Right now Venus 2nd greatest female player of this generation not Henin

It seems most people say Henin is the 2nd best player of this generation after Serena, in fact some have even gone far enough to say she is the best (LOL at those people but anyway). Venus at this moment should be considered the 2nd greatest player of this generation, not Henin.

They both have 7 slams. However Venus has 5 of her slams at the most important event in tennis- Wimbledon. That is even more than Serena. Henin has none.

Venus was denied many slams by Serena at her all time peak in 2002-2003. She would have an additional 3-5 slams otherwise. That is not even considering the potential slams she lost out to Serena in other years like the 08 U.S Open or 09 Wimbledon titles too.

Henin loses out on slams to a variety of players, and most of her slams come at the French Open vs less than stellar competion. Basically she capatilizes on a weak clay court era. The worst surface for both Serena and Venus. Always the worst surface for Davenport and Sharapova as well. Not the best surface for Clijsters who Henin owned mentally from 03-06 anyway. The other top clay courters being either inconsistent headcases or players simply not slam calibre like Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Dementieva, Safina, Petrova, a past her prime Pierce. Contrast to Venus who has such tough competition on her favorite surfaces, never the relatively free ride Henin gets at the French. Venus also peaked from 1998-2003 when womens tennis was alot tougher than it has been during Henin's peak years.

I would say Venus overall on hard courts is better. Henin has been better on rebound ace with a better Australian Open record. However when both were at their peak in 2003 Venus easily beat Justine there. Venus has been better on the other hard courts. She has won Miami, the biggest medium paced hard court event, many times, while Justine has never won it. At the U.S Open both have won twice, but Venus's overall record is far better. She has lost to the eventual winner every year since 2005 now. Indoors maybe Justine gets a slight edge mostly by basis of playing more on it. She has won the WTA Championships twice and some more fall events as far as I know. Still overall I would give Veus the nod here.

Lastly there is the head to head. 7-2 Venus. Even 1-1 on clay believe it or not.

So Venus at this point should clearly be regarded as the 2nd greatest player of this generation. I do expect Henin will end up with more slams than Venus by the way, perhaps multiple more. She is a couple years younger, it will be easier for her to win the French then it will be for Venus to win Wimbledon from now on, and even at hard court slams Henin seems probably more likely to win at this point than is Venus, certainly in Australia alot more likely. However Henin would need to be over Venus by 2-3 slams and win a Wimbledon before I would even consider putting her over Venus.

Disagree. Henin is a superior player. Also, stating that Wimbo is most important factor in tennis is rather subjective.

davey25 said:

They both have 7 slams. However Venus has 5 of her slams at the most important event in tennis- Wimbledon. That is even more than Serena. Henin has none.

Click to expand...

so then, according to your logic, Venus is greater than Serena.

Here are some clips from the 2001 Wimbledon final. Henin eating a breadstick and bagel on tennis's biggest stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndoAdLbaCI

drakulie said:

so then, according to your logic, Venus is greater than Serena.

Click to expand...

No. 5 more slams and a non calender slam is more than enough to compensate for 2 fewer Wimbledons (Serena still has 3 of those). Such things dont exist when comparing Henin to Venus at this point.

Oh, I see. You like to "make the rules" as you go along. :roll:

drakulie said:

Oh, I see. You like to "make the rules" as you go along. :roll:

Click to expand...

agreed. this argument=fail.

drakulie said:

Oh, I see. You like to "make the rules" as you go along. :roll:

Click to expand...

Davey is a specialist in both tennis and Calvinball

Puredrivetennis said:

Disagree. Henin is a superior player. Also, stating that Wimbo is most important factor in tennis is rather subjective.

Click to expand...

You can say that if you so choose, but historically and culturally, Wimbledon has always been held in higher regard than the FO.

What is most telling is at one point many top players skipped the French and nearly all top players skipped the Australian Open. Of course now all the slams are so valuable that is true of all of them, but it is still telling to their importance this was once the case. There was almost nothing that could stop players if healthy from missing Wimbledon or the U.S Open ever since the early 50s atleast now.

davey25 said:

There was almost nothing that could stop players if healthy from missing Wimbledon or the U.S Open ever since the early 50s atleast now.

Click to expand...

I guess Nadal missed the memo last year. But I digress, this last post of yours has nothing to do with Henin/Serna/Venus.

Wimbledon (in the WTA) has become the proving grounds for flat baseline-bashing, variety free, power tennis. Of course Venus won it 5 times with her superior athleticism.

The FO is the best place to judge true tennis skill, ability, and talent. No wonder Henin (at 5'5, mind you) won it 4 times and the Williams sisters combined have only won 1.

Back in the S&V days, Wimbledon was the place where the "true" tennis was played, but in today's WTA tour, the FO is a better indicator of someone's game.

Just my 2 cents

As much as I am a fan of Venus Id put Henin slightly above her in the singles she has won 3 of the 4 slams, overall though, if you include doubles, olympics etc its Venus.

davey25 said:

Right now Venus 2nd greatest female player of this generation not Henin

Click to expand...

Right. Justineheninhoogenbandfan would be soooooo sad.

drakulie said:

Oh, I see. You like to "make the rules" as you go along. :roll:

Click to expand...

Actually, he also likes to make usernames as he goes along, depending on which player he has a crush on at any given point in time.

(giggles)

Mother Majorie is going to have so much fun in this thread.

(giggles)

Can somone please explain to Mother Marjorie why Venus Williams hasn't been able to win the Australian Open and French Open?

And while your at it, please explain why Venus Williams could only muster up 11 weeks at number one compared to Justine's 117 weeks, if Venus is the 2nd best player of her generation?

vbranis said:

Wimbledon (in the WTA) has become the proving grounds for flat baseline-bashing, variety free, power tennis. Of course Venus won it 5 times with her superior athleticism.

The FO is the best place to judge true tennis skill, ability, and talent. No wonder Henin (at 5'5, mind you) won it 4 times and the Williams sisters combined have only won 1.

Back in the S&V days, Wimbledon was the place where the "true" tennis was played, but in today's WTA tour, the FO is a better indicator of someone's game.

Just my 2 cents

Click to expand...

Yes, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Myskina, and Safina all have superior true tennis skill than the WS.

in before thelivest restates and reiterates davey's arguement.

jamesblakefan#1 said:

Yes, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Myskina, and Safina all have superior true tennis skill than the WS.

Click to expand...

Actually, yes. The Williams sisters are all raw power and athleticism, their technique/variety/ball control/skill are not better than those players you mentioned.

vbranis said:

Actually, yes. The Williams sisters are all raw power and athleticism, their technique/variety/ball control/skill are not better than those players you mentioned.

Click to expand...

Safina and Ivanovic are the definition of brainless bashers. The Williams play with far more court smarts, control, guile, variety, than they do. And those two have worse technique than Serena, and no better than Venus (who herself does have some technical flaws true).

drakulie said:

Oh, I see. You like to "make the rules" as you go along. :roll:

Click to expand...

Mother Marjorie thinks its time that certain things are exposed.

Certain things about "making the rules up as he goes along"

Its a pattern that needs more scrutiny....more attention...more Mother Marjorie!

vbranis said:

Wimbledon (in the WTA) has become the proving grounds for flat baseline-bashing, variety free, power tennis. Of course Venus won it 5 times with her superior athleticism.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. In the past 10 years, how many of your so-called "flat, baseline bashing" type players have won Wimbledon, because Serena and Venus--who won employing skills (in part) gained by their doubles experiences--do not fit your catagory, nor would Mauresmo, either. Sharapova is the only player of the past decade to win the title using your exact style of play, thus your point falls flat.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:

Nonsense. In the past 10 years, how many of your so-called "flat, baseline bashing" type players have won Wimbledon, because Serena and Venus--who won employing skills (in part) gained by their doubles experiences--do not fit your catagory, nor would Mauresmo, either. Sharapova is the only player of the past decade to win the title using your exact style of play, thus your point falls flat.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with vbranis to a point, but (other than the blip that is Mauresmo) they didn't play a very variety filled game. Mauresmo would S&V, hit deep slices, loopy topspin, etc... With the Williams sisters, it is forward forward forward. I'm not knocking this tactic, as it is quite successful for them, but it can make for some hard winners and that's it, nothing that is interesting for me, haha.

Jonny S&V said:

I don't agree with vbranis to a point, but (other than the blip that is Mauresmo) they didn't play a very variety filled game. Mauresmo would S&V, hit deep slices, loopy topspin, etc... With the Williams sisters, it is forward forward forward. I'm not knocking this tactic, as it is quite successful for them, but it can make for some hard winners and that's it, nothing that is interesting for me, haha.

Click to expand...

Still though, v's point falls flat when you have bashers like Safina and Ivanovic in the later stages of RG in recent years, and even Sharapova, the picture of ballbashing baselining, has made it further at RG than at Wimbledon in recent years. That in and of itself makes v's point about 'true tennis skill' being needed at RG moot. Just another excuse to rationalize Henin's lack of a Wimbledon title, it seems.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:

Nonsense. In the past 10 years, how many of your so-called "flat, baseline bashing" type players have won Wimbledon, because Serena and Venus--who won employing skills (in part) gained by their doubles experiences--do not fit your catagory, nor would Mauresmo, either. Sharapova is the only player of the past decade to win the title using your exact style of play, thus your point falls flat.

Click to expand...

Mauresmo, true, is the only exception. The Williamses have a power game that lacks variety, how many times have you seen them slice, drop shot, or hit topspin? They simply hit thru their opponents.

Kuznetsova, Henin, Myskina, and Pierce all had very good court skills and variety. Ivanovic in '08 was the odd-one out.

Pierce very good all court skills and variety? On which planet.

I loved reading Nick Bolletieri's book where before her breakthrough slam at the 94 French he told her something like Mary dont take this personally but you arent very smart on the court. In fact you are rather stupid out there. So dear dont think, just go out there and smack the ball, clobber the heck out of it. Dont bother to think, just hammer your groundstrokes.

jamesblakefan#1 said:

Still though, v's point falls flat when you have bashers like Safina and Ivanovic in the later stages of RG in recent years, and even Sharapova, the picture of ballbashing baselining, has made it further at RG than at Wimbledon in recent years. That in and of itself makes v's point about 'true tennis skill' being needed at RG moot. Just another excuse to rationalize Henin's lack of a Wimbledon title, it seems.

Click to expand...

I don't know why everyone thinks that Henin should win a Wimbledon title... Although she certainly has the most complete game on tour right now, her grips on her groundstrokes prevent her from being as good as she can be at Wimbledon. That being said, those strokes don't hurt her on any other surface, and she still goes far at a few Wimbledons that she has played, therefore, I would say that Henin is the better player than Williams. I wouldn't call Safina a ball-basher as much as some of the other's mentioned, as she knows when to use heavy topspin and when to attempt to finish the point off. Kuznetsova has a far more variety filled game than the Williams sisters, obviously Henin does, and Myskina was a beautiful mover who has pretty strokes. The only players besides the Williams sisters that haven't had variety filled games to win the French are Pierce and Ivanovic.

Jonny S&V said:

I don't know why everyone thinks that Henin should win a Wimbledon title... Although she certainly has the most complete game on tour right now, her grips on her groundstrokes prevent her from being as good as she can be at Wimbledon. That being said, those strokes don't hurt her on any other surface, and she still goes far at a few Wimbledons that she has played, therefore, I would say that Henin is the better player than Williams. I wouldn't call Safina a ball-basher as much as some of the other's mentioned, as she knows when to use heavy topspin and when to attempt to finish the point off. Kuznetsova has a far more variety filled game than the Williams sisters, obviously Henin does, and Myskina was a beautiful mover who has pretty strokes. The only players besides the Williams sisters that haven't had variety filled games to win the French are Pierce and Ivanovic.

Click to expand...

Agreed about Henin being ahead of Venus all time. Also I think the benefit of the doubt about Henin's lack of Wimbledon titles went out the window when she admitted she lost to Bartoli in 07 b/c she was scared of facing Venus in the final.

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/...-of-the-williams-sisters-inspired-by-federer/

jamesblakefan#1 said:

Agreed about Henin being ahead of Venus all time. Also I think the benefit of the doubt about Henin's lack of Wimbledon titles went out the window when she admitted she lost to Bartoli in 07 b/c she was scared of facing Venus in the final.

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/...-of-the-williams-sisters-inspired-by-federer/

Click to expand...

It's hard to beat a hard, flat ball on a slicker surface with unpredictable bounces with Henin's grips and swing path.

jamesblakefan#1 said:

Agreed about Henin being ahead of Venus all time. Also I think the benefit of the doubt about Henin's lack of Wimbledon titles went out the window when she admitted she lost to Bartoli in 07 b/c she was scared of facing Venus in the final.

http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/...-of-the-williams-sisters-inspired-by-federer/

Click to expand...

So a player who admits she is "scared" of another player (backed up by a 2-7 head to head) should rate above this other player all time when they are tied in slam titles, and the player who is not scared is the one with 5 titles at the Worlds biggest event vs 0 for the other?

davey25 said:

So a player who admits she is "scared" of another player (backed up by a 2-7 head to head) should rate above this other player all time when they are tied in slam titles, and the player who is not scared is the one with 5 titles at the Worlds biggest event vs 0 for the other?

Click to expand...

On grass, who wants to play Venus? Serena is probably the only player in the world not scared of playing Venus on grass. Wimbledon can be won with simple, easy tactics because the points are so short, the French requires actual strategy (unless you can hit opponents off the court, ala Serena/Ivanovic/etc...). Yes, Henin was the more well-rounded player and dominated far more than Venus did, therefore, it's my opinion that she was better.

Henin only had one truly dominat year thus far- 2007. She was far and away the best women player in the World that year, something Serena in her autobiography even admits. There are 2 other years she was arguably, but not undisputably, the best- 2003 and 2006. Some would also argue Mauresmo was the best player in the World in 2006, and many would say Serena was in 2003 as it was only her injury (likely) that allowed Justine to end the year with the slightly better overall results.

Venus had 2 years she was considered clearly the games most dominant player- 2000 and 2001. She did not dominate either year overall as much as Justine in 2007, but she did win the 2 biggest events both years, with Justine with her failure to win Wimbledon didnt do even in 2007. She had 2 other years where outside of clay she completely dominated everyone other than a peak Serena- 2002 and 2003. She overall dominated Wimbledon just as much as Henin the French until now.

So I wouldnt say there is a big difference in dominance either way. Both failed to produce any sustained long term dominance of the game.

Jonny S&V said:

On grass, who wants to play Venus? Serena is probably the only player in the world not scared of playing Venus on grass. Wimbledon can be won with simple, easy tactics because the points are so short, the French requires actual strategy (unless you can hit opponents off the court, ala Serena/Ivanovic/etc...). Yes, Henin was the more well-rounded player and dominated far more than Venus did, therefore, it's my opinion that she was better.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

Venus > Henin on grass, no doubt about it. Power rules at Wimbledon, and no one has more power than Venus. However, it is not a true indicator of who is the better overall player.

If grass were all about power then players like Seles and Pierce would have won there at some point, yet neither even came close (unless you count Seles's destruction in the 92 final as getting close). And Davenport would have won it more than once. Does anyone really think there would have been a Novotna vs Tauziat final and a Mauresmo vs Henin final at Wimbledon if it were all about power.

Many of the power players of the last 20 years hate grass and find it their worst. Venus and Serena love it since they have it all there- the great serves, the overall power, the return of serve skill, the volleying skills, the transition game, the overall athleticsm, and the great ability to move on that slick grass.

davey25 said:

Henin only had one truly dominat year thus far- 2007. She was far and away the best women player in the World that year, something Serena in her autobiography even admits. There are 2 other years she was arguably, but not undisputably, the best- 2003 and 2006. Some would also argue Mauresmo was the best player in the World in 2006, and many would say Serena was in 2003 as it was only her injury (likely) that allowed Justine to end the year with the slightly better overall results.

Venus had 2 years she was considered clearly the games most dominant player- 2000 and 2001. She did not dominate either year overall as much as Justine in 2007, but she did win the 2 biggest events both years, with Justine with her failure to win Wimbledon didnt do even in 2007. She had 2 other years where outside of clay she completely dominated everyone other than a peak Serena- 2002 and 2003. She overall dominated Wimbledon just as much as Henin the French until now.

So I wouldnt say there is a big difference in dominance either way. Both failed to produce any sustained long term dominance of the game.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Henin has spent more time than even Serena at #1. Henin was a better player throughout the year at any tournament she played at (save for grass) because Venus didn't care enough about the smaller tourneys. That being said, now all Venus can settle for is smaller tourneys. All Venus can ever win from now until she calls it quits it Wimbledon. The same can't be said about Henin, who can compete on any surface (even grass, doesn't mean she'll win often on grass however).

vbranis said:

Mauresmo, true, is the only exception. The Williamses have a power game that lacks variety, how many times have you seen them slice, drop shot, or hit topspin? They simply hit thru their opponents.

Click to expand...

Are you actually saying they have not employed those skills? Furthermore, their understanding of the net was a significant reason for their combined Wimbledon titles; neither could have won playing like Dementieva or Safina.

Jonny S&V said:

the French requires actual strategy

Click to expand...

Kuznetsova winning with her type of play/skillset is a strong counter-argument to your view. Let's not forget that another notorious basher--Vaidisova--made a deep run at the FO using her one-dimensional bashing game. Playing the FO does not necessarily require the complexity you think it does.

davey25 said:

If grass were all about power then players like Seles and Pierce would have won there at some point, yet neither even came close (unless you count Seles's destruction in the 92 final as getting close). And Davenport would have won it more than once. Does anyone really think there would have been a Novotna vs Tauziat final and a Mauresmo vs Henin final at Wimbledon if it were all about power.

Many of the power players of the last 20 years hate grass and find it their worst. Venus and Serena love it since they have it all there- the great serves, the overall power, the return of serve skill, the volleying skills, the transition game, the overall athleticsm, and the great ability to move on that slick grass.

Click to expand...

I destroy that arguement with this: They couldn't move. Serena and Venus are physical specimens, and they can get away with things (not to mention do things) that mere mortals can't do. All of the players that win Wimbledon (save for Sharapova and Davenport, amongst others) can move better. I'm just saying that the tactics at Wimbledon on the women's side tends to be very one-dimensional, whilst players with more varied games and tactics can win Roland Garros.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:

Kuznetsova winning with her type of play/skillset is a strong counter-argument to your view. Let's not forget that another notorious basher--Vaidisova--made a deep run at the FO using her one-dimensional bashing game. Playing the FO does not necessarily require the complexity you think it does.

Click to expand...

No, it's not just the variety of the strokes, but the strategy that she employed against Safina. Vaidisova just hit a hot streak that few players can reach, and she just destroyed with her serve and groundstroke. Kuznetsova was using every inch of the court to beat Safina (when Safina didn't self-implode).

Fail thread. Henin is a better all court player than Venus and isn't done winning slams at only 27. Granny Venus is pretty much finished as far as slams go.

Jonny S&V said:

I destroy that arguement with this: They couldn't move. Serena and Venus are physical specimens, and they can get away with things (not to mention do things) that mere mortals can't do. All of the players that win Wimbledon (save for Sharapova and Davenport, amongst others) can move better. I'm just saying that the tactics at Wimbledon on the women's side tends to be very one-dimensional, whilst players with more varied games and tactics can win Roland Garros.

Click to expand...

Yet if it were all about power why would movement matter? If you are admiting you need movement, usually great movement, to win Wimbledon then it obviously isnt just about power anyway.

I would argue all the players who have won Wimbledon of late can also volley with few exceptions.

Navratilova- best volleyer ever
Venus- great volleyer
Serena- very good volleyer
Mauresmo- excellecent volleyer
Graf- reasonably good volleyer
Hingis- very good volleyer
Novotna- great at the net
Davenport- pretty good volleyer as her doubles record shows

So only Sharapova of winners since 1980 could not volley that well. That is another large reason Pierce and Seles couldnt win Wimbledon in addition to their clunky movement.

davey25 said:

It seems most people say Henin is the 2nd best player of this generation after Serena, in fact some have even gone far enough to say she is the best (LOL at those people but anyway). Venus at this moment should be considered the 2nd greatest player of this generation, not Henin.

Click to expand...

Disagree completely

They both have 7 slams. However Venus has 5 of her slams at the most important event in tennis- Wimbledon. That is even more than Serena. Henin has none.

Click to expand...

Henin has won 3 of the 4, and could very well add more to her 7 before she retires, where as Venus would be able to add 1 Wimbledon, 2 at absolute Best, assuming her sister doesn't end up on the net opposite her or if she does chooses to let het win. By your logic, Venus's surface/slam centric record is more important than Henin's? Take out Wimbledon for Venus she has 2 US Opens,2 US Open finals 1 Aussie Final, and 1 French Open Final (the last of which she should be thankful for a gifted draw from someone up there).Take out Henin's Frenches and she has 2 US Opens, 1 US Open Final, 1 Australian open and 1 final, and 2 Wimbledon Finals. Henin has more across the surface acheivement at the biggest slams, and is better at her worst slam than Venus. Seems like according to this logic, Venus is better despite the fact that she seems to only consistently show strong 2 weeks out of the yr some years.

Venus was denied many slams by Serena at her all time peak in 2002-2003. She would have an additional 3-5 slams otherwise. That is not even considering the potential slams she lost out to Serena in other years like the 08 U.S Open or 09 Wimbledon titles too.

Click to expand...

Venus would likely not have won the 2002 French, take out Serena and Venus likely doesn't get her dream draw to the final and goes out early like she did in 2001. Serena owns Venus in slams other than Wimbledon, Venus could have won all those slams and didn't, Serena is better, I could just as easily say Henin could have won the 2005 Aussie, the 2008 & 2009 Frenches, both the 2006 and 2008 Australians (if not for Sharapova)...so thats another 3-5 slams for her to...those arguments work both ways.

Henin loses out on slams to a variety of players, and most of her slams come at the French Open vs less than stellar competion. Basically she capatilizes on a weak clay court era. The worst surface for both Serena and Venus. Always the worst surface for Davenport and Sharapova as well.

Click to expand...

Venus won several Wimbledons against pretty poor Grass Court fields apart from her sister, Mauresmo and Davenport, and Sharapova one year. Henin has numerous wins over all those players you mentioned except for Venus, against whom most of her matches occured well before Henin hit her actual prime.

Not the best surface for Clijsters who Henin owned mentally from 03-06 anyway. The other top clay courters being either inconsistent headcases or players simply not slam calibre like Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Dementieva, Safina, Petrova, a past her prime Pierce

Click to expand...

.

True but that is also the Grass Court field That Williams was Facing throughout some of her Wimbledons, and Dementieva could even be argued as the 3rd best grass courter right now with SF's at Wimbledon the past 2 yrs (what does that tell you?), once again, that argument can go both ways

Contrast to Venus who has such tough competition on her favorite surfaces, never the relatively free ride Henin gets at the French. Venus also peaked from 1998-2003 when womens tennis was alot tougher than it has been during Henin's peak years.

Click to expand...

That is partially true, but all her Wimbledons won since 2003 were against overall weak grass court fields apart from Serena, Mauresmo Davenport and Sharapova for like, 2 years. And Venus was struggling against lower ranked players in some of her Wimbledon wins, Almost lost to Morigami, Kudrayetseva (probably spelled that wrong), lost to Jankovic (who has never been past the 4th rd of Wimbledon), needed a 22 point tiebreak to beat Pierce in the 2nd set on arguably her worst surface...and so on. Venus struggled against weaker opponents on her favorite surface more often Henin during her prime on her own. The part of Venus's peak yrs being tougher in depth is true, although I wouldn't say it was a lot tougher, 2003 and 2006 were not abysmally worse than 1998-2003...2007 was the beginning of the downturn.

I would say Venus overall on hard courts is better. Henin has been better on rebound ace with a better Australian Open record. However when both were at their peak in 2003 Venus easily beat Justine there. Venus has been better on the other hard courts.

Click to expand...

Henin's peak didn't start till roughly the clay court season in 2003, and her real peak was 06-07...I would put Henin of 06-07>>>>03 in terms of peak level. Although It is Debatable about the Hard Court abilities, Venus is better slightly on Faster Hardcourts, Henin is better on slower ones.

She has won Miami, the biggest medium paced hard court event, many times, while Justine has never won it. At the U.S Open both have won twice, but Venus's overall record is far better. She has lost to the eventual winner every year since 2005 now.

Click to expand...

True, Henin has an inferior record at the US Open, but both have the same number of titles...so in the end many people will just look at that. As for losing to the eventual Champion of every US Open since 2005...that is a strange coincidence of the nature of draws, although it is a nice factoid, don't really see how it factors into the discussion. Unless the implication is that she would have won all of those US Opens had she won those matches..which is possible...in 2007 yes. 2008..maybe, Jankovic gave her more trouble then she did Serena around that time, and I think the scoreline would have been even tighter than the Serena/Jankovic one was. The 2009 US Open...not likely, Venus was struggling, wrapped up, and even if she beat clijsters at best would have made the semi's, and probably loses to Serena there.

Indoors maybe Justine gets a slight edge mostly by basis of playing more on it. She has won the WTA Championships twice and some more fall events as far as I know. Still overall I would give Veus the nod here.

Click to expand...

So you give Venus an overall nod on a surface whether she has more achievement on it or not? Henin>>>>>Venus on indoors. Overall Henin has acheived more, since you use achievements to put Venus over Henin on Harcourts, you should use the same criteria for other surfaces should you not?

Lastly there is the head to head. 7-2 Venus. Even 1-1 on clay believe it or not.

Click to expand...

Seeing as how all of Venus's wins came before Henin's prime that really doesn't mean much. I would pretty much throw out the H2H, as Henin's biggest win in 2007 was when Venus was past her own prime. Their H2H is very misleading and includes a giant 4 yr gap, given the times when all the matches occured. They never got the chance to play in their actual primes, if they played 9 matches both at their peak, that H2H would be a lot closer.

[/QUOTE]So Venus at this point should clearly be regarded as the 2nd greatest player of this generation. I do expect Henin will end up with more slams than Venus by the way, perhaps multiple more. She is a couple years younger, it will be easier for her to win the French then it will be for Venus to win Wimbledon from now on, and even at hard court slams Henin seems probably more likely to win at this point than is Venus, certainly in Australia alot more likely. However Henin would need to be over Venus by 2-3 slams and win a Wimbledon before I would even consider putting her over Venus.[/QUOTE]

So if Henin gets to Doubles digits and has more wins at 3 of the 4 slams then Venus and more slams overall(which all she needs to do to accomplish this is win 1 more US Open) Venus is still better if Henin doesn't win Wimbledon? Despite the fact that Venus has no French or Australians and most likely never will? Or if Henin completes a career slam this year (which I don't think will happen but who knows) Venus will still be better after Wimbledon this year if Henin does this? I think the strain of having multiple IDS must be getting to you.

Jonny S&V said:

I destroy that arguement with this: They couldn't move. Serena and Venus are physical specimens, and they can get away with things (not to mention do things) that mere mortals can't do. All of the players that win Wimbledon (save for Sharapova and Davenport, amongst others) can move better.

Click to expand...

There's argument for Martina, but King, Evert, Wade, Goolagong, Martinez (???) or Hingis (???) are better movers?? Think about that. Moreover, the idea of Venus (not Serena) being a better mover than Graf would not be the first time i've heard that.

I'm just saying that the tactics at Wimbledon on the women's side tends to be very one-dimensional, whilst players with more varied games and tactics can win Roland Garros.

Click to expand...

Again, the history of the past decade of Wimbledon ladies champions (with one exception) do not support your theory.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:

There's argument for Martina, but King, Evert, Wade, Goolagong, Martinez (???) or Hingis (???) are better movers?? Think about that. Moreover, the idea of Venus (not Serena) being a better mover than Graf would not be the first time i've heard that.

Click to expand...

Gah, I really need to be face-to-face to make my arguments, not so great at putting it into words I suppose... Because of the shorter points, Wimbledon doesn't support as varied of shots and plays as Roland Garros, since the points are longer. It isn't as easy to see this on the WTA tour, and is far more prevalent on the ATP tour.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:

Again, the history of the past decade of Wimbledon ladies champions (with one exception) do not support your theory.

Click to expand...

You're saying the William's sisters have varied games? Mauresmo is the only player who varied her tactics and placement and used the entire court, while the Williams sisters only tried to hit through opponents (for the most part).

I agree Jonny... Wimbo for the WTA (and much of womens tennis in general) has become "who can hit the ball hardest, until someone makes an error".. no thought processes, no flair.. very different game nowadays

vbranis said:

Wimbledon (in the WTA) has become the proving grounds for flat baseline-bashing, variety free, power tennis. Of course Venus won it 5 times with her superior athleticism.

The FO is the best place to judge true tennis skill, ability, and talent. No wonder Henin (at 5'5, mind you) won it 4 times and the Williams sisters combined have only won 1.

Back in the S&V days, Wimbledon was the place where the "true" tennis was played, but in today's WTA tour, the FO is a better indicator of someone's game.

Just my 2 cents

Click to expand...

Agreed. Justine is at a huge disadvantage with her height. Just give her 3-5 more inches and her chances at Wimbledon etc. increase a great deal.

i love venus and i want her to win the aus and the french! dont tell me that it wont happend i already know that but i still believe in her

davey25 said:

Pierce very good all court skills and variety? On which planet.

I loved reading Nick Bolletieri's book where before her breakthrough slam at the 94 French he told her something like Mary dont take this personally but you arent very smart on the court. In fact you are rather stupid out there. So dear dont think, just go out there and smack the ball, clobber the heck out of it. Dont bother to think, just hammer your groundstrokes.

Click to expand...

Well, there was your problem. I wouldn't exactly place Nick Bolletieri on an coaching pedastal, considering Mary is a grand slam champion who didn't have great on-court movement.

Re: Bolletieri, see Andre Agassi.

Henin is the the 2nd best player in this era. With Venus having a much longer career, she should be a few slams ahead of Henin instead having 7. Plus, Henin won more year end championship, having way more weeks at #1, and 3 years end #1 while Venus has ZERO! Henin’s career totally outclassed Venus. There’s no way Venus can be above Henin, anyone who believe it are lying to themselves. Venus is overrated while Henin is so easily overlooked simply b/c she came from a small country.

TMF said:

Henin is so easily overlooked simply b/c she came from a small country.

Click to expand...

That is the most hollow, reactionary excuse i've ever read--one you cannot possibly support with facts.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:

That is the most hollow, reactionary excuse i've ever read--one you cannot possibly support with facts.

Click to expand...

Only a **** like would ignore facts.