Ask the retired tennis pros, they say it all the time, Serena at her best is unplayable.
Show us some exact quotes please, preferably some quotes from real past champions of the game or credible sources of some kind. By the way I am not talking about statements from the two ESPN bimbos- Mary Joe Fernandez and Mary Carillo.
Serena has lost matches playing her best, and whether she admits it or not nobody but her and her delusional cheerleading base (such as the two Mary bimbos) even cares. Here are some matches I can think of she played her best and still lost:
2002 Berlin final to Henin- one of her best clay court matches ever and still lost to a pre-prime Henin.
2003 Charleston final to Henin- read above. Again one of Serena's best clay court matches, but Henin is too good for her on that surface if both play to their potential.
2005 Miami quarters to Venus- Serena actually played a great match. She did nothing wrong, but Venus was too good this day. Venus was hitting clean winners off 110+ mph first serves of Serena in the 1st set.
2008 Wimbledon final to Venus- Serena played an incredible match and was still outplayed by Venus that day. This was one of the best matches the sisters have ever played vs each other, and Venus took it.
2008 Olympic quarters to Dementieva
2008 Stuttgart round of 16 to Li Na
I am sure there are many others I cant think of off the top of my head now.
There are also many other matches Serena played pretty well and still lost. 2007 U.S Open quarters to Henin was a match Serena did not play poorly at all but was outplayed and overpowered by Henin that day. Serena knew it too, that is why rather than her usual song and dance about playing 1000 times below her level, she this time resorted to saying Henin hit "lucky shots", LOL! Wimbledon semis this year Serena played a great match and still was a point away from losing to Dementieva on grass, a slamless player on her worst surface.
This is not to diminish Serena in anyway. It is just to point out this myth that Serena can only lose matches when she plays horribly her and her delusional fan base have is simply dreaming.
Furthermore most great players, not even Serena-level great but those of 3 slam calibre or more (basically even Davenport or Djokovic levels of ability) rarely lose matches playing their best. This isnt unique to Serena. Henin, Venus, and even Davenport, heck maybe even Sharapova, hardly ever lose matches playing their best either. There are very few if any matches Serena has beaten those players truly at their best, in fact probably similiarly few to the # of matches they have beaten her at her best. Serena certainly isnt the most untouchable player of all time at her so called best. Navratilova from 82-85, other than when Hana Mandlikova was having an outrageously good day, basically was so far ahead of the other women that she in fact did almost have to play at 60% to lose, and be quite off her game to even go to a tiebreak or 3rd set (even when vs the great Evert). Basically she during that time was what Serena's ego wishes she was. Graf in 88-89 and 95-96 was far more unbeatable at her best than Serena ever was too. Connolly in the early 50s was clearly more untouchable at her best than Serena, she had to have a below average day for her greatest opponents to get maybe 8 or 9 games. Evert from 74-78 was unbeatable on days she playing her best unless it was King or Goolagong on grass (and only grass).
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)
You dont seem to understand the point of the Davenport comparision. The comparision isnt that Davenport outranks Serena in greatness. The point is that only two years as year end #1 is extremely low for an 11 slam winner and it undercuts Serena's greatness, along with her lack of tournament titles, her big 3 or 4 year slump in the middle of winning all those slams, and multiple other factors. A players career is not solely judged by slam titles (and for the record she is likely never to come close to how many the very best in history have of those either). That she trails a women with only 3 slams such as Davenport in categories such as year end #1s, weeks at #1 I believe, tour titles, are definite drawbacks in evaluating her overall career and overall level of greatness. While it would be unreasonable still to argue a 3 slam winner like Davenport as being superior to an 11 slam winner like Serena of course, they are things people that try to argue a 7 slam winner like Henin (especialy given that she could well have the same # of slams as Serena as we speak without her 2 year break) could use as valid advantages relative to Serena that compensates for having a few fewer slams. Even moreso in the future if she were to win a Wimbledon and close that gap in slam titles between them.
Davenport was actually killing Serena for a set and a half before running out of gas completely after 3 set quarterfinals and semifinals, plus a long 3 set womens doubles finals. If anything Serena lucked out to win that match at all as before hitting her physical wall it looked like Davenport was going to run over Serena that day. Anyone who saw the match would atleast atest to the fact the final set bagel had everything to do with Davenport completely running out of energy, and certainly wasnt at all based on some overpowering 2002 vintage Serena performance.
Yes she was humble and hard working, but her movement was a major liability as was her mentality.
Serena's unforced errors and off and on commitment to fitness are major liabilities too. She is not the defacto perfect player herself.
)
