Serena's greatest rival?

[Krish872007]

Oh yes...Laver in particular, since he is the GOAT (despite the little firecrackers set off by puff piece cable channels).

No surprise really, it is expected that they will ignore one of the guys who reached the height of the sport, to suit their own agendas. However, I don't believe in this concept of GOAT - it seems so arbitrary and mythical. For me, that title represents a completely unquestionable and non-debatable position, which is unbelievably difficult to achieve. Perhaps Esther Vergeer (in the wheelchair singles) is the only player who might have such a status in this sport - between 30 January, 2003 and Feb 2013 (her retirement), she did not lose a match.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Henin no doubt.

 

[tennisaddict]

Sharapova, Azarenka and Venus.

 

[mattosgrant]

Even Angie who is a die-hard Serena fans would disagree with you. There's no way of proving a lower ranked players from the present are better than the past and vice-versa.

However, one great player can drastically effect another great player's career achievement. Martina/Chris, and Federer/Nadal have reduced each other achievements. That's my point from post #32 which can't be dispute.

That is far more true of Martina denying Chris. Martina denied Chris way more in achievements than Chris denied Martina, so if that is what we are going by you would have to say Chris > Martina. However since Martina largely leads their slam and slam final head to head, as already demonstrated by my previous statement, that suggests Martina > Chris. So that type of argument is circular and goes nowhere ultimately.

If you are going to say Martina and Chris each had a tougher toughest opponent than Serena in their respective primes I would agree. However when Serena had the tougher 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, opponents, she still wins in the overall competition argument. The depth of the field in the Martina-Chris era was pathetic. The fact they played 80 times says enough to the rest of the women.

 

[tennisaddict]

That is far more true of Martina denying Chris. Martina denied Chris way more in achievements than Chris denied Martina, so if that is what we are going by you would have to say Chris > Martina. However since Martina largely leads their slam and slam final head to head, as already demonstrated by my previous statement, that suggests Martina > Chris. So that type of argument is circular and goes nowhere ultimately.

If you are going to say Martina and Chris each had a tougher toughest opponent than Serena in their respective primes I would agree. However when Serena had the tougher 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, opponents, she still wins in the overall competition argument. The depth of the field in the Martina-Chris era was pathetic. The fact they played 80 times says enough to the rest of the women.

This is not true. Do you honestly think if Henin or Venus had a career along with Serena she would still have the same count ?

 

[AngieB]

Oh yes...Laver in particular, since he is the GOAT (despite the little firecrackers set off by puff piece cable channels).

That four year old Cable Channel List GOAT list is so out of date because a lot has changed and continues to change. None of it will be accurate by 2016. They would have been smarter to have waited for #Serena to retire before creating an inaccurate account of tennis history.

***Come join us at #Angie'sKitchen, TTW's newest private conversation hosted by @AngieB . Can you take the heat? Daily shade specials. Open 24/7***

#GrannyIlluminati​

 

[mattosgrant]

This is not true. Do you honestly think if Henin or Venus had a career along with Serena she would still have the same count ?

It is very possible. Serena might be more focused and not have some of the bewildering losses she has at slams with a more serious rival to push her.

Remember 2002-2003 Venus made the finals of 5 of 7 slam events she played. Clearly at her peak. Serena beat her all 5 times, otherwise she probably wins all 5 of those events.

Serena has almost always handled Henin comfortably on all but clay, with 2007 the only exception.

Serena doesnt shy from the toughest competition. She welcomes it, and it brings out the best in her. I am sure she would prefer to play Henin and Venus in slam finals than Safina or Zvonareva, but it isnt her fault if those women cant keep up the pace, and the inhuman task of excelling into your 30s, when even the previous olden goldie Martina Navratilova won a mere 1 slam after her 31st birthday.

Now lets ask the question the other way. Would either Navratilova or Evert had 18 slams, or for a real laugher 160 tournament titles (ROTFL) in an era like today with the very physically punishing play, and a field where nearly everyone in the top 20 is a player with real weapons and capability to beat anyone on a given day, vs an era where the perennial #3 was Pam Shriver? Of course not.

 

[TMF]

That four year old Cable Channel List GOAT list is so out of date because a lot has changed and continues to change. None of it will be accurate by 2016. They would have been smarter to have waited for #Serena to retire before creating an inaccurate account of tennis history.

***Come join us at #Angie'sKitchen, TTW's newest private conversation hosted by @AngieB . Can you take the heat? Daily shade specials. Open 24/7***

#GrannyIlluminati​

But you end up waiting forever. By the time Serena retire, Nole fans will ask to wait until he retire. And so on and so on...

Anyway, most of the retired players on the list remains intact except for a few present players have moved up. Nadal, Serena, Nole and Sharapova have moved up since 2012. Federer remains at #1 but have increases the gap from the past players.

 

[upchuck]

Henin or Venus. Henin's always the one who sticks out to me, though(...)She also beat Serena in 3 consecutive Grand Slam QF's in 2007 (French Open, Wimbledon, US Open). Serena had won the Australian Open that year and who knows if she would have won the CYGS if not for Henin?

*Face-Palms*. You clearly wasn't paying attention to Serena or women's tennis that year.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

That four year old Cable Channel List GOAT list is so out of date because a lot has changed and continues to change. None of it will be accurate by 2016. They would have been smarter to have waited for #Serena to retire before creating an inaccurate account of tennis history.

***Come join us at #Angie'sKitchen, TTW's newest private conversation hosted by @AngieB . Can you take the heat? Daily shade specials. Open 24/7***

#GrannyIlluminati​

It is not accurate now, nor has it ever been. It is no different than People magazine or any other ass-rag: pandering to the whims of a few, and trying to dictate for all--and always ignorant of history. If Serena won the Grand Slam, and that limp cable channel crowned her GOAT, it will only be due to the channel trying damage control from the politics and BS the channel is known for already. Not because of an acknowledgement of true history.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

He was talking about the Serena / Sharapova rivalry.

Completely/utterly incorrect (or were you attempting humor?). If you are referring to the article I linked, Sharapova is not even mentioned. Nor are any of Serena's or Venus' other rivals. It speaks only of the rivalry between the 2 sisters.

"... meetings between the two had not always been the highest quality affairs... "

"... a common feature was emerging in these encounters – a lack of quality. When the two best players in the world meet, it is natural that fans expect a world-class contest, full of excellent shots. This has never really happened when the two siblings have met."

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I disagree that the quality of the matches is relevant in identifying a rival, nor should the H2H be close...

Match quality might not be completely relevant when identifying players as rivals. However, if you are looking for the "greatest" rival, it is absolutely relevant IMO. Quality trumps quantity.
.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

First I was aware Dementieva managed 5-7. I barely even remember Dementieva. How did that happen?

Dementia maybe?

 

[Vanhool]

Good movers like Sloane Stephens, Sam Stosur, Victoria Azarenka can hang with Serena but they are chokers.

Give Petra the cupcake draw at US Open because Serena vs Petra would be a good final.

She had a cupcake draw last week and couldn't make it. I am a petra supporter, but the fact is she's only beaten Serena once (so far).

 

[Vanhool]

I picked Venus for the rival. That's who Serena picks. They played many important finals and most times, you didn't know who would win. Really, I think if Venus had Serena's personality she probably would have prevailed. That's what Richard chalked it up to...pitbull like determination. She wasn't even supposed to be the good one, but she made it happen. So you could say Venus was her main rival for 10 years longer than the rest of the field.

People laugh at poor Maria's head to head, but she has just as many wins as Clijsters and has had the misfortune of being stuck playing Finalrena more often.

Maria, Venus and Serena all had chronic injury and/or illness and were willing to come back, put their pride on the line, and accept some embarrassing losses. If Serena's other rivals (who are the same age as her but retired in their 20s!) had stuck around their head to heads would be even more lopsided in Serena's favor. I wish they hadn't run away.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I picked Venus for the rival. That's who Serena picks. They played many important finals and most times, you didn't know who would win...

Don't believe, if given a choice, that is who Serena would chose to play. While there may have been a few good matches between the two, many of those encounters were not top-notch. There may have been a time early-on when Serena wanted to play & beat Venus, but much of the time, I believe, she would have preferred to beat someone else in the final (and other encounters).

It is possible that, sometimes, even if WE didn't know who would win, they did. Mutual agreement or Dad's dictate? It is amazing that they played each other in the pros as often as they did. For quite a few years they did even play the same tournaments -- except for the big one. Quite few times when Venus was playing in the SF Area (at Stanford), Serena would play a tournament in LA. I believe this happened with other venues as well.

Prior to 2010 the doubles ranking for Serena & Venus was not always as high as it should have been even though they won 10 doubles slam titles prior to that year. 2009-2010 might have been the time where they started playing more of the same tournaments (outside of the big ones). They finally achieved a #1 ranking in doubs in mid-2010.
.

 

[upchuck]

Don't believe, if given a choice, that is who Serena would chose to play. While there may have been a few good matches between the two, many of those encounters were not top-notch.
.

Most of her matches against Henin weren't particularly top notch either. If "top notch" is the criteria, then her greatest rival is probably Victoria Azarenka.

 

[AngieB]

Most of her matches against Henin weren't particularly top notch either. If "top notch" is the criteria, then her greatest rival is probably Victoria Azarenka.

17-3 is not a rivalry or top shelf tennis either. The only reason their matches go to three sets is because they are friends off-court, similar to Wozniacki's. At best, #VictoriaAzarenka is a Tier VI. #GirlBye

#GrannyIlluminati​

 

[Down_the_line]

*Face-Palms*. You clearly wasn't paying attention to Serena or women's tennis that year.

I was, but admittedly I don't really remember much of Serena's tennis in 2007. Unlike some people here I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the pro game during the last decade. Plus, I didn't really start becoming a devout Serena fan until well after that so, no, I wasn't paying as much attention to her.

Either way, my point stands. I feel Henin was her primary rival.

 

[MichaelNadal]

lol @ Henin. Serena would probably be like who? If you brought Justine up today.

 

[tennisaddict]

Whichever player ranked in top 10 that played most matches against Serena would constitute the main rival(s). No need to go based on h2h percentage.

 

[Down_the_line]

lol @ Henin. Serena would probably be like who? If you brought Justine up today.

Henin won 7 majors and Serena has a very close 8-6 record against her. If she's asking Who? about Henin then we might as well not even be having this discussion.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Henin won 7 majors and Serena has a very close 8-6 record against her. If she's asking Who? about Henin then we might as well not even be having this discussion.

Well Aneres is about to hit 25 in the next year, so she might as well say Who? 2007 was nice, but Venus has beaten her more and over a longer period.

 

[Vanhool]

17-3 is not a rivalry or top shelf tennis either. The only reason their matches go to three sets is because they are friends off-court, similar to Wozniacki's. At best, #VictoriaAzarenka is a Tier VI. #GirlBye

#GrannyIlluminati​

She is not tier 6! She is legit. Not an all time great, but she will win at least a couple more slams before she's done. And a lot of her head to head losses were when she was younger. The h2h would still greatly favor Serena, but at least Vika's 3 wins were in the last 3 years. And she has been injured the last year. The Owl Princess is not as good as Serena, of course, but she is a worthy rival.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Completely/utterly incorrect (or were you attempting humor?). If you are referring to the article I linked, Sharapova is not even mentioned. Nor are any of Serena's or Venus' other rivals. It speaks only of the rivalry between the 2 sisters.

I'm referring to your response to 90's Clay's:

Rivalries bring a sense of uncertainty in who will win. when Serena/MUGapova play you already know the result. It's like Roddick/ fed matches. That wasn't a rivalry. One guy won all the matches

..and your response:

Even tho' this long-standing "rivalry" of 24 matches was lopsided, it resulted in a number of outstanding matches. The best of these was the W final in 2009. The Williams vs Williams matches have not produced tennis even remotely close to this calibre.

That's what i meant: the rivalry he referred to was Serena v. Sharapova (or "MUGapova" as he called her), not Williams v. Williams.

 

[ScottleeSV]

She is not tier 6! She is legit. Not an all time great, but she will win at least a couple more slams before she's done. And a lot of her head to head losses were when she was younger. The h2h would still greatly favor Serena, but at least Vika's 3 wins were in the last 3 years. And she has been injured the last year. The Owl Princess is not as good as Serena, of course, but she is a worthy rival.

Worthy would be better than 3-18 in h2h and 2-21 in slams. Fair enough if she was 19 and still learning. But fact is, she's 26 and actually looks physically vulnerable to an earlier retirement than Williams. Not a rival at all.

As someone in a piece I read said this morning. "There has never been a Nadal or a Djokovic to Serena's Federer".

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I'm referring to your response to 90's Clay's...

That's what i meant: the rivalry he referred to was Serena v. Sharapova (or "MUGapova" as he called her), not Williams v. Williams.

Ok, I see what you meant (He = 90's Clay, not the Steve G link). However, if you look closely, I only quoted the last part of 90's Clay's post. I was really addressing his contention that the lopsided Fed/Roddick rivalry was not really a rivalry. (I was not responding directly to his comment about Maria). The last reference back to Williams vs Williams was really part of my response to Krish and others who cited Venus as Serena's greatest rival. My post was primarily about the quality of the rivalries in question.

 

[Man of steel]

Henin won 7 majors and Serena has a very close 8-6 record against her. If she's asking Who? about Henin then we might as well not even be having this discussion.

Well venus faced prime/peak serena more times while henin got her wins from a fat serena coming back on tour after having a dismal 4 years. Not to mention one of her wins was against an injured serena who had to resort to 1 handed backhands in the match because of her injured thumb and an injured calf muscle at wimbledon.
Then beat a serena who came into the US open with no warmup tornaments. To many people make to much out of those wins henin had. People keep acting like she was facing a peak serena who destroyed her on grass at wimby03 and was leading in the final set 4-2 on clay at their infamous FO 03 match where henin blatanly cheated and lied about it right to the umpire.

 

[Vanhool]

Worthy would be better than 3-18 in h2h and 2-21 in slams. Fair enough if she was 19 and still learning. But fact is, she's 26 and actually looks physically vulnerable to an earlier retirement than Williams. Not a rival at all.

As someone in a piece I read said this morning. "There has never been a Nadal or a Djokovic to Serena's Federer".

Ok perhaps "worthy rival" was a bit of an overstatement. I was just wanted to say she's better than Angie says.

I am not even going to think about the Fed/Nadal/Djokovic rivalries themselves or relate them to anything with WTA . It's not productive, people here get all bent out of shape, and I really don't care enough to get involved in all that.

Within her career, Serena has had rivals and either solved them or they've crippled themselves trying to keep up with her or just flat out given up. Every loss she suffers (if not do to her own infirmity) is like an affront to her and she vows to learn and improve so that it won't happen again. I think she's very impressive.

 

[upchuck]

Henin won 7 majors and Serena has a very close 8-6 record against her. If she's asking Who? about Henin then we might as well not even be having this discussion.

You miss the point. See Man of Steel:

Well venus faced prime/peak serena more times while henin got her wins from a fat serena coming back on tour after having a dismal 4 years. Not to mention one of her wins was against an injured serena who had to resort to 1 handed backhands in the match because of her injured thumb and an injured calf muscle at wimbledon.
Then beat a serena who came into the US open with no warmup tornaments. To many people make to much out of those wins henin had. People keep acting like she was facing a peak serena who destroyed her on grass at wimby03 and was leading in the final set 4-2 on clay at their infamous FO 03 match where henin blatanly cheated and lied about it right to the umpire.

My goodness. Finally someone who remembers and can analyze!

Serena's career has been full of ebbs and flow. To react to her career without considering this is to lack the kind of sophisticated judgement needed to be taken seriously in debates like this.

 

[boredone3456]

Watch Dementieva vs Serena in the Wimbledon SF. Dementieva had a match point on SERENA'S serve. Dementieva is an extremely underrated player by a lot of people because she had a fluff serve, but the rest of her game was solid. She could return Serena aggressively and she was able to blast Serena on occasion. I think she once beat Serena 63 61 at sydney....went into the Aussie on a 17 win match streak, met Serena in the SF and went to pieces and played like garbage.

Probably Dementievas biggest win over Serena was in the QF of the 2008 olympics...beat Serena and went on the win the gold medal.

I wouldn't say she was Serena's greatest rival...but she certainly wasn't completely helpless against her.

 

[Alien]

Her only rival is her ´talent´ for fashion and extra tennis activities and her lack of motivation in the past...

Then Henin.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

To many people make to much out of those wins henin had. People keep acting like she was facing a peak serena who destroyed her on grass at wimby03 and was leading in the final set 4-2 on clay at their infamous FO 03 match where henin blatanly cheated and lied about it right to the umpire.

The only people making anything out of that or those who love to con themselves into believing Henin (in their typical "woulda, coulda, shoulda" habit) had Serena's number, and would have stopped her from winning more majors. Yes, it is BS, but they need something else to use as a crutch to support the hate of Serena.

 

[struggle]

Clearly, her biggest rival is her 33YO self.

After that, there are no rivals, but on any given day if she
doesn't bring her A game.....she can be beat by several players.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Henin and Clijsters

 

[Elektra]

She had a cupcake draw last week and couldn't make it. I am a petra supporter, but the fact is she's only beaten Serena once (so far).

Jelena Jankovic is hardly a cupcake draw, on a good day she can upset the best players.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Henin and Clijsters

Serena has had colds that lasted longer than their threat to her.

 

[IamGroot]

Justine and Jennifer both have leading head to heads against Serena at slams, but overall Justine was a bigger threat. She always had a chance against Serena and was a consistent threat, whereas Serena beat Jennifer 8 times in a row at one stage and thoroughly dominated her.

Venus gave Serena some incredible battles but Serena owns her at the most important tournaments, the slams. Dementieva had a game that really troubled Serena but not when it mattered most. Hingis also had the game to really trouble Serena. But I would still say Justine.

 

[mattosgrant]

I am not a fan of Henin, and I hate to give the Serena hating trolls like TMF some fodder but lets be fair to her:

1. In 2002-2003 (Serena's absolute peak, other than maybe the last several years) Henin scored 3 wins over Serena. Most of the other top players, Venus and Capriati included, had 0. No other player had more than 1. Yes they were all on clay, but just like with Nadal are we going to pretend clay isnt tennis (it is not secret like Nadal, most of Henin's greatness is built on clay, and the rest is merely back up).

2. Beating Serena 3 times in slams on 3 different surfaces in the same year is remarkable no matter how you spin it. Serena lost in the quarters all 3 times, so she couldnt have been playing that badly. The only person who could beat her in slams this year was Henin it turned out. The slam Henin doesnt play Serena wins, the 3 Henin plays Serena goes out to her. Have to give it to Justine, she was the queen that year, and it was Serena's year of returning to somewhat top level tennis even if not all the way back yet.

3. Had they ever played in 2004-2006 Henin would have been the heavy favorite, much more so than 2007. Just as Henin retired, avoiding a string of likely defeats to Serena, Serena was fortunate while she was doing so poorly for her standards to not play Henin at all.

 

[mattosgrant]

My pick would have been Jen above both Henin and Venus, except that I believe the best rivalries are built on slam finals, not quarters. They always seemed to end up playing in quarterfinals for whatever reason. They had only 1 slam semi in fact I believe.

I dont pick Henin for the same reason. Mostly meeting in semis or quarters of slams, not enough finals (just 1).

Venus and Serena played in many slam finals, so they are my pick.

 

[captainbryce]

Henin was arguably the best womens player from 03-07 even with Serena in the mix, no one else has managed that consistency with SW on the tour.

I think you need a little refresher in recent tennis history.

Henin was definitely the best player from 06-07, I'll grant you that. However 2003 was something of an asterisk. Both Serena Williams and Justine Henin won two majors that year, but Kim Clijsters won the most of the tournaments (9 in all) that year. Serena basically stopped playing after Wimbledon, and it wasn't until August of that year that she forfeited the #1 ranking to Clijsters. Clijsters then went back and fourth with Henin for the rest of the year, until Henin finally clinched the ranking in November. But she was hardly the singly dominant player all year round.

Serena's sister Yetunde was murdered in a drive by shooting at the end of 2003, and she pretty much lost interest in the sport for several years following this incident. Between the end of 2003 through 2006, she only played sparingly winning just 3 events in 3 1/2 years, and pulling out of most of the ones she entered.

From 04-05, Lindsay Davenport was actually the best player, and the one who consistently went far in grand slam tournaments (7 quarterfinals or better). Maria Sharapova was the second best player in those two years (reaching 6 quarterfinals or better). Henin only made it past the quarters of any major twice in that entire span, so she was not the best player in those years. It was in 2006 that Henin really started to stand in a class by herself. With Clijsters and Davenport both on the verge of retirement (the first ones), and the Williams Sisters just not playing for various reasons, Henin's only real competition that year was from Amelie Mauresmo (whom Henin lost to in two major finals), and Sharapova (whom Henin lost to in the US Open final). But since she made the finals of all four majors that year, she finished #1.

So no, your paradigm doesn't really add up.

 

[mattosgrant]

No way in hell was Davenport best player in 04 or 05 IMO. 2004 she didnt even reach a slam final. Henin despite her limited schedule due to health problems, and her official YE ranking of #7 making sense, I would say was best player. She won the Australian Open, Olympic Gold, Indian Wells, and 5 titles overall, which is still a better year than anyone else, despite playing only 50% of the time. If it was not Henin it would be Pova who won Wimbledon and YEC, beating Serena in the finals of both. Maybe with her year round consistency I might go with Lindsay if she won a slam, or atleast won a secondary big event, but she didnt even reach a slam final so no. 2005 was Clijsters.

I think Justine has a very good case as best player of 03, 04, 06, and 07. I do think it would have been Serena if she didnt get injured, but she did, and it still would have been Serena if she won that French Open semis, but alas it is what it is. Even if you disagree there is no doubt Henin was by far the best of the overall 2003-2007 period and it isnt even close:

Henin- 7 slams, Olympic gold, 2 YEC, 3 YE#1
Serena- 4 slams
Sharapova- 2 slams, 1 YEC
Mauresmo- 2 slams
Venus- 2 slams
Everyone else- 1 slam or less each

Again not a Justine fan, but giving her, her proper due. Serena and Justine fans are the equivalent of Graf-Seles fans. Both are on such extreme sides of reality regarding both that they will never reach any kind of compromise. Largely due to the deep impassioniated dislike both sides have for the other.

On the other hand I personally think Justine is a huge coward for quitting due to a 6 month slump (early 08). I do think if she toughed it out she would have eventually started playing well again. Slumps happen, burnout happens. It was pretty laughable to quit right before the French when even in **** form, getting bagel sets from Serena and Maria on hard courts, she probably still had a good shot at winning given the weak clay field. She could have then taken a break for a couple months, and missed Wimbledon which in subpar form she wouldnt have a shot at anyway. Vanhool made a good point how Venus, Serena, even Sharapova, fight through all the up and downs, and take their lumps and bruises. Justine obviously does not. Then again she isnt the only one including some champions greater than her (eg- Borg).

 

[captainbryce]

I am not a fan of Henin, and I hate to give the Serena hating trolls like TMF some fodder but lets be fair to her:

1. In 2002-2003 (Serena's absolute peak, other than maybe the last several years) Henin scored 3 wins over Serena. Most of the other top players, Venus and Capriati included, had 0. No other player had more than 1. Yes they were all on clay, but just like with Nadal are we going to pretend clay isnt tennis (it is not secret like Nadal, most of Henin's greatness is built on clay, and the rest is merely back up).

True for that time-frame (at least on clay) Henin was Serena's best rival. The difference between this and the Nadal-Federer rivalry from 2004-2006 is that Nadal actually had wins over Federer on hard courts as well.

2. Beating Serena 3 times in slams on 3 different surfaces in the same year is remarkable no matter how you spin it. Serena lost in the quarters all 3 times, so she couldnt have been playing that badly.

Well there is no doubt that she did play very badly in the French Open and US Open matches against Henin. However, that was largely due to Henin's consistent play and not letting Serena dictate.

The only person who could beat her in slams this year was Henin it turned out. The slam Henin doesnt play Serena wins, the 3 Henin plays Serena goes out to her.

Not necessarily. Serena very nearly lost to Daniela Hantuchova at Wimbledon. In fact, if there wasn't a rain delay after Serena's injury, she would have lost. Wiki says this about her encounter in the next round:

In the quarterfinals, Williams faced world no. 1 Justine Henin. Henin won the first set, just to see Williams comeback to win the second set. Henin then served for the match in the seventh game but Williams came back, however it wasn't enough as Henin served out the match in the ninth game to advance.[38] Williams was suffering from the injuries sustained in the previous round.[39] Williams who claimed she played at 40% was criticized by Michael Stich for claiming after the match that she would have beaten Henin had she been healthy.[40]

Have to give it to Justine, she was the queen that year, and it was Serena's year of returning to somewhat top level tennis even if not all the way back yet.

I agree. Henin was unstoppable in 2007. Her Wimbledon loss to Bartoli was truly astonishing, but a fluke.

3. Had they ever played in 2004-2006 Henin would have been the heavy favorite, much more so than 2007. Just as Henin retired, avoiding a string of likely defeats to Serena, Serena was fortunate while she was doing so poorly for her standards to not play Henin at all.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Serena didn't play for most of that period due to injuries, personal tragedy, and loss of interest. She wasn't committed to the sport in those three years, which is why she didn't run into Henin (or hardly anyone else) in that period. We can't say what would have happened if she was playing consistently those years because we'd also have to assume that she was healthy, and physically & mentally fit. A healthy and mentally fit Serena wins against Henin most of the time (except on clay). And it was Serena's devastating 6-2; 6-0 win over Henin in Miami (2008) that seemed to drive Henin into retirement. I know it really wasn't, but that's what it looked like when Henin (who was 3 time defending champion) suddenly retired before the French Open.

 

[mattosgrant]

And it was Serena's devastating 6-2; 6-0 win over Henin in Miami (2008) that seemed to drive Henin into retirement. I know it really wasn't, but that's what it looked like when Henin (who was 3 time defending champion) suddenly retired before the French Open.

Everyone seems to take credit for their favorite player for that. I have seen Safina fans say it was Safina beating Henin on clay that made her retire. I have seen Maria fans say it was the Australian Open beatdown. I have seen Serena fans say it was that particular match. Basically everyone wants it to be them who is right, lol! Basically it was her own burn out and slump of playing poor tennis (as all these matches reflect), and that she doesnt have the heart and guts to fight through it IMO.

And of course Serena was pretty poor in 2004-2006. That is my whole point. She was much poorer those years than 2007, so it doesnt make sense to make it out to be 2007 is the only year Henin would have been beating Serena. When those previous 3 years Henin would have been even more likely beating Serena giving how poorly Serena was playing, but they didnt even play. Then even in 2002-2003 like I mentioned Henin beat peak Rena 3 times (yes all on clay, but as I said are we discounting clay entirely now, and Serena was dominating everyone on clay too, except Justine).

So basically to discount Justine entirely you would have to discount 2007 ( a year Serena won a slam, Miami, and reached the quarters of every slam, and was by everyones definition 2nd or 3rd best player in the world) entirely AND clay entirely (where as already noted even 02-03 Justine was regularly beating Serena), which is already going overboard.

 

[captainbryce]

No way in hell was Davenport best player in 04 or 05 IMO. 2004 she didnt even reach a slam final. Henin despite her limited schedule due to health problems, and her official YE ranking of #7 making sense, I would say was best player.

Well that doesn't make any sense. How can you be the BEST player if you aren't playing a full schedule, your ranking isn't in the top 5, and you only make it past the quarters of any slam twice in a two year period? Playing a limited schedule for health/injury reasons is not a credential for being the best player still, especially when you perform poorly in the majors.

She won the Australian Open, Olympic Gold, Indian Wells, and 5 titles overall, which is still a better year than anyone else, despite playing only 50% of the time.

Uh, no it wasn't better than everyone else that year. It was in fact second to Davenport who won 7 titles, made the finals of two grand slams, and finished the year #1.

 

[mattosgrant]

Well that doesn't make any sense. How can you be the BEST player if you aren't playing a full schedule, your ranking isn't in the top 5, and you only make it past the quarters of any slam twice in a two year period? Playing a limited schedule for health/injury reasons is not a credential for being the best player still, especially when you perform poorly in the majors.

Uh, no it wasn't better than everyone else that year. It was in fact second to Davenport who won 7 titles, made the finals of two grand slams, and finished the year #1.

Sorry but no way in hell was Davenport best player of either 2004 or 2005 IMO. If you dont think it is Justine for 04 then it was Maria. No way in hell is the women who reached no slam final > the women who won Australian Open and Olympic Gold (and Indian Wells, still bigger than Lindsay's biggest title), or the women who won Wimbledon and the YEC beating Serena in the final of both (which given what we know of the match up now was a remarkable feat for Maria). Note the Player of Year awards agree with me. Henin won the International Tennis Writers Player of Year and was ranked #1 by French Tennis Magazine. Sharapova won the WTA Player of Year, Myskina won the ITF Player of Year. Davenport with zippo, just yet another contorversial YE#1 ranking.

Then in 2005 it was clearly Clijsters who won the U.S Open, a bunch of large hard court titles, and swept the Player of Year awards with Lindsay despite her YE#1 ranking not getting a single one.

Interestingly in 3 of the 4 years Davenport ended as YE#1 (2001, 2004, 2005) she did not gain a single Player of Year award, which just shows her YE#1s were mostly paper things. Nobody looked at her as the best player other than the computer.

 

[mattosgrant]

Also if you asked Lindsay she would trade her own 2004 for Justine or Maria's in a heartbeat, her own 2001 for Jennifer or Venus's in a heartbeat, and her own 2005 for Clijsters's in a heartbeat. If you think otherwise you are delusional. She even said herself at the end of each year she wasnt best player, just #1 ranked. Kind of like the new Hingis in that sense. Which is different than parts of 98 and 99, and early 2000, while ranked #1 where she said she did feel like the best player.

 

[mattosgrant]

BTW Lindsay reached ZERO slam finals in 2004, not 2 slam finals. You need a serious refresher course.

Uh, no it wasn't better than everyone else that year. It was in fact second to Davenport who won 7 titles, made the finals of two grand slams, and finished the year #1.

She also lost all her head to head meetings with the 2 women who won big tournaments that year- Justine and Maria.

 

[captainbryce]

Everyone seems to take credit for their favorite player for that. I have seen Safina fans say it was Safina beating Henin on clay that made her retire. I have seen Maria fans say it was the Australian Open beatdown. I have seen Serena fans say it was that particular match. Basically everyone wants it to be them who is right, lol!

I haven't heard any of those other claims (which to be honest would be ridiculous consider how she owns both of those players in head to head. I'm also not saying the Serena loss on it's own pushed her into retirement. I believe that it was the combination of all of those losses, plus here impending divorce from her gay husband that led her into retirement.

And of course Serena was pretty poor in 2004-2006. That is my whole point. She was much poorer those years than 2007, so it doesnt make sense to make it out to be 2007 is the only year Henin would have been beating Serena.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that because Serena wasn't really healthy (or serious about tennis) between 2004-2006, she wouldn't have been the dominant player even if Henin didn't exist. ANYONE would have beaten Serena those years, so that doesn't mean Henin would have been her greatest rival. Henin didn't really start dominating until 2006 (again for various reasons). So we might as well just throw 2004-2006 out the window because neither player was healthy or playing consistently at the same time in those period. If we were to assume that both of them were healthy and playing consistently throughout that period, then it is possible that Henin would have been Serena's greatest rival in those years, but who really knows.

When those previous 3 years Henin would have been even more likely beating Serena giving how poorly Serena was playing, but they didnt even play.

You're missing the point. It's stupid to even try to evaluate those years BECAUSE Serena wasn't playing much, and when she was it wasn't serious. Like I said, EVERYONE beat Serena in the few times that she played in those years. It's like saying IF Henin was playing from 2008-2009, Serena would have dominated her. That statement is possibly true (considering how poorly Henin was playing before she retired). But it's also an irrelevant statement because there are too many variables and "ifs". A rivalry is only a rivalry when the players are actually playing each other. Imaginary scenarios where both players are healthy and playing tell us nothing because they don't generate results.

Then even in 2002-2003 like I mentioned Henin beat peak Rena 3 times (yes all on clay, but as I said are we discounting clay entirely now, and Serena was dominating everyone on clay too, except Justine).

I don't discount that at all. I've already conceded that in those years Henin was a strong rival for Serena.

So basically to discount Justine entirely you would have to discount 2007 ( a year Serena won a slam, Miami, and reached the quarters of every slam, and was by everyones definition 2nd or 3rd best player in the world) entirely AND clay entirely (where as already noted even 02-03 Justine was regularly beating Serena), which is already going overboard.

I'm not discounting 2007 because that was a year in which both players were healthy and playing consistently. Henin won the rivalry that year because she beat Serena 3 out of the 4 meetings (on every surface).

My only real argument is the years between 2004-2005 where they didn't meet. Henin wasn't the best player in those years (compared to Davenport) for the same reason that Serena wasn't. Lack of play and lack of consistent winning when playing. And it doesn't make sense to speculate over who would have been the better player in most of the matches, on different surfaces in those years since Serena wasn't a serious contender at all.

 

[Netspirit]

I voted for Hingis. Her tennis outsmarted Serena's, her wins were tactical and absolutely beautiful to watch.
6-7 against someone twice heavier than you, who essentially created new women's tennis, is very decent.