I believe it's called typo, is that so funny to you? How old are you?
And of course English is not my first language, you've noticed that now? Jesus... And please stick to the topic.
There is nothing sudden about what I have written, it's just your horrible oversimplified logic. If I think Seles would have won more slams without the stabbing(as most reasonable people do), it doesn't mean I also think she is a better player than Venus and Henin(who are, of course, not "1 surface wonders", both won many titles and multiple slams on hard court).
Similar threads
