Justine vs Venus: who is greater?

[Dutch-Guy]

Somebody corrects me if these stats are wrong/incomplete

Venus Williams

GS titles

Wimbledon: 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008
USO: 2000, 2001

Runner-up:

AO: 2001, 2003
French Open: 2002
Wimbledon: 2002, 2003, 2009
USO: 1997, 2002

Reached 15 GS finals, lost to Serena (7) and Hingis (1)

YEC: 1 (2008 )
Runner-up: 1 (2009)

Gold Medals: Sydney 2000

Davis Cup: 1

Year End as #1: 0

Spent 17 weeks (accumulated: 3, 11 an 4) as # 1

Overall titles: 43

Runner-up: 27

Titles breakdown (win-loss)

Grand slams: 7-7
Olypmpics: 1-0
YEC: 1-1
Tier I (equivalent to ATP Masters): 8-5
Tier II (equivalent to ATP 500):17-11
Tier III, IV, V: 8-2

Titles win-loss by surfaces:

Hard: 26-14
Clay: 9-6
Grass: 5-3
Carpet: 3-4

Overall win-loss by surfaces:

Hardcourt: 332-79
Clay: 139-38
Grass: 74-12
Carpet: 50-17

Total: 80.3%

Justine Henin:

GS titles:

AO: 2004
French Open: 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007
USO: 2003, 2007

Runner-up:

AO: 2006, 2010
Wimbledon: 2001, 2006
USO: 2006

Reached 12 GS finals, lost 5 of them to: Masha (1), Serena (1), Venus (1) and Mauresmo (2)

YEC: 2 (2006 and 2007)

Gold Medals: Athens 2004

Davis Cup: 0

Year End as #1: 3 (2003, 2006 and 2007)

Spent 117 weeks (accumulated: 1, 44, 11 and 61) as #1

Overall titles: 43

Runner-up: 18

Titles breakdown (win-loss)

GS: 7-5
Olympics: 1-0
YEC: 2-0
Tier I (equivalent to ATP Masters): 10-4
Tier II (equivalent to ATP 500): 18-?
Tier III, IV, V: 5-?

Titles win-loss by surfaces:

Hard: 25-9
Clay: 13-3
Grass: 4-2
Carpet: 1-4

Overall win –loss by surfaces: 528-116 (82%)

Hardcourt: 275-61
Clay: 163-29
Grass: 53-11
Carpet: 37-15

Total win-loss: 82%


Vote and discuss

 

[NadalAgassi]

Advantages for both:

Henin:

More consistency for a sustained period (eg- 5 years winning atleast 1 slam, and producing consistently top results)

By far best clay courter of era, where Venus isnt clearly best on any surface (grass is very close between Venus and Serena)

More dominance in general and in peak years

Slightly more versatility across all surfaces, winning 3 of 4 slams and a slew of semis/finals at Wimbledon

Year end #1s, more time as best player in World

Better record and more titles at WTA Championships, the biggest non slam event outside the once every 4 years Olympics



Venus edges:

Dominance at Worlds greatest tournament, which Henin hasnt won even once

More slam finals

Tougher competition while winning her slams and at/near top (which is the main thing that explains some of the areas Henin is ahead IMO)

Great doubles career

Far superior longevity

Subjective of course but IMHO higher peak level of play on a neutral surface (eg- medium paced hard courts)

Won big titles at both Miami and WTA Championships, the 2 biggest non slam events outside the Olympics. Far better record at Miami than Henin


Many areas they are not only close but dead even. 7 slams for both, 43 WTA titles for both at this point, Olympic Singles gold for both.


Overall it is a push really. It all depends on what you value. Hopefully Venus will win some more slams and end any debate.

 

[Dutch-Guy]

^^^ Good point NA but keep in mind that Juju was out for 1.5 year...

 

[NadalAgassi]

^^^ Good point NA but keep in mind that Juju was out for 1.5 year...

She was but that was her choice. Also she was starting to really struggle in 2008 so who knows if she would have done much more anyway.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Advantages for both:

Venus edges:

Dominance at Worlds greatest tournament, which Henin hasnt won even once

The Wimbledon distinction is the unchallenged jewel in the tennis crown which lifts Venus far above Henin. In the history of the sport, most women are rarely considered among the greatest unless they won that event several times. Henin was not equipped--psychologically or physically--to win there, and when she faced one who (according to her most loyal defenders) should have been the easiest opponent to overcome in a final held on that surface, Mauresmo proved (for the 2nd majors collision that year) she had Henin's number.

Even the early, tactically shaky and really chubby version of Bartoli had her way with Henin at Wimbledon.

Henin's failures at the greatest event really reduces her standing in any comparison to Venus.

Hopefully Venus will win some more slams and end any debate.

I think her Wimbledon record already settled that.

 

[jones101]

If purely singles I would say its a close tie, with Venus slightly nudging it.

If we include doubles career, Venus no question.

 

[dcdoorknob]

I predict NadalAgassi and Thundervolley will form another infinite loop where they keep quoting and agreeing with each other so as to dominate this thread in post count (looks like that's already started).

The only other people who will post are the ones who have just as strong an anti Williams bias as those 2 have a pro-Williams (and anti-Henin) bias. All those without a strong hidden agenda will see how pointless the discussion is between these two opposing sides who both post a ton but only to restate the same things over and over and never ever to concede any point whatsoever, and so will stay away, or perhaps make one easily ignorable post.

Call me a cynic. It's just a little frustrating when certain topics are predictably ruined every single time by the same people (on both sides) posting with the same agendas, making it impossible for actual discussion on these topics with people worth discussing it with.

FWIW I'm not entirely sure who I would rate slightly higher, but as mentioned I have better things to do with my time than discussing it with the people who will predictably dominate this thread. It's close either way.

 

[jm1980]

I can't see how anyone could seriously rate Venus higher than Justine. It's a no contest. That's all.

 

[Joe Pike]

...
Vote and discuss

That poll will be a landslide.

 

[Manus Domini]

Henin. Her game was specialized for clay, and she was, without a doubt, the most successful dirtballer of that era. I think she would have had a better career if she didn't retire, and going AWOL hurt her extensively.

Add to the fact that Henin was able to go deep on her first tournament back, and you have an idea of the stronger player

 

[TMF]

Justine is the 2nd best player in her era behind Serena. Both Justine/Venus has holes in their resume, but I think Henin is more complete despite having shorter career than Venus. As one of the best player in her era, Venus never end the year #1. Also, Venus FINALLY won the 2008 YEC thanks to Justine not playing the event due to retired early in 2008, who was the 2007 WTA champion.

 

[HurricaneDominic]

I would have to go with Venus Williams.
She's still active so most likely will win 1 more title to beat Henin in that department.

I think the poll is skewed with the hatred by many of the Williams sisters.
Also, Venus has won all the Grand Slams in Women's Doubles which shows her versatility and ability to play both games.

Venus also leads the HEAD 2 HEAD 7-2 and has more prize money.

I think Venus is comfortably a more successful player.

 

[HurricaneDominic]

Justine is the 2nd best player in her era behind Serena. Both Justine/Venus has holes in their resume, but I think Henin is more complete despite having shorter career than Venus. As one of the best player in her era, Venus never end the year #1. Also, Venus FINALLY won the 2008 YEC thanks to Justine not playing the event due to retired early in 2008, who was the 2007 WTA champion.

Year end #1 means nothing, it just means that you were #1 on a specific date due to the length of the season.
You can be #1 at the end of a season like Wozniacki and not even win a Grand Slam . .

 

[Dutch-Guy]

The Wimbledon distinction is the unchallenged jewel in the tennis crown which lifts Venus far above Henin. In the history of the sport, most women are rarely considered among the greatest unless they won that event several times. Henin was not equipped--psychologically or physically--to win there, and when she faced one who (according to her most loyal defenders) should have been the easiest opponent to overcome in a final held on that surface, Mauresmo proved (for the 2nd majors collision that year) she had Henin's number.

Even the early, tactically shaky and really chubby version of Bartoli had her way with Henin at Wimbledon.

Henin's failures at the greatest event really reduces her standing in any comparison to Venus.



I think her Wimbledon record already settled that.

I know you're a hardcore WS fan but come on man, you can’t believe the bull you wrote, do you? Are you going to tell me that Agassi is ranked higer than Lendl coz the later never won Wimby? (They both have 8 slams).

Tough she never won Wimby,I still rank Juju higher than Vee. Here’s why:

-Unlike Venus, Juju has at least reached 2 finals of all slams.
-Has 3 Year End as #1 to Venus 0.
-Was ranked 117 weeks as #1 to Venus only 17.
-Despite having a short career and being out of the game for 18 months,Juju still managed to win as many titles as Venus (more Tier I)
- Since 2003, Venus has failed to make to a final of a GS except Wimby.

And i can go on and on.

Defend your fav but at least try to be objective while doing it.

 

[Manus Domini]

I would have to go with Venus Williams.
She's still active so most likely will win 1 more title to beat Henin in that department.

I think the poll is skewed with the hatred by many of the Williams sisters.
Also, Venus has won all the Grand Slams in Women's Doubles which shows her versatility and ability to play both games.

Venus also leads the HEAD 2 HEAD 7-2 and has more prize money.

I think Venus is comfortably a more successful player.

Head to head isn't a telling factor. That's match ups.

I mean, Serena has a 4-1 H2H against Seles. Should we say Serena was a greater player because of that and the time Seles was out due to the stabbing?

 

[TMF]

I can't see how anyone could seriously rate Venus higher than Justine. It's a no contest. That's all.

That's b/c the Americans are biased toward Venus. Justine was way more dominant...her highest winning percentager annually was 94% which even Serena is behind.

 

[Dutch-Guy]

That poll will be a landslide.

In whose favour?

 

[Gizo]

I don't see how people can argue that Henin's failure to win Wimbledon, is a more serious blemish than Venus's failure to win BOTH the Australian AND French Opens. Venus is one of the few great players in women's tennis that has failed to win 2 out of the 4 slams. That hurts her in comparison to other great players like Henin.

And Henin's Wimbledon record alone is better than Venus's combined record in Melbourne and Paris. At Wimbledon Henin reached 2 finals and 3 more semi-finals. In Melbourne and Paris combined, Venus reached 2 finals and just one more semi-final. So Henin's versatility was far more impressive than Venus's.

Henin was the world no. 1 for 117 weeks, and Venus for just 11 weeks, so Henin spent over 10 times longer than Venus as the top ranked player.

Venus never won more than 7 titles in a season. Henin won 10 in 2007 and 8 in 2003.

Venus never reached the semi-finals of all 4 slams in season. Henin did that in 2003 and 2006 (she reached all 4 slam finals that year).

Game, set and match to Henin quite clearly. There are no strong arguments thus far to rank Venus as the greater singles player.

 

[TMF]

Year end #1 means nothing, it just means that you were #1 on a specific date due to the length of the season.
You can be #1 at the end of a season like Wozniacki and not even win a Grand Slam . .

Year end #1 means nothing but then you throw in H2H. Bias much ?

I'm pretty sure people will remember the year end #1 and no one care about H2H. Graf and Sampras is remembered for their record setting year end #1.

 

[Gizo]

Venus also leads the HEAD 2 HEAD 7-2

If Henin being the year end no. 1 3 times means nothing, then so does this h2h record, when all 7 of Venus's victories came before Henin had won her first grand slam title.

 

[TMF]

I would have to go with Venus Williams.
She's still active so most likely will win 1 more title to beat Henin in that department.

I doubt that she can win another slam since age has caught up with her. Venus with her longevity is an opportunist. The same reason why Agassi's longevity managed to surpassed some of the Tier II great players. I see Mac's career more impressive than Agassi, same as Henin more than Venus.

I think Venus is comfortably a more successful player.

No she is not !

 

[fedhingis515]

I know you're a hardcore WS fan but come on man, you can’t believe the bull you wrote, do you? Are you going to tell me that Agassi is ranked higer than Lendl coz the later never won Wimby? (They both have 8 slams).

Tough she never won Wimby,I still rank Juju higher than Vee. Here’s why:

-Unlike Venus, Juju has at least reached 2 finals of all slams.
-Has 3 Year End as #1 to Venus 0.
-Was ranked 117 weeks as #1 to Venus only 17.
-Despite having a short career and being out of the game for 18 months,Juju still managed to win as many titles as Venus (more Tier I)
- Since 2003, Venus has failed to make to a ¼ or ½ of a GS except Wimby.

And i can go on and on.

Defend your fav but at least try to be objective while doing it.

2004 RG: QF
2005 USO: QF
2006 RG: QF
2007 USO: SF
2008 AO: QF
2008 USO: QF
2010 AO: QF
2010 USO: SF

 

[Joe Pike]

I would have to go with Venus Williams.
She's still active so most likely will win 1 more title ...

She definitely won't win another slam.

 

[Towser83]

A major is a major. Wimbledon is NOT better than any other major, it is the oldest and the most famous of any of the 4 majors, but that does not mean it takes a better player to win it.

All players have different games which suit different surfaces, so there is no point in saying one slam is better than the other. Plenty of players have owned Wimbledon but struggled at the French Open.

Justine won the same amount of slams, and has now retired, turned pro AFTER Venus and took time out from the game. She also won 3 of the 4 majors compared to 2 for Venus (why couldn't she win the AO if she won the US Open?) She has 3 hardcourt majors and 4 Clay ones, compared to 2 Hardcourt and 5 grass majors for Willaims. So Justine won more on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

More weeks at number one, same amount of titles, more YEC. All that for a little thing, facing towering 6 footers.

Justine is better, and certainly more talented, and in the end more hard working (Venus and Serena worked their butts off in their younger days but not as much later on once they had won a few majors)

 

[Gizo]

Good to see common sense prevailing and Henin winning this poll comfortably.

Often many people on this forum view the 60s, 70s and 80s tennis scenes through 21st century glasses, when the landscape and priorities have changed.

However the people who are using the 'Venus won Wimbledon so she must be greater' argument are making the opposite mistake. They are viewing the 21st century tennis scene through 60s or 70s glasses. All 4 slams are equally important nowadays. That's all there is to it.

And again, I could maybe understand if say Venus had won the Australian Open, people arguing that Henin's failure to win Wimbledon was more serious than Venus's failure to win the just the French Open. However it is ridiculous to argue that Henin failing to win Wimbledon is more serious than Venus failing to win 2 out of the 4 slams.

 

[jones101]

Venus has 20 slams and 3 golds medals total in singles and doubles. No doubt Venus had the greater career.

I would like to say this thread is like asking somebody whether they like green and red apples - its down to preference.

Both are great acomplished champions lets not forget that in the midst of this.

There should be no need to degrade another player just to make your point.

On a side note, this is one of my favourite 2 set womens match ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r48_-il0QWc

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I know you're a hardcore WS fan but come on man, you can’t believe the bull you wrote, do you? Are you going to tell me that Agassi is ranked higer than Lendl coz the later never won Wimby? (They both have 8 slams).

Its good that you mentioned Lendl, because Lendl's status is often questioned due to his failure to win Wimbledon. In fact, many have placed McEnroe above Lendl on "greatest" lists, despite Lendl winning more majors than John. One of the central reasons is that John was a winning force at Wimbledon, while Lendl was not. There's a reason for that...and the reason--not winning Wimbledon--is the reason Henin falls behind in any serious comparison.

Tough she never won Wimby,I still rank Juju higher than Vee. Here’s why...

There is no "why" here. Wimbledon is the jewel in the tennis crown (care to deny that?), so to spend an entire career not winning it says much about the player's true standing amongst her generation, if not history in general.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Venus has 20 slams and 3 golds medals total in singles and doubles. No doubt Venus had the greater career.

I would like to say this thread is like asking somebody whether they like green and red apples - its down to preference.

Both are great acomplished champions lets not forget that in the midst of this.

There should be no need to degrade another player just to make your point.

On a side note, this is one of my favourite 2 set womens match ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r48_-il0QWc

I agree with this statement and I pick Venus. If she didn't run into God-mode Serena in 02-03, she could easily have up to 6 more slams. Nobody was beating THAT Serena.

 

[Towser83]

There is no "why" here. Wimbledon is the jewel in the tennis crown (care to deny that?), so to spend an entire career not winning it says much about the player's true standing amongst her generation, if not history in general.

It is the jewel in the crown because people respect it more than the other 3 majors. However that in no way makes it harder to win, or winners of it better than winners of any other slam.

Novak Djokovic said winning Davis Cup was the best moment of his career up to that point (when he'd won the Australian Open once) but you're not going to tell me Davis cup is really more important?

Just because Wimbledon is the biggest profile major, doesn't mean it's any better or harder to win - in fact in some ways it's probably easier to win than the US Open because there are less grass specialists than hardcourt specialists. Until you can prove how winning Wimbledon is a bigger challenge, all you're saying is everyone likes Wimbledon more than the other slams. So what? It's just like someone wanting a more expensive watch or phone despite it being no better than another watch or phone that doesn't have the same street cred. In reality it means nothing, it's just public perception which has nothing to do with ability, talent or acheivement.

 

[Towser83]

Venus has 20 slams and 3 golds medals total in singles and doubles. No doubt Venus had the greater career.

I would like to say this thread is like asking somebody whether they like green and red apples - its down to preference.

Both are great acomplished champions lets not forget that in the midst of this.

There should be no need to degrade another player just to make your point.

On a side note, this is one of my favourite 2 set womens match ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r48_-il0QWc

If you throw in doubles then yes, but then would she have won as much with any partner rather than Serena? As a singles player I think the edge goes to Justine. Really I think Venus often fell away in the hunger stakes, where Serena went for throat. I think Venus felt bad being the older sister and Serena was determined to step out from her shadow, thus I think Venus didn't have the same fight that Serena and Justine had, otherwise yes she could have won more titles.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I predict NadalAgassi and Thundervolley will form another infinite loop where they keep quoting and agreeing with each other so as to dominate this thread in post count.......blah blah more random crap...................

Learn to read or dont embarass yourself by going on a public forum moron. My post comparing them was more than balanced and fair to both and I already said it was too close to call. If anyone is looking to create a flame war with stupid and unneccessary comments it is you.

 

[TMF]

We are comparing single achievements and not DOUBLE. If you can't stick to the topic then you are desperate. Henin suppoters have provide some excellent arguments but the Venus fans don't have what it takes to counter back.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I agree with this statement and I pick Venus. If she didn't run into God-mode Serena in 02-03, she could easily have up to 6 more slams. Nobody was beating THAT Serena.

Except for Henin on clay (Henin beat Serena 3 times on clay in 02-03, including the French Open, and wasnt even in her own prime yet), but Henin was fortunate in a way her best surface happened to be the worst surface of the Williams, Sharapova, Davenport, Clijsters, basically every top player of her era. Of course that isnt her fault, and she deserves credit for all she achieved, especialy on clay. However it certainly was some good fortune to be a great clay courter in a very weak clay court era. Just look at what a grab bag for relative nobodies the French has become since Henin first retired, that alone is telling to how poor the rest of the field is on clay. Her 3 hard court slams impress me more since she actually had real competition to win those.

Venus didnt have that good fortune. Her surface preference was exactly like Serena, from best to worst. So there was no surface she had an obvious edge on Serena- not hard courts, not clay, not even grass (though they are pretty even there), while Henin atleast had the comfort of knowing she could beat anyone of her era at anytime on clay. Yet despite that Venus had a virtual equal on grass (Serena) the way Henin never had on clay, Venus still managed to win more Wimbledons than Henin French Opens which is telling again to Venus's longevity edge.

 

[jones101]

We are comparing single achievements and not DOUBLE. If you can't stick to the topic then you are desperate. Henin suppoters have provide some excellent arguments but the Venus fans don't have what it takes to counter back.

Threadstater didnt state that it was singles only.

Like I said its opinion I think Venus was greater overall. Justine was great and by me feeling Venus was better doesnt detract from Henin.

You always try to instigate stuff and cause trouble.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

It is the jewel in the crown because people respect it more than the other 3 majors. However that in no way makes it harder to win, or winners of it better than winners of any other slam.

Novak Djokovic said winning Davis Cup was the best moment of his career up to that point (when he'd won the Australian Open once) but you're not going to tell me Davis cup is really more important?

We're talking about majors, not Davis Cup, and your quote (above) concedes the value of a specific major over the others--the very reason Venus can be so easily ranked above Henin, who--at her best--could not be considered a modest threat at the event.

As in my Lendl example, he has more majors than McEnroe, but John's success at Wimbledon--the very "key to the kingdom" Lendl failed to earn--drops Lendl below McEnroe in numerous assessment of their careers. Henin is tied with Venus in the majors count, but she's on the Lendl side of the argument for not being good enough to win at Wimbledon.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

This is an interesting question because on the ESPN boards most of the people there of course choose Venus. I think ultimately right now Henin is better than Venus because she was more consistent in the slams. The funny thing is I think Justine Henin overachieved she is a small woman only 5 foot 5 yet she won 7 slams. Venus I feel underachieved in her career she is a tall woman at 6 foot 1. Venus has so much talent but that family dynamics of being Serena Williams sister ultimately stopped her from becoming a greater champion. Venus is still a champion of course because not a lot of women can say they won 7 slams. I just feel Venus could have won more than 7 slams.

Venus LOST six slam finals to Serena so Serena PREVENTED Venus from greatness. Now, if Justine Henin faced Serena in all those slam finals between 2002 to 2003 I doubt she would have done much better than Venus did. And that is the reason why I feel in terms of TALENT Venus is more talented than Henin. But Justine was more consistent. Now some people may say big deal Serena is Venus younger sister but obviously to Venus it meant a lot. I remember Serena saying when she was only a kid that Venus one day gave her lunch money so she would not be hungry at school. Venus loves Serena very much but Serena has more mental toughness than Venus. Serena wants to win no matter who she is playing but Venus was never like that. Venus wants to win but she was always conflicted about beating Serena.

Venus seven slams is still very good but I expected more from her. I thought Venus was going to win at least 10 slams but that's not going to happen now. I doubt Venus will even win ONE more slam. I think she is sadly finished.But the thing is Venus HAD more POTENTIAL than Henin and that is a fact. She had the speed, the power, and the volleys. Venus can do more with a tennis ball than Henin could that is why Venus leads Henin 7-2 in their head to head. Venus just overpowered Henin most of the time. I feel Venus is more talented than Henin but Henin had more determination to reach her potential than Venus ever did.


I have to admit Venus and Justine's careers are very similar they both won 7 slams and 43 WTA tour titles. However, the difference is Justine was number one of 117 weeks and Venus was barely number one for like 11 weeks or something like that. So in terms of consistency Justine was definitely much more consistent than Venus. Second, Justine won 3 out of the 4 slams and Venus only won 2 out of 4. So Justine beats Venus there too. But I think the USA media will probably say Venus is better. I think in terms of talent that Venus is far superior to Justine and has so much more firepower. The problem with Venus is she is Serena's older sister. People can say why should that matter BUT it does a big deal. Venus and Serena are family and I strongly believe if Venus and Serena were just two young black women that happen to become tennis champions and NOT sisters things would be a lot different. However, since Serena is the baby in the family and Venus is such a loving sister it messed her head a bit in some of those grand slam finals. I don't think people realize how hard it must be for Venus to compete against Serena. Venus really cares about Serena so much and yet it wasn't until the 2008 Wimbledon final that Venus really showed everyone she meant business. But by then it was too little too late.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Whether doubles has any value is more each to decide on their own. Nobody is suggesting doubles titles are directly equal to singles (as TMF and his twisted standards did by claiming Federer's doubles Oly Gold is the exact same as Nadal's singles Oly Gold, but now saying it means nothing when his favorites are involved). However when you win alot of big doubles titles (and mixed doubles titles too, axing the idea she is carried by Serena), it does carry some value when you are talking about 2 player so close in singles achievements. To say doubles is meaningless is a close minded and highly subjective statement. Shriver didnt even a single singles slam, nor was she the best player not to, yet she made the Hall of Fame which some 1 or 2 slam winners in singles have not, all due to her doubles career.

BTW TMF has also claimed Nadal must not only pass Federer in singles slam but catch or pass him in Wimbledons to be considered greater,since Wimbledon is the premier slam (on that atleast he is right). Yet here he is also ignoring the factor of Venus winning 5 Wimbledons while Henin winning 0, saying it is just like any other slam. The biggest hypocrite out there.

 

[dominikk1985]

overall venus had a better career because she just played longer and also had the doubles.

I don't like to use doubles but since both are tied in GS and titles I go with longevity and the doubles as a tie breaker.

Still I think justine was the better player of the two but she retired too early and was injured too much.

Both great players but I give venus a slight edge just going by "career value".

 

[NadalAgassi]

Head to head isn't a telling factor. That's match ups.

I mean, Serena has a 4-1 H2H against Seles. Should we say Serena was a greater player because of that and the time Seles was out due to the stabbing?

Serena is head and shoulders superior to Seles. I am not sure what you are getting at. I doubt there is a single tennis expert who would rate Seles over Serena at this point. Seles does not get credit for any phantom slams she didnt win either. She did play another 8 years and won only 1 slam as it was. Serena kept winning slams over many years and was not easily overtaken by the next generations power like Seles was.

 

[JoelDali]

Justin was a great singer until he started acting.

 

[TMF]

There's no point discussing any further if you are going to include DOUBLE in this debate. This is strictly single comparison, we can have a double discussion from a separate thread. Double was never brought up for playe's such as Martina or Mac about single achievements. I expect better out of you guys b/c you are an adult, not like some YOUNG Nadal fans who bring up irrelevant materials.

And if you believe Venus > Justine, why the need to bring up double? It only weaken your position.

 

[Towser83]

We're talking about majors, not Davis Cup, and your quote (above) concedes the value of a specific major over the others--the very reason Venus can be so easily ranked above Henin, who--at her best--could not be considered a modest threat at the event.

As in my Lendl example, he has more majors than McEnroe, but John's success at Wimbledon--the very "key to the kingdom" Lendl failed to earn--drops Lendl below McEnroe in numerous assessment of their careers. Henin is tied with Venus in the majors count, but she's on the Lendl side of the argument for not being good enough to win at Wimbledon.

Actually this article didn't only focus on slams, but everything. My example of Davis Cup was to show that someone rating an event above another one doesn't mean it is better. All slams are equal I'm afraid.

You still didn't explain why Wimbledon is a harder event to win or why winning it proves you are a better player compared to winning any other major.

All it is, is people like the event more. That's neither here nor there when comparing one players ability with anothers. It's still as hard to win the others, ability has nothing to do with the popularity of an event, just like a brand name has nothing to do with the quality of a product.

I suppose if most people said the French Open was the lowest of the slams you'd concede titles there were worth much less than any other slam?

Venus CANNOT be easily ranked above henin. One of them won 3 of the 4 slams and one of them won 2 of the 4 (equal on overall slams) to credit extra weight to one slam over another is plain ridiculous. Henin has more clay majors AND more Hardcourt majors.

 

[Netzroller]

@TMF: Very classy to bring up Nadal and his fans when this has absoltely no relevance in this discussion. Doesn't really make you look more mature than some of these guys.


As for the discussion, I voted for Henin. I am certainly biased because I loved watching Justine play while I find Venus pretty annoying with her shrieking and all that stuff.
However, I think she was the more versatile and talented player and also tops Venus achievement wise.

btw. their H2H is 7-2 in favor of Williams. However, 8 of these matches were 01-03 when Henin wasn't even ranked top 5; they didn't play each other again until Henin beat her at the USO 2007.:?

 

[SLD76]

Much as I have love for Venus and much as I cant stand that witch Henin... I have to give the nod to Henin.

At her best she was clearly number 1 in a field featuring prime Serena, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Davenport and slightly past prime Venus and fresh blood Sharapova.

Venus was never the same player in terms of belief once she started losing regularly to Serena in slam finals.

She never was an undisputed world number 1 and not capturing either the FO or AO to add to her W and USO slams hurt her legacy.

To be honest, I dont hold not winning W against Henin as i believe she would have had no chance agaisnt Venus, Serena or even Sharapova in a W final.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Actually this article didn't only focus on slams, but everything. My example of Davis Cup was to show that someone rating an event above another one doesn't mean it is better. All slams are equal I'm afraid.

History rarely places all majors on equal footing--even though each is far above any other prize offered by the sport.

You still didn't explain why Wimbledon is a harder event to win or why winning it proves you are a better player compared to winning any other major.

That is not my argument; I was talking about its status.

Moreover, the main topic is about the quality/ranking of players. On that note, Wimbledon has rewarded the offense minded /speed game for decades; you will never dominate that surface playing a defense-based game, or use offense as an occasional fallback tool.

For example, if you look at the most dominant female winners since 1979, you will find a pattern--one where a broad understanding of the court (in other words, aware of more than the baseline, and not just moving forward only as a response instead of a plan) and measured aggression in point construction led to multiple victories, while players where their offensive game was a here-today, gone tomorrow quirk--or dodgy at best (Martinez, Hingis, Davenport, et al) only managed to win one--and only one title. they were ill-equipped to be a force on that surface, and their records--and similarities in deficiencies--bear that out.

I suppose if most people said the French Open was the lowest of the slams you'd concede titles there were worth much less than any other slam?

We're focusing on one thing in this sub discussion, and you have yet to address what I will touch on again in a moment...

Venus CANNOT be easily ranked above henin. One of them won 3 of the 4 slams and one of them won 2 of the 4 (equal on overall slams) to credit extra weight to one slam over another is plain ridiculous. Henin has more clay majors AND more Hardcourt majors.

But she failed to win THE most grand major of them all. There's no getting around how that makes a career appear in the final analysis. Again, Lendl's status suffered--and continues to suffer because of that. Ask your self the reason why, and you will see why Henin lands in the same position.

 

[Towser83]

History rarely places all majors on equal footing--even though each is far above any other prize offered by the sport.



That is not my argument; I was talking about its status.

Moreover, the main topic is about the quality/ranking of players. On that note, Wimbledon has rewarded the offense minded /speed game for decades; you will never dominate that surface playing a defense-based game, or use offense as an occasional fallback tool.

For example, if you look at the most dominant female winners since 1979, you will find a pattern--one where a broad understanding of the court (in other words, aware of more than the baseline, and not just moving forward only as a response instead of a plan) and measured aggression in point construction led to multiple victories, while players where their offensive game was a here-today, gone tomorrow quirk--or dodgy at best (Martinez, Hingis, Davenport, et al) only managed to win one--and only one title. they were ill-equipped to be a force on that surface, and their records--and similarities in deficiencies--bear that out.



We're focusing on one thing in this sub discussion, and you have yet to address what I will touch on again in a moment...



But she failed to win THE most grand major of them all. There's no getting around how that makes a career appear in the final analysis. Again, Lendl's status suffered--and continues to suffer because of that. Ask your self the reason why, and you will see why Henin lands in the same position.

Being THE most grand major is down to image, not difficuty. What don't you get about this? Wimbledon has glamour, I'm using difficulty/skill and things that matter to determine who's better, not who won the event that has the most glamour attached to it. Again, it's only seen as being more important because it's the oldest event. This has nothing to do with the difficulty/achievement of winning it. So it doesn't relate to who is the better player. Being a betetr player means you win events that are hard to win, not winning events that are old and that people identify with tennis more. That's neither here nor there. If Wimbledon was the best of 5 sets for women, you'd have a point. But there's no other difference apart from the surface, and just because it is the oldest and most famous tournament, doesn't mean you have to be better to win it. This is the key, who is the BETTER player. Winning a famous event doesn't make you better.

If winning the AO is not that great compared to winning Wimbledon, then why couldn't Venus do it? She couldn't win the French either, so for all the good of winning the wonderful Wimbledon, she failed at winning events that she should have. That doesn't make her a better player.

Put simply someone might have have the perfect game for grass but be useless on hardcourt and clay. If this person wins several Wimbledons but gets nowhere in any other slam, I don't see them being better than someone who wins multiple other slams but can't win Wimbledon.

Also, first who said that being an offensive/speed player was better than being a defensive player? Don't get me wrong, I think it is, but Nadal in the men's game has done well with a defensive game and has made 3 Wimbledon finals, winning 2. Also the grass has slowed down.

Again this doesn't matter, no matter how famous Wimbledon is, the challenge it presents is the same as any other slam (7 best of 3 matches for women) and you have to be just as good to win the AO, FO and USO as you do wimbledon. You're just saying it's the most recognised tournament, but don't say how winning it proves you have better skills in any way.

As a final point I will say Lendl is known by proper tennis fans to be one of the best players ever, only fools who only watch Wimbledon and think it's the only tournament, don't rate him where he belongs. His status might not only be down to not winning Wimbledon, some players don't have the personality of, say McEnroe. Krajicek won Wimbledon. I don't think anyone would consider him better than Djokovic when he was sitting on one AO title, or 2 AO's and no Wimbledon. Is he better than Del Potro (bearing in mind Del Potro is still young, younger than Krajicek was when he won Wimbledon)? What about Pat Cash and Michael Stich? Does Cash seriously rank above Del Potro because he won Wimbledon? Did he outrank Djokovic til he won Wimbledon? Do me a favour..

 

[adamX012]

Being THE most grand major is down to image, not difficuty. What don't you get about this? Wimbledon has glamour, I'm using difficulty/skill and things that matter to determine who's better, not who won the event that has the most glamour attached to it. Again, it's only seen as being more important because it's the oldest event. This has nothing to do with the difficulty/achievement of winning it. So it doesn't relate to who is the better player. Being a betetr player means you win events that are hard to win, not winning events that are old and that people identify with tennis more. That's neither here nor there. If Wimbledon was the best of 5 sets for women, you'd have a point. But there's no other difference apart from the surface, and just because it is the oldest and most famous tournament, doesn't mean you have to be better to win it. This is the key, who is the BETTER player. Winning a famous event doesn't make you better.

If winning the AO is not that great compared to winning Wimbledon, then why couldn't Venus do it? She couldn't win the French either, so for all the good of winning the wonderful Wimbledon, she failed at winning events that she should have. That doesn't make her a better player.

Put simply someone might have have the perfect game for grass but be useless on hardcourt and clay. If this person wins several Wimbledons but gets nowhere in any other slam, I don't see them being better than someone who wins multiple other slams but can't win Wimbledon.

Also, first who said that being an offensive/speed player was better than being a defensive player? Don't get me wrong, I think it is, but Nadal in the men's game has done well with a defensive game and has made 3 Wimbledon finals, winning 2. Also the grass has slowed down.

Again this doesn't matter, no matter how famous Wimbledon is, the challenge it presents is the same as any other slam (7 best of 3 matches for women) and you have to be just as good to win the AO, FO and USO as you do wimbledon. You're just saying it's the most recognised tournament, but don't say how winning it proves you have better skills in any way.

As a final point I will say Lendl is known by proper tennis fans to be one of the best players ever, only fools who only watch Wimbledon and think it's the only tournament, don't rate him where he belongs. His status might not only be down to not winning Wimbledon, some players don't have the personality of, say McEnroe. Krajicek won Wimbledon. I don't think anyone would consider him better than Djokovic when he was sitting on one AO title, or 2 AO's and no Wimbledon. Is he better than Del Potro (bearing in mind Del Potro is still young, younger than Krajicek was when he won Wimbledon)? What about Pat Cash and Michael Stich? Does Cash seriously rank above Del Potro because he won Wimbledon? Did he outrank Djokovic til he won Wimbledon? Do me a favour..

So detailed of your writing. Who is Michael Stich?

 

[NLBwell]

As far as singles, I would give it to Henin. She was a better player all surfaces considered. Venus may be the best woman's grass court player ever. However, if choosing one of them, I would go with Venus because of her doubles record. I think the difficulty of doubles in the pro game is underrated.

 

[BeHappy]

Henin dominated Serena for a while, I don't remember Venus ever managing that.

Then again Venus won all those Wimbledons.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Being THE most grand major is down to image, not difficuty. What don't you get about this? Wimbledon has glamour, I'm using difficulty/skill and things that matter to determine who's better, not who won the event that has the most glamour attached to it.

What is it that you fail to comprehend about the history of the event and its position which makes you attempt to level the playing field of majors? History simply does not agree with you, and you have not proven the event is any less difficult (your argument, not mine) than any other event. By your slippery slope criteria, one could add the other boatload of non-major events as being "equal" to the majors, since you seek to downgrade Wimbledon's status.

If winning the AO is not that great compared to winning Wimbledon, then why couldn't Venus do it? She couldn't win the French either, so for all the good of winning the wonderful Wimbledon, she failed at winning events that she should have. That doesn't make her a better player.

You are confused by your "difficulty" argument, which I do not subscribe to. Not winning AO/FO has nothing to do with the status of the event. Wimbledon is a major more players throughout history desire to win, yet that reason escapes you--or you're simply being evasive in order to level the majors again. Either way, any argument ignoring the accepted value of the event starts from a losing position.

Put simply someone might have have the perfect game for grass but be useless on hardcourt and clay. If this person wins several Wimbledons but gets nowhere in any other slam

Lets look at that last part again..

gets nowhere in any other slam

Oh, you mean the way Venus repeated at the U.S. Open--something else Henin failed to do?

Also, first who said that being an offensive/speed player was better than being a defensive player? Don't get me wrong, I think it is, but Nadal in the men's game has done well with a defensive game and has made 3 Wimbledon finals, winning 2. Also the grass has slowed down.

Nadal has modified his game to be more aggressive than ever before as evidenced by his movement and shot selection at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011; he was not hanging on the baseline throughout his matches and simply responding to his opponents' game (like "false hope" Murray).

As a final point I will say Lendl is known by proper tennis fans to be one of the best players ever, only fools who only watch Wimbledon and think it's the only tournament, don't rate him where he belongs. His status might not only be down to not winning Wimbledon, some players don't have the personality of, say McEnroe.

Your so-called "proper" tennis fans is nothing more than an eye-roll inducing misnomer at best, and a childish flame in any other case. The Lendl issue has been discussed by historians, sports media, et al, for decades for the reason already mentioned: he failed to win the jewel in the crown, which--in the end--showed a marked deficiency, no matter what he accomplished elsewhere--Henin now in the same catagory. It is no secret other ex-pros have said not winning Wimbledon was percieved as a major failing in the mind of Lendl himself, yet you want to argue against that which others have no difficulty concluding about the man.

Henin is no different, and in every chance she recieved, she always fell short, yet you refuse to ask yourself why.