Serena's ommision from female GOAT discussions in part due to racism?
- Thread starter cuddles26
- Start date
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
Funny you should say that, the first one is an indication that he was NOT playing against the best tennis players in the world that year. The second one is.
I've always thought it bizarre of people to cite his first Grand Slam as proof that he was GOAT. It is more like holding the minor league record for home runs in a season than anything else.
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
Anyway, back to Serena.
I'm a fan of hers, but I could understand that many will not like to talk of her as GOAT because of her conduct this year. I wouldn't be surprised or offended if she is not voted in the HOF the first time she is eligible.
She is clearly the greatest women's player of this past decade and will be a top tier Hall of Famer.
I'm a fan of hers, but I could understand that many will not like to talk of her as GOAT because of her conduct this year. I wouldn't be surprised or offended if she is not voted in the HOF the first time she is eligible.
She is clearly the greatest women's player of this past decade and will be a top tier Hall of Famer.
soyizgood
G.O.A.T.
Serena is a shoe-in for HoF. As is Henin, Venus, Clijsters and Sharapova. The tennis HoF is too easy to get in compared to the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Just win a slam and/or being top 5 for a bit and you're in.
How can you overlook Iva Majoli? C'mon now, let's be sensible here....
It IS about race. Serena is a bit behind the RACE for her to be talked about. She would have been way ahead in the marathon if she didn't stop at the McDonald's drive through for Quarter Pounders.
Last edited:
el sergento
Hall of Fame
I agree she is the GOAT
GREATEST OF ALL THREATS!:twisted:
GREATEST OF ALL THREATS!:twisted:
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Why do you assume racism? Did you ever assume that Serena may not have been as good a player as those other people that you mentioned? Or maybe she isn't as committed to the game as they were? Or maybe some people just don't like her because of her arrogant attitude?
Race has nothing to do with it. Anyone who thinks so is just biased towards Serena Williams and has an agenda. Serena Williams is not the GOAT due to lack of numbers, dedication, poor sportsmanship, and her inability to dominate one of the greatest rivals of her generation (Justine Henin) on the surfaces that Serena dominates (Wimbledon and HCs).
People have a hard time distinguishing between racism and discrimination. People discriminate against Serena Williams based on her attitude and her behavior. Ever wonder why there is nothing negative posted about Venus Williams on this forum? Because Venus Williams knows how to behave in public.
People have a hard time distinguishing between racism and discrimination. People discriminate against Serena Williams based on her attitude and her behavior. Ever wonder why there is nothing negative posted about Venus Williams on this forum? Because Venus Williams knows how to behave in public.
cuddles26
Banned
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with your tennis greatness. It is another category altogether. Your comments on Henin are just wrong. The only year Henin has beaten Serena on a grass or a hard court is 2007. That is it. That is the best year of tennis of Henin's career so far of course. So only in Henin's best year ever did she have any success vs Serena on any surface except clay thus far.
Along these lines, couldn't one argue that Navratilova suffered from prejudice because of her sexual orientation? Its never been an issue regarding a discussion of Martina's abilities as a tennis player. It did affect her marketability-endorsements, however.
That is not the case with Serena who is with Nike, Wilson, etc. Perhaps if Serena dedicated herself more fully to tennis like Nav, Evert, Graf, etc. she would be in the discussion.
You do have to tip your hat to her though for being such a well-rounded person, having interests off the court and still being among the top in the game year after year.
I don't think its about race at this point. The prejudice though, was apparent when she and Venus first came up, although they did have a bit of a chip on their shoulders, perhaps understandably.
If you want to base it on numbers and computers do not discriminate, she has only finished No.1 twice since 2000 and that includes this year. Henin and Davenport finished No.1 three times each... and I believe Henin left the game as No.1... she could have been No. 1 the last two years which would have make it 5 years for her... and only 1 for Serena.
Serena the best player of the decade... the numbers say different.
Their H2H is 6-7 with the large majority of Serena's wins coming early in Henin's career. Once both players were at their respective "primes" (Henin's was 2007, while Serena was playing very well in 2007), Henin dominated Serena at the slams.
Like I said, Henin is one of Serena's greatest rivals, who Serena was unable to beat consistently.
I don't believe this is a race issue... you are allowed to dislike people regardless of the color of their skin. Some of the reasons they may have had issues on their way up was their attitudes and their belief they were better than others. Serena still appears to have this attitude... that some how she is entitled... I wonder what will happen when the cameras go away and no one cares what she has to say, cause right now... I personally have no interest in anything that comes out of her mouth.
I hope Henin comes back and reclaims her crown so we can end this debate.
I don't believe this is a race issue either as to why she is not in the GOAT discussion. See the first part of my response.
cuddles26
Banned
2003-2008 was when both women were in their primes. On hard courts Serena went 2-1 vs Henin and won 4 hard court slams in that time vs Henin's 3. On grass they played twice and Serena destroyed Henin once, and Henin beat Serena in 3 tough sets in the other. Serena in that span won Wimbledon 2 times and Henin 0 times. So outside of clay where one would have to concede Henin is superior (no shame in that given that it is Serena's worst surface and Henin is one of the greatest clay courters in history), Serena has had the clear overall upper hand vs Henin even during the Henin prime on the other surfaces.
And Henin got the last laugh in 2007 dominating Serena in every slam that year with the exception of Wimbledon.
2003 was not Henin's prime. That's laughable at best. Henin's prime sits somewhere around 2004(5ish)-2007.
Serena does not have the clear upperhand. Henin didn't really hit the peak of her prime until somewhere around 2006-2007, and then began dominating Serena in slams. Without Henin in the way, I'd say Serena had a good shot at winning all 4 slams in 2007.
Last edited:
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
If you say that 2003 was not prime Henin, you certainly must concede that 2007 Serena was not even close to the player she was in 2002-2003. Yet she still split HC meetings w/ Henin in 2007, lost on one leg at Wimbledon...the point is, I'd take a prime Serena on grass and HC vs Prime Henin 7 of 10.
Of course, but Henin has a much better chance of beating Serena on grass than Serena has a chance of beating Henin on clay. On HCs, it's a very, very, very close match with neither player having any significant advantage over the other.
Serena of course was not the player of 2003, but she certainly was playing some great tennis in 2007. The only player that could stop her was Henin consistently time and time again. Who was going to stop her in 2007 other than Henin? Venus maybe at Wimbledon. I honestly don't think anyone was going to stop her at RG (who was in the final, Ana Ivanovic I think), nor at the USO (possibly Venus, definitely not Kutznetsova).
Basically what I'm saying is that Henin basically destroys Serena on clay, has a pretty good shot at beating Serena on grass, and has a very good chance of beating her on HCs. More times then not I think Henin comes out on top too, because Henin is simply not a good match-up for Serena Williams. She is capable of exchanging groundstrokes with Serena, and has the game to totally disrupt Serena's rhythm.
The argument I present is legitimate however. Henin has posted a significant amount of wins over Serena on every surface to justify that Serena is possibly not even the best of her generation, let alone someone who should be considered the GOAT.
Last edited:
cuddles26
Banned
2003 was Henin's 2nd best year ever thus far so it is stupid at the moment to say that wasnt her prime, unless you are saying 2007 was her only prime. 2003 was Henin's 2nd best year of tennis ever, and you say it wasnt her prime. Yet 2007 was only Serena's 4th best year of tennis ever after 1999, 2002, 2003, so by your logic she was even less in her real prime.
cuddles26
Banned
Whether that is true or not all people will remember right now is Serena has won a French Open, while Henin has never won Wimbledon. That is the bottom line. Serena has won the biggest title on her worst surface, and Henin has not. Serena also won 4 in a row, the non calender slam, while Henin of course with her failure to ever win Wimbledon up to now doesnt even yet have a career slam. If Henin wins Wimbledon next year or a year in her comeback we can talk more seriously who has had the better career, but right now that is how it is like it or not.
Remove Henin from 2007 and all of a sudden 2007 starts to look like Serena's best year. Remember, Henin stopped Serena at nearly every major. There was really no one else that could have stopped her.
2003 was Henin just entering her prime. However, to say that Henin in 2003 is the same player as the years later is ridiculous logic. She won 87% of her matches in 2003, yet she either maintained or had a better percentage in 2004 (90%), 2006 (88%), and 2007 (94%). In 2006, she made 3 finals and won a slam. In 2007 she won 2 slams and made a SF. Henin in 2003 wasn't even considered a force outside of clay; she was still considered a claycourt specialist.
Henin's best years were easily from 2006-2007, where she dominated the entire field (including the sisters). Her prime would have been earlier had she not been sick from 2004-2005.
That is the bottom line? Like I said, I cannot even consider Serena Williams the greatest of her generation when Henin has owned her in their last meetings at slams. And let me remind you, Henin in 2007 went 3-0 against Serena in the slams.
With Serena in the downhill and Henin coming back, it looks like Henin will probably have a winning H2H against Serena soon.
Henin might have 'owned' Serena Williams because it could just be a bad matchup - like Federer and Nadal. Federer can be considered the greatest of all time though he has a poor record over Nadal in the grand slams.
cuddles26
Banned
I already factored in how much Henin playing great hurt Serena in 2007 by calling it her 4th best year of tennis. If it were just results I would have put it behind 2008 and 2009, but you notice I didnt. Even just tennis wise she was better 2002, 2003, and probably 1999. You would have to be blind to not notice how much fitter she was those years for starter, and how much sharper her strokes were.
You are also totally wrong if you are implying Serena would have won every slam that year. The French there are always people who can beat her, not just Henin. Wimbledon she was injured, so she would have absolutely no chance vs Venus that year. U.S Open Venus was in better form so would likely have beaten her for the title that year without Henin. If she were lucky she might have won 1 more slam that year without Henin.
Just like it is ridiculous to say 2007 Serena is the same as 2002-2003. Are we talking about primes or peaks here. If it is primes 2003 was just as much prime Henin, as 2007 was prime Serena. If were were talking about peaks than in 2007 only Henin was at her absolute peak, not Serena.
So if Serena has benefited from the weakened competition lately as you all keep claiming, then maybe Henin is also benefiting from the competition being easier thus helping her do even better than her first great years in 2003-2004 also. After all even you yourself seem to be saying other than Serena, Henin had no real competition in 2007. Or are we applying double standards here. Is the late 2000s field only weak when it is Serena, and not weaker when it is Henin?
ROTFL that is why she won the U.S Open, having one of the greatest ever slam matches with Capriati in the semis on the way to doing it, was in the finals of 5 straight slams, won the Australian Open to start 2004 too to make her the holder of 3 of the 4 slams- thus far the only time in her career she has managed this. She also probably would have beaten Clijsters and an injured Venus to win Wimbledon in 2003 without being stopped by a charged up Serena who was ultra motivated/p#ssed from Henin's cheating at the French a month earlier, and then would have completed her own career slam. Yet she was just a clay court specialist, LOL!
If we want to play what ifs what about all the injuries Serena has had over the years too. What about all the injuries Davenport had after 2000-2001 that contributed to her from ever winning another slam, and all the injuries Maria has had since the start of 2007. You make it sound like Henin is the only one who has been stopped from maybe winning more by health. 2006 she was probably the worthy #1 of the year overall, but she did not dominate like you claim. She was in 4 slam finals and lost 3 of the 4, and they werent even to a Williams. 2 of the 4 slam finals she lost to Mauresmo, the only 2 slams Mauresmo ever won. That is impressive domination according to you, hahah!
cuddles26
Banned
Do you want to make a sig bet? If Henin wins atleast 2 slams next year then I have to wear a sig for a whole year after next years U.S Open that says "cuddles is a mindless Serena addictive troll who knows squat about tennis. NamRanger schooled that fool again and again." Yet if Henin only wins 1 slam next year (the FO is obviously in the bag probably), and Serena does win 2 slams next year, you then have to wear a sig that says "I am a biased hater when it comes to Serena, but I now confess the truth. Serena >>> Henin."
Henin is better than Serena (not because of the H2H in slams though). Henin even made serena cry things got so bad for serena. I assure you that if henin was active for the last few years - she would be ahead of serena in slams.
cuddles26
Banned
Who cares if she would have been or wouldnt have been. She quit, so she cut down on her own greatness by quitting in the middle of her prime just because she was off her game for a few months and didnt want to fight through a mini slump since she apparently isnt enough of a fighter to do that. That is not the attitude of someone who should be the greatest player of her generation.
split-step
Professional
Give me a break pls. Davenport???
Serena is clearly the best player of this decade. She is more accomplished in terms of singles and doubles accomplishments than any other player of her generation.
split-step
Professional
Based on what??
Losing H2H?
No Doubles achievements??
Fewer singles titles??
Fewer Grand Slams???
Hasn't won slams on ALL surfaces????
You may not like Serena's brand of tennis. I prefer Henin's, but Serena is a ever-so-slightly better player. It's just the truth. Face it.
split-step
Professional
It's laughable... if you don't know what you are talking about.
Henin's best year. Her absolute best performance came in 2007. Outside of that 2003 was her 2nd best year. For you to say that 2004/2005 when she was struggling with her serve and health are part of her prime years means you aren't a Henin fan and don't really know what you are talking about.
Get a clue.
This I agree with. As far as their matchup with each other is concerned, there is no clear favourite. I take Serena on grass and Henin on clay. Anything else is a toss up.
However, Serena and Henin are not even in the same discussion when discussing greatest of the decade.
Henin is in Venus league for that discussion (and Venus has the edge IMO). Serena is ahead of both.
LOL Venus does not have the edge on Henin in career greatness. They both have 7 slams. Venus is nearly 30 now yet has been unable to ever again surpass the # of singles slams Henin has despite Henin's retiring at 25 and having not yet begun her return. Henin however has by far the more balanced record having won 3 of the 4 slams, and having multiple finals and additional semis of all 4 slams. Venus has a pathetic record relatively speaking in Australia and the French Opens, with only 1 time past the quarters of the French (a runner up) and only 1 final and 1 semi at the Australian Open. Henin's versatility across all the surfaces far surpasses Venus who only specializes on fast surfaces. Henin has ended the year ranked #1, a legit #1, three different times in her career. Venus has never once ended a year ranked #1, and has spent only a short duration there. Henin sustained a consistent and standard for a nearly 5 year span from spring 2003-end of 2007 which Venus has never come close to matching for that long a time period. From 2003 to early 2007 she won atleast 1 slam every year, including semis or better the first year she won the FO and US in 2003, reaching all 4 slam finals in 2006, and winning 2 of the 3 slams she played in 2007 (and beating Serena in all 3 she played). If we count the Olympics and WTA Championships as major events she won atleast 2 major events every year from 2003-2007 except for 2005. They both have 41 singles titles. The head to head is meaningless given that all matches except 1 were at Venus's absolute career peak from late 2000-early 2003, and when Henin was clearly nowhere near the player she was from spring 2003 onwards.
There is absolutely no way unless you are a blind Williams fanatic that Venus has the career edge on Henin, atleast in singles.
Last edited:
I agree Serena (definitely not Venus) should rank over Henin at this point. However the bolded part is wrong. Henin has 41 singles titles, Serena only has 35. Serena in fact has fewer singles titles than Henin, Venus, Davenport, and Clijsters. While I concur she still should rank over all of this at this moment and be for now regarded as the greatest of her generation (unless Henin surpasses her in the future), this is a blotch on her greatness when talking about all time greatest players. An 11 slam winner should not be trailing women with so many fewer slams like Clijsters and Davenport in tournament titles.
Her prime would have set in somewhere around 2004-2005 if she was not sick. She hit her stride again in 2006 though. 2003 may have been her 2nd year, but it was only the beginning of Justine Henin. 2006-2007 is really what Justine Henin is capable of.
Serena is only ahead by achievements so far, but if Justine Henin plays up to anywhere near her 2007 level, she's gonna rack up a few more slams and wins against Serena before all is said and done.
I am not sure if Justine can ever catch or pass Serena in slam wins at this point though. Serena now has 11 and Justine 7. However even if she doesnt catch/surpass Serena in slam wins, if Justine can win Wimbledon, and get within 2 slams of Serena, people including experts on the game will still then wonder which was the better player, particularly since Justine missed out on some slams during her 2 year retirement (and Serena possibly gained 1 or 2 more as well from it).
People say Justine was lucky and Serena unlucky that Serena was injured and had to miss the 03 U.S Open and 2004 Australian Open. That may be true, but people forget how very unlucky Justine was to get ill around March of 2004. She was setting up for complete domination of that year and the forseeable future, before the illness hit. Serena returned to health and the tour but wasnt even able to win a single slam in 2004 (and only a somewhat lucky AO in 2005 as any slams from 04-06). Nobody did anything that year that indicates Justine would not have ended that year 3 or possibly all 4 slams had she not gone done with the illness. 2005 also would have been alot better for her, although in fairness her form that year outside of clay was lacking, even considering the health setbacks. That she fought back from a major virus that hampered her career for 2 years to become the overall top player of 2006 and the dominant player of 2007 is testement to her strength and what she might have achieved had she stayed healthy.
Futhermore while I am sure some will bring up again that Justine won 2 slams in Serena's absence that Serena might have won- 2003 U.S Open and 2004 Australian Open, Serena won 2 others in Justine's absence that a healthy Justine might have won instead- 2005 Australian and 2007 Australian Open which already evens that hypothetical. That is before even talking about the slams Serena won during Justine's temporary retirement. Particularly the 2009 Australian Open which is one of those events she won struggling so much with form that it emphasized a certain amount of the ridicule of the current womens game, and where it seems unlikely her form was up to beating even a so so Justine. While overall I wouldnt consider Serean the luckiest player (that would be Capriati by far) I cant really think of a venue one great player has had as much luck as Serena at the Australian Open, an event she easily could have won 0 or 1 time yet has by some miracle won 4 times which is the biggest booster to her overall slam total.
Last edited:
I was going by the numbers, and if Serena is the best player of her decade then she should finish in the No.1 spot at the end of the year more than any other player. Obviously she did not dominate the decade... my point was that others finished at the No.1 more than she did (ie. Davenport).
And lets not dis.. Davenport... she is a winner of 3 of the 4 majors in singles and doubles (missing the French in singles and Australian in doubles)... she also has an Olympic Gold... and 55 single career titles a few more than the 35 or so of Serena's.
And since 1975 she is only one of 4 women to finish the year at No.1 in the world 4 times or more. The others... Stefi Graf, Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, I would say that is some pretty elite company.
This is all even off topic... my point is that Serena is much closer to a tier 2 player than any sort of GOAT. And as far as her doubles titles... how would she have done without the help of her little sister...
I guess it is easy to miss the accomplishment of a Lindsay Davenport... she was a quiet, humble, hard working competitor, compared to the ego maniac we have threatening lines women.
Last edited:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Good Post Ripper!
Those on this board who are clearly obsessed with Serena (Hi Cuddles) need to stop being two faced hypocrites when it comes to a quantitative vs qualitative analysis when assessing Serena as a tennis player. They choose which ever method that favors her at different times:
If its vs Henin or Venus - then its the quantitative argument: Serena has more slams and thus must be superior.
If its vs Graf (or any other player with a better record) - then its a hypothetical qualitative argument: Serena is just better despite her poorer results.
Its becoming a little ridiculous, at least stay consistent!
I personally don't think Serena is GOAT by either standard, although she is clearly up there.
Quantitative, there is no question Graf or Navratilova is far ahead of Serena.
Qualitative (players at peak form) varies depending on your opinion. I think Serena has GOAT as far as serve overall. Although I would take Venus' first serve over Serena's if both are playing their best.
Return: Davenport or Seles.
Power and pace: Venus has my vote. Davenport second
Movement: Venus has it again. Clijsters somewhat close second.
Footwork: Graf or Henin.
Volley: Navratilova
Backhand: toss up between Henin, Davenport, or Venus. Seles with a very high honorable mention.
Forehand: Graf with Serena close second.
Improvization: Venus
Defense: Venus with Clijsters second.
Mental stregnth: Serena with Graf and Seles close second.
Craftiness/touch: Graf or Henin
Athleticism/Explosiveness: Venus hands down!
Last edited:
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
Personally, I wouldn't vote for Clijsters or Sharapova unless they win more Slams. I consider 4 Slam titles a HOF pushbutton.
I believe anybody would agree that a career Grand Slam is an automatic for HOF. Which brings up a very interesting candidate who should, but never will, get in the HOF.
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
True, the program discriminates (as it Should), not the computer. My program gives zero weight to end of the year finishes. Yours does give it weight, so I'm sure your numbers are accurate.
I and many others could care less who finished the year at No. 1. Davenport would trade her career results and finishing the year at No. 1 one more time than Serena for Serena's Slam titles alone in a heartbeat.
I'm willing to defend my HOF or best player of the decade choices on Slam titles. Are you really sure you want to base your choices on end of year ranking (see:Jankovic)?
split-step
Professional
Says who? You?
Ask the retired tennis pros, they say it all the time, Serena at her best is unplayable. Serena has the 11 slams. Held all 4 slams consecutively, won all surfaces, has won Olympics gold in doubles, won almost all 4 slams in womens doubles and mixed doubles. Has a slam winning career spanning a decade (Won her first slam in 1999 and her most recent in 2009) and she is still playing
You cannot compare that with Davenport who finished a year #1 without winning a slam. (That year Serena bagelled her in the Australian Open final)
I can't even believe you brought Davenport up. No disrespect to her but come on.
Yes she was humble and hard working, but her movement was a major liability as was her mentality. Serena has the mentality of a champion, whether you like her attitude or not. Her ego helps her win matches she should otherwise lose.
Some of the greatest sportsmen have had HUGE egos.
Her record speaks for itself. She is the greatest of her generation (until Henin repeats her 2007 season, while winning Wimbledon
)If Serena is the best player, then she should of spent most of the time ranked #1. However she’s behind other players at number of weeks at #1, and number of years end in #1 in this era. She’s also behind in number of titles. Plus, she played a full 10 years in this decade where no other players(except Venus) have done it. There’s no way she can be the best player given that she’s an opportunist but fell short against players who played much LESS years.
My point is this... in a decade where I do not believe is as deep in talent at the top of the pool... (no doubt the level of play is much deeper and of higher quality overall), Serena could not dominate.
In the 90's it was dominated by Graf... I am not sure anyone would disagree... in the 80's Navratilova... and the 70's Evert.
The rankings I believe are based on a players best 16 results over 52 the last weeks (by the way... your GOAT lost 3 straight tournies in the first round in a row this year, and did not win anything other than her 2 slams). Since we are talking about GOATs here... IMHO you have to show consistency to be considered a GOAT, and the to ability to win day in and day out.
Serena has been able to win in on the big stage... but she has also been lucky, and as I mentioned... the draws have not been very deep in the womens game for a decade. Case in point... Kim Clijsters after a 2 year layoff (and a baby which she has in tow), wins the US Open after only her 3rd tournament back. Now don't get me wrong I have always thought Kim was a very good player... but to be handicapped with this how could you beat a potential GOAT... and not only beat her but embarass her into showing her true colors to a national audience. By the way I think that was Kim's first Slam title.
As far as Jelena Janković finishing No.1, I have no problems with that... it shows that she was more consistant than any other player over her best 16 results over the last year. In other words... on any given day... she would be the best player on the court, Serena over this time... could win the Grand Slam or be out in the 1st round.
In the 90's it was dominated by Graf... I am not sure anyone would disagree... in the 80's Navratilova... and the 70's Evert.
The rankings I believe are based on a players best 16 results over 52 the last weeks (by the way... your GOAT lost 3 straight tournies in the first round in a row this year, and did not win anything other than her 2 slams). Since we are talking about GOATs here... IMHO you have to show consistency to be considered a GOAT, and the to ability to win day in and day out.
Serena has been able to win in on the big stage... but she has also been lucky, and as I mentioned... the draws have not been very deep in the womens game for a decade. Case in point... Kim Clijsters after a 2 year layoff (and a baby which she has in tow), wins the US Open after only her 3rd tournament back. Now don't get me wrong I have always thought Kim was a very good player... but to be handicapped with this how could you beat a potential GOAT... and not only beat her but embarass her into showing her true colors to a national audience. By the way I think that was Kim's first Slam title.
As far as Jelena Janković finishing No.1, I have no problems with that... it shows that she was more consistant than any other player over her best 16 results over the last year. In other words... on any given day... she would be the best player on the court, Serena over this time... could win the Grand Slam or be out in the 1st round.
Last edited:
I don't think I said that I would consider Davenport a GOAT... which is what this thread is discussing. HOF... I am sure they will both be admitted. But as I have already stated... at this point Serena IMHO would be in a second tier discussion regarding GOAT status.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Olympic gold in doubles, considering we seem to be talking greatest singles player of the decade, along with the doubles and mixed doubles stats, shouldn't even be in the dicussion as judging by the tone we are talking singles.
Davenport finishing the year number 1 without winning a slam by some is a big deal, especially in 2004. In 2005 Davenport had the most consistantly slam performance record, was the only player to get to at least the quarters of every major, and was dominating Serena Williams at the onset of that Australian Open final and likely would have won had she made some better decisions (dropped out of doubles mainly), and not completely sputtered down and ran out of gas. Wimbledon, Davenport looked freakish in the final, problem was so did venus, and Venus being a way better mover used that to her advantage near the end and wore Lindsay down, the way Davenport played that final, if it had been Serena, Serena likely would not have beaten her.
The reason Davenport was brought up I believe is because of the fact her year end number 1 finishes make Serena look incredibly bad in comparison. Serena only seems to care about the slams, whereas Davenport being number 1 at years end 4 times and for near 100 weeks shows Davenport was an all season player, which Serena, especially now, quite clearly is not. You want to dismiss Davenport, how about the fact that Henin has more weeks number 1 than Serena with the possibility of maybe getting more depending on what she does in her comeback?
Davenports biggest liability in her career was not her mentality, it was her movements and her own body. In comparison to other players her movement and footwork are pretty terrible, which given her height is not completely her own fault but she could have worked to make it. Injuries arguably kept her from slams to (2004 US Open comes to mind), as well as terrible luck (2004 Wimbledon). Her mentality was a drawback, but when she was on she could steamroll a draw, every slam she won she won without dropping a set, including straight setting Graf at Wimbledon in 1999. You could say that Graf was worn down, and much older, but even a broken down Graf is still a daunting opponent on grass. In terms of the ego winning matches, that is partially true, but lately its more like her opponents can't keep it together to finish her off, she wins 2 slams this year and yet loses outside of them to journeywomen, some of whom have done nothing this year at all.
Her record speaks for itself. She is the greatest of her generation (until Henin repeats her 2007 season, while winning Wimbledon
Yes I will agree Serena is the best player of her generation, but this was not always a lock for her. Until Sharapova beat up Henin at the Australian in 2008 there were many who felt Henin was on the road to that title. Henin likely won't catch up, although there is the possibility she could. She could also win Wimbledon, Venus is turning 30 and father time is catching up, and Apart from Serena who is all the competition to keep her from winning Wimbledon? Mauresmo is gone, Sharapova is still a question mark...Venus is still good there but is getting older and its showing, thats about it really. She has beaten Serena there before, it was injured Serena but seeing as Serena got past Hantuchova while seemingly hopping on one foot, its still a pretty big win for Henin. Henin could well repeat aspects of her 2007 season, although I don't see her going undefeated post Wimbledon again, the French is very real a chance, and she could take the US Open to, if clijsters could do it after 3 tournaments (beating both Williams en route), Henin could do it if fit and dedicated after more court time.
Serena is the best player of her generation, but she is not the dominant force you make her out to be, she has huge gaps in achievement during the past decade, both at the slams and outside of them (especially outside of them). Its pretty sad that as the best player of her generation, she is also one of the biggest underachievers ever. She is the best, but she has not been as lights out dominant the entire time as you are making her out to be. She has had quite a bit of luck, which has helped her numbers immensely. Everyone has luck, but for Serena it stands out because her numbers outside those slams you hold so high are not there as much as many feel they should and probably would be if she cared more.
Last edited:
Can't wait til Cuddles26 has to say.:grin:
