Tennis Week - Player Of The Decade: Serena Williams

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
http://www.tennisweek.com/features/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6643122

Love the choices or hate them, but here are the 10 best players of the decade with Serena at #1...

Player Of The Decade: Serena Williams

By Dennis Fitzgerald
Friday, November 20, 2009

The first decade of the new millennium is nearly over. The opportunity once again presents itself to reflect upon the progression of the game over the past 10 years, and assess who were the outstanding performers during the, well, just what are we calling this decade anyway?

The last millennium was easy. We had the fabulous ‘50s, the simmering Open era birth in the ‘60s, the sexy and sizzling ‘70s, the exuberant and exploding tennis circuitry of the ‘80s, followed by the nutty ‘90s.

Is this the "Oh" decade, not for Oprah, but for the "0" before each year? The ‘oughts are what some are calling it. Zero is the preceding digit for each year, and in tennis, 0 is also known as love. So was this the decade of love for tennis? Then again another term for 0 is nought, so will we remember this as the "noughty decade"? Perhaps, with some of the end of the decade meltdowns and revelations by some of the top stars, naughtiness is in for tennis. Let’s hope not.

In assessing the top stars in the women’s game the last 10 years, a quick recap of the leading ladies of the last 40 years.

Margaret Smith Court of Australia ruled the women’s game in the 1960s, and in fact won more majors (16) during that decade than any player in history. Her closest rivals were Maria Bueno and Billie Jean King, but their records paled in comparison. Chris Evert was indeed Chris America when tennis moved to the forefront of the American consciousness in the 1970s. She burst onto the scene in a small event in 1970, and remained the game’s brightest star for the next 10 years, as well as the top player for more than half that time. The 1980s ushered in a new era, with new racquets and athleticism dictating play, so it’s no surprise Martina Navratilova was the top ranked player from 1980-1989. Steffi Graf achieved notice at the end of the ‘80s, and continued her winning ways until the end of the 1990s, claiming her 22nd and last major in 1999.

The player who ended the 1990s by claiming her first major title survived a topsy turvy career to join the legends of the game as the premiere player of the millenium’s new decade.

Serena Williams definitively deserves the mythical title of "Player of the Decade" in women’s tennis.

The battle for this crown was the closest for any decennial. Three women had legitimate claims to the decade’s top billing as early as 2008. The race to finish the decade as No. 1 was very much like a long distance race.

First Venus Williams raced out to an early lead with back-to-back Wimbledon and US Open titles, plus an Olympic gold medal in the first two years of the decade, only to see her sister turn her back, and one-up her with the Serena Slam of 2002-2003. Just when Serena settled into the lead, injuries and the emergence of Belgium’s Justine Henin created an exciting power struggle at the top of the women’s game. But all three would experience highs and lows, physical as well as emotional battles, over the remainder of the decade.

Henin’s brilliant 2007 season signaled she had the lead heading into the final stretch of the decade long race. Then, inexplicably she quit the game in spring of 2008.


Venus Williams' fifth Wimbledon title put her back in contention for the Lady of the Decade. But once again it was little sister Serena who would have the last word. Winning the Australian and Wimbledon titles in 2009, to increase her total to 10 major victories for the decade, and 11th overall, Serena celebrated her status as the top woman of the decennial by winning the season — and decade-ending — Sony Ericsson WTA Tour Championships.

A review of the decade’s top stars:

1. Serena Williams won 10 majors, including wins at all 4 major venues. She won 30 titles from 2000-2009, and earned the highest winning percentage of any player at 83.5%. However, she played fewer matches than any other top player of previous decades, and her 370 match wins rank only seventh best among all women for the decade. But she still won when it counted most.

2. Justine Henin edged out Venus Williams for No. 2. Although Henin retired in spring of 2008, a review of her record in the last 10 years reveals a tremendously productive tenure. She led all players with 40 tournament titles, was second in number of wins at 428, tied for second for majors won at seven, and was third overall in winning percentage. Her versatility in winning three of the four majors, and reaching every major final at least twice, and three seasons as the official World No. 1 were enough to counter an early retirement, and a late decade renaissance by Venus Williams.

3. Venus Williams was a force to be reckoned with for the entire decade. Although injuries and indifference caused her ranking to dip at times, she could never be counted out when the majors rolled around. Venus racked up five Wimbledon titles, which was more than any woman won at any of the majors. She earned 32 Tour titles, won nearly 400 matches, and 81.8% of all her matches.

4. Maria Sharapova declared her presence with a stunning Wimbledon triumph in 2004. Although she is three times a lady Grand Slam champ, with additional major victories in New York in 2006 and Melbourne in 2008, she wasn’t able to remain in contention for the decade’s top player, due to a slew of injuries. Twenty titles and an 80.4% winning average is still impressive for a player just 23 years old.

5. Kim Clijsters is symbolic of the decade’s new generation, quickly emerging from teen prodigy to tour workhorse, to Grand Slam winner, to former tour player, to comeback Queen and new mom champion at the US Open. She missed the better part of two years to enjoy motherhood, but her stunning return to the winner’s circle this past year further enhanced her placement in the decade’s top 10.

6. Amelie Mauresmo’s heart and tenacity, and athletic and persistent game have enabled the veteran to end the decade still as a force in the game, as well as recognition as one of the most accomplished players of the decade. Amelie won 24 titles, including 2 majors, ranked No. 1, and won more matches (426) than all but two other players for the last 10 years.

7. Lindsay Davenport is the game’s other comebacking mama of the decade. Lindsay began the decade by taking over the No. 1 ranking and winning the first major (2000 Australian Open). Surprisingly it would be her last major triumph. But three seasons as No. 1, plus appearances in four major finals, and an amazingly consistent winning record — she was the only woman who won 60 or more matches in a season four times — confirmed her place among the elite of the oughties.

8. Svetlana Kuznetsova was part of the Russian Revolution in women’s tennis. Sveta seemed content at times to play second fiddle to some of her compatriots, her prodigious talent not always keeping pace with her results. But she garnered two majors (2004 US Open and 2009 French Open) in a decade where many payers failed to win any. Plus she found herself in two other major finals during this time, so she knows better than most what it takes to succeed at a high level.

9. Jennifer Capriati seems to have been away from the game for too long to even be considered for this list. However, three major wins in two short years was enough to earn a top 10 of the decade spot. Capriati started her second decade on tour very well, reaching the 2000 Australian Open semis. She went on to win the title Down Under for 2 years running, and also added the 2001 French title to her resume. Unfortunately, injuries ended her career just half way through the decade.

10. Elena Dementieva was the winningest woman of the decade, believe it or not. Although she won no majors, she did win more matches (444) than any other player. She began the decade reaching the 2000 US Open semis in a breakout performance. Even though she didn’t win a tour title until 2003, she continued to improve, and eventually won a total of 14 titles, the biggest of which was the 2008 Olympic gold medal.

..and there you have it.
 
Well she has more majors than anyone else so yeah it could be said she deserves player of the decade. I personally prefer henin.
 
When I read the title, I thought it was both men and women, with Serena no. 1. Now that would have been going on a limb. This is just plain obvious. I like Henin better, but Serena achieved more.

Question: is something like this coming out for men's tennis as well?
 
When I read the title, I thought it was both men and women, with Serena no. 1. Now that would have been going on a limb. This is just plain obvious. I like Henin better, but Serena achieved more.

Yeah, I think the list was fair, though Sharapova and Mauresmo's positions are debatable

Question: is something like this coming out for men's tennis as well?

I'm not sure. Perhaps a search of the Tennis Week site will give an answer, or if not, maybe a men's list is on the horizon...though it will be no secret who will occupy the top two slots.
 
While the list itself doesn't surprise me as thats pretty much how I would have listed them, what does surprise me is than Elena Dementieva has the most match wins this decade. Then again seeing as many of the other on the list spent a lot of time away with injuries or didn't play all the years of the decade I guess it shouldn't be to surprising.
 
I disagree with Maria being ranked over Kim. Yes she has 1 more major but Kim's other achievements are enough to trump that. Maria has been injured, but Kim has been injured and retired a few years too.

I am not sure about Mauresmo vs Davenport. I know Mauresmo won 1 more major this decade, but Davenport had so much bad luck, and unlike Mauresmo peaked at the same time as the Williams.

As much as I dislike Capriati I am not sure about Kuznetsova over her. Capriati is a super lucky overachieving 3 slam winner, but Kuznetsova was a lucky 2 slam winner given how it played out. Capriati did briefly reach #1 even if she never seemed like the best.

Dementieva at #10? I guess that is ok.

I agree with the top 3.
 
I disagree with Maria being ranked over Kim. Yes she has 1 more major but Kim's other achievements are enough to trump that. Maria has been injured, but Kim has been injured and retired a few years too.

I am not sure about Mauresmo vs Davenport. I know Mauresmo won 1 more major this decade, but Davenport had so much bad luck, and unlike Mauresmo peaked at the same time as the Williams.

As much as I dislike Capriati I am not sure about Kuznetsova over her. Capriati is a super lucky overachieving 3 slam winner, but Kuznetsova was a lucky 2 slam winner given how it played out. Capriati did briefly reach #1 even if she never seemed like the best.

Dementieva at #10? I guess that is ok.

I agree with the top 3.

If you think of the decade, Maria was pretty much always there, Kim wasn't imo. Also, I think Maria was no. 1 longer? and has a Slam more.
 
If you think of the decade, Maria was pretty much always there, Kim wasn't imo. Also, I think Maria was no. 1 longer? and has a Slam more.

Yes Maria has 1 more slam. I dont believe either were ranked #1 a long time, I have no idea which was longer. Many considered Clijsters the true #1 of 2005 though, there is no year Maria was considered this. Kim was named as player of the year by both the WTA and ITF in 2005, although Maria I think was by the WTA in 2004.

I have to totally disagree with you on Maria always being there this decade while Kim was not though. Maria wasnt even on the radar screen until 2004. Kim was a major contender from 2001 until her first retirement in early 2007. Maria has not been a factor at all since early 2008 either. So Maria was a force from 2004 to early 2008. Kim was from the start of 2001 to early 2007, and again in late 2009. Kim has been more often a factor this decade than Maria.
 
I would choose Henin for No.1, she only played 6 years (2002-2007) compared to the 10 Serena played (2000-2009)... and she still won more tournaments (40) than Serena (30). Henin also left when she was No.1 in the world... so you could argue she would have been favored in the 8 Grand Slams she did not play.

Based on the body of work over the time spent playing I would choose Henin, the only thing Serena has over Henin is 3 more majors... which Serena won after Henin left the game.
 
Last edited:
http://www.tennisweek.com/features/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6643122

Love the choices or hate them, but here are the 10 best players of the decade with Serena at #1...



..and there you have it.

I dont understand Henin being so much higher than Capriati, 2nd best of the decade vs 9th best. Capriati at her best destroyed Henin, and she clearly had the better career. Look at their U.S Open match when Capriati was playing so well she made Henin have cramps, LOL!
 
I would choose Henin for No.1, she only played 6 years (2002-2007) compared to the 10 Serena played (2000-2009)... and she still won more tournaments (40) than Serena (30). Henin also left when she was No.1 in the world... so you could argue she would have been favored in the 8 Grand Slams she did not play.

Based on the body of work over the time spent playing I would choose Henin, the only thing Serena has over Henin is 3 more majors... which Serena won after Henin left the game.

Henin did play in 2000, did I miss something? :confused:

It's best player of the decade, and Serena has the longevity at the top and more accomplishments than Henin. The fact that Henin quit should be held against her, not used as an excuse to boost her up. Serena won more slams and won all 4 slams...The choice is Serena for player of this decade.
 
I dont understand Henin being so much higher than Capriati, 2nd best of the decade vs 9th best. Capriati at her best destroyed Henin, and she clearly had the better career. Look at their U.S Open match when Capriati was playing so well she made Henin have cramps, LOL!



Henin of 2007 would cream Capriati.
 
It's a good thing they got that published before any announcement of Serena's penalties for her behavior at the USO. It would have been so incongruous. It's bad enough now, thinking of accollades and appalling embarrassment at the same time where she is concerned. It's just too bad that slams trump all other statistics, not to mention respect.
 
I disagree with Maria being ranked over Kim. Yes she has 1 more major but Kim's other achievements are enough to trump that. Maria has been injured, but Kim has been injured and retired a few years too.

I am not sure about Mauresmo vs Davenport. I know Mauresmo won 1 more major this decade, but Davenport had so much bad luck, and unlike Mauresmo peaked at the same time as the Williams.

As much as I dislike Capriati I am not sure about Kuznetsova over her. Capriati is a super lucky overachieving 3 slam winner, but Kuznetsova was a lucky 2 slam winner given how it played out. Capriati did briefly reach #1 even if she never seemed like the best.

Dementieva at #10? I guess that is ok.

I agree with the top 3.

You raise some good questions. Davenport vs Mauresmo was the one switch I would seriously consider making in these rankings. Davenport had a ton of bad luck in 2004 & 2005 not to win a major when she clearly deserved one based on her play those years, then the injury ridden 2006, which one could probably argue helped out Mauresmo, who happened to peak that year in terms of achievement. Mauresmo in 2006 was strong, but even then she was never lights out, not even in her two slams, so it begs the question. You could also argue Mauresmo missed chances in 2004 as well, so maybe it balances out. I would probably put Lindsay over Amelie. Amelie did have more talent then she seemed to show at times, her mental gags will still be a hallmark of her career despite all the positives to her name.

Kuznetsova vs Capriati....hard to say. Both had luck at the slams they won, but I would probably put Kuzzy higher because at least she has been somewhat consistent in making big finals, Capriati in her best year couldn't even do that.

Maria over Kim...I can understand, 3 slams overall (3 different ones to boot), vs 2 US Opens. Its a tough call, even comparing the draws of the slams its a close call. I would probably now, reluctantly, put Maria higher. Kim was on fire in 2003 and Maria never had a year where she looked that good, even though Kim didn't win a major. But Maria's 3 different slams, and her demolition in 2008 at the Australian including destroying Henin in every possible way, puts her higher. Kim in 2005....its debatable whether she was the true number 1, I really don't think so though, 2 slam losses to Lindsay, one at the french after leading which to me is just embarassing. Lindsay was number 1 then, but on clay Kim>>>>>>>>Lindsay, especially on red clay. She never found her rhythm till the summer hardcourt season...and I really don't think that is enough to counterbalance the rest of year, but thats just my opinion.
 
It's a good thing they got that published before any announcement of Serena's penalties for her behavior at the USO. It would have been so incongruous. It's bad enough now, thinking of accollades and appalling embarrassment at the same time where she is concerned. It's just too bad that slams trump all other statistics, not to mention respect.

The ITF chief already said there's likely to be no penalty.

Why don't you get back to trying to get the WS banned from doubles, you're much more apt at that then any serious discussion about tennis.
 
Henin did play in 2000, did I miss something? :confused:

It's best player of the decade, and Serena has the longevity at the top and more accomplishments than Henin. The fact that Henin quit should be held against her, not used as an excuse to boost her up. Serena won more slams and won all 4 slams...The choice is Serena for player of this decade.

Though the list is--for the most part---fair, yes, Henin's status as she reitred is irrelevant, as it is not a career statement--only an incidental detail.
 
For once I would have to agree with jamesblakefan. Those who use the fact Henin retired to further trump her are being ridiculous. Retiring at your peak and missing out on more potential wins is a sign of weakness in character and mental strength, and if anything is a blotch against your career, not an advocate for increased greatness. I havent heard anyone say Borg is even greater since he retired so early. Of course in his game he achieved enough to clearly be one of the top 3 players of the Open Era inspite of it, but in no way is his career boosted in peoples minds by his early retirement. Why some think Henin's somehow is, is hard to digest.

As it was that they gave Henin the nod over Venus for 2nd was already kind enough, as even that could have gone either way. I am sure Henin herself would be happy to be ranked as high as 2nd, even she knows Serena has trumped her career and anyone else of her generation this decade.
 
Poisoning the well again. You just make the rounds, peeing on everyone's campfire.

Whatever, just keep dreaming up Serena's imminent punishment, as it appears nothing more than a fine will be coming. You're the one poisoning the well, bringing up the USO incident in a thread that has zero to do with it.

Now like I said, get back to starting clueless threads about how the WS playing doubles is unfair, even though they got beaten by these girls at the YEC and pretty much made your point null and void...
Sony+Ericsson+Championships+Doha+2009+Day+FlSlL81OhdFl.jpg
 
Wow!!!what an interesting article,I saved the page for future reference...
But,unfortunately it all deals with the most unsympathetic player in the history of the sport...with the worst behavior...and far from humble...
Really I dont know why the WTA doesnt take any action against her...
She is also far of being a good ambassador from tennis so I would forbid her to take part in any future olympic games...
She is really a shame...
 
I think Henin vs Venus for 2nd greatest of the decade is an interesting debate. One distinctive difference between them is Venus suffered alot more from Serena than did Henin. Serena cost Venus 5 or more slams easily, and cost Henin only 1 at most probably. Now I am not sure whether that is something in Henin's favor or Venus's. In Henin's favor it shows she dealt with Serena more often than did Venus when their pathes did meet in slams. However on the flip side Venus ran into Serena at or near her best most often. Henin began to come into her prime soon before Serena got injured and she retired as Serena's revival was picking up steam.

On the other side Henin lost to Venus 3 times in slams, although arguably none in her prime and when Venus was at her best. I cant say Venus really denied Henin those slams as in each case I think there was atleast one other person who would have beaten her also. Venus only lost to Henin once in a slam when Henin was at her peak, and probably denied Venus that particular slam.
 
I think Henin vs Venus for 2nd greatest of the decade is an interesting debate. One distinctive difference between them is Venus suffered alot more from Serena than did Henin. Serena cost Venus 5 or more slams easily, and cost Henin only 1 at most probably. Now I am not sure whether that is something in Henin's favor or Venus's. In Henin's favor it shows she dealt with Serena more often than did Venus when their pathes did meet in slams. However on the flip side Venus ran into Serena at or near her best most often. Henin began to come into her prime soon before Serena got injured and she retired as Serena's revival was picking up steam.

On the other side Henin lost to Venus 3 times in slams, although arguably none in her prime and when Venus was at her best. I cant say Venus really denied Henin those slams as in each case I think there was atleast one other person who would have beaten her also. Venus only lost to Henin once in a slam when Henin was at her peak, and probably denied Venus that particular slam.

What are you talking about????
No it's not that interesting of a debate. Justine > Venus

Forget about who beat who, let's just stick to the numbers they have achieved.....

Venus is 29, played a full 10 years in this decade(15 years overall). Yet, she never end the year #1 in her entire career.
Meanwhile, Henin had much shorter career(9 yrs), but she was 3 times year end #1, 2 times Tour Championship(Venus only 1), and matching Venus with 7 GS and 41 single titles. Henin also had a better winning percentage. Like Serena, Venus was an oppotunist but wasn't good enough to dominate the field like Henin did.

In her 9 years of playing, Henin outclassed Venus's 15 years.
Henin definitely more impressive than Venus. End of story.
 
I don't like Serena at all, but she was clearly the best player of the decade.
Henin deserves 2nd place, and her singles achievements have clearly been more impressive than Venus's. Their h2h is a pretty meaningless stat, given that 8 out of their 9 matches took place before Henin had won her first grand slam title. The 3-1 grand slam h2h in Venus's favour is also irrelevant. They split their 2 matches at the hard court slams, and the 2 other matches took place at Wimbledon on Venus's best surface and Henin's worst. Had they played each other twice at the French Open, and never met at Wimbledon, then the slam h2h would be 3-1 in Henin's favour. Henin can't be penalised for being much better on her worst surface than Venus was on hers.
That brings me on to the main reason why Henin was better than Venus, she was more versatile. She won 3/4 slams while Venus won 2/4. Also it's worth pointing out that Henin's record at Wimbledon is better than Venus's at either the Australian or French Opens. She reached 5 semi-finals at Wimbledon, while Venus only reached 3 semi-finals in Melbourne and Paris combined. Venus is probably the only great female player who has failed to win 2 out of the 4 slams, and that hurts her in comparisons like this with other greats. Henin has generally been more of factor outside clay during her career than Venus has been outside grass.
Henin was also much more consistent, and she spent over 10 times the length of time at world no. 1 than Venus did, 117 weeks compared to Venus's 11. She had a sequence I think between 2006-2008 where she reached the last 4 or better at 23 consecutive events that she entered, which Venus never came close to matching.
Venus never won more than 7 titles in a season, while Henin won 10 in 2007 and 8 in 2003.

Game, set and match to Henin there.
 
Last edited:
I don't like Serena at all, but she was clearly the best player of the decade.
Henin deserves 2nd place, and her singles achievements have clearly been more impressive than Venus's. Their h2h is a pretty meaningless stat, given that 8 out of their 9 matches took place before Henin had won her first grand slam title. The 3-1 grand slam h2h in Venus's favour is also irrelevant. They split their 2 matches at the hard court slams, and the 2 other matches took place at Wimbledon on Venus's best surface and Henin's worst. Had they played each other twice at the French Open, and never met at Wimbledon, then the slam h2h would be 3-1 in Henin's favour. Henin can't be penalised for being much better on her worst surface than Venus was on hers.
That brings me on to the main reason why Henin was better than Venus, she was more versatile. She won 3/4 slams while Venus won 2/4. Also it's worth pointing out that Henin's record at Wimbledon is better than Venus's at either the Australian or French Opens. She reached 5 semi-finals at Wimbledon, while Venus only reached 3 semi-finals in Melbourne and Paris combined. Venus is probably the only great female player who has failed to win 2 out of the 4 slams, and that hurts her in comparisons like this with other greats. Henin has generally been more of factor outside clay during her career than Venus has been outside grass.
Henin was also much more consistent, and she spent over 10 times the length of time at world no. 1 than Venus did, 117 weeks compared to Venus's 11. She had a sequence I think between 2006-2008 where she reached the last 4 or better at 23 consecutive events that she entered, which Venus never came close to matching.
Venus never won more than 7 titles in a season, while Henin won 10 in 2007 and 8 in 2003.

Game, set and match to Henin there.

Good point, I forgot to include that in my previous post. Watch grafselesfan will try to ignore everything you said.

Also, Henin had a better career winning percentage at the GS.
 
I think Henin vs Venus for 2nd greatest of the decade is an interesting debate. One distinctive difference between them is Venus suffered alot more from Serena than did Henin. Serena cost Venus 5 or more slams easily, and cost Henin only 1 at most probably. Now I am not sure whether that is something in Henin's favor or Venus's. In Henin's favor it shows she dealt with Serena more often than did Venus when their pathes did meet in slams. However on the flip side Venus ran into Serena at or near her best most often. Henin began to come into her prime soon before Serena got injured and she retired as Serena's revival was picking up steam.

On the other side Henin lost to Venus 3 times in slams, although arguably none in her prime and when Venus was at her best. I cant say Venus really denied Henin those slams as in each case I think there was atleast one other person who would have beaten her also. Venus only lost to Henin once in a slam when Henin was at her peak, and probably denied Venus that particular slam.

Serena cost Venus 5 or more slams easily?? What slams would those be exactly? I can only think of 4 that Venus may have won without Serena there: 2002 Wimbledon, 2002 US Open, 2003 Australian and 2008 US Open. If your including the 2002 French in your estimation sorry but no, Venus was incredibly lucky to even get to the final with the joke draw she had before her, and without Serena Capriati would have been the favorite to beat Venus in the final as the real final that year was Serena/Capriati. And even of the 4 I listed, none of those would have been pure locks for Venus, Clijsters could have given Venus trouble in the 2003 Aussie Final, Jankovic is a much worse matchup for Venus that Serena and would have given her plenty to handle at the 2008 US Open, only the 2002 Wimby and US Open's would have odds on fallen to Venus, and at the 2002 US Open Venus wasn't even playing that well to begin with, so without Serena and a changed draw, things could have gone down different for Venus anyway. Wimbledon of 2002 probably would have been hers that year without Serena though. 2003 Wimbledon, hopefully, isn't on your list, Venus was injured in the final and Serena for a bit seemed like she was taking it easy on her sister before the 3rd set where she finally decided to put Venus out of her misery.

As for Venus vs Henin, winner is Henin this decade. Venus after 2001 was incapable of winning a non wimbledon slam and after 2003 failed to make a non Wimbledon slam final. For the talent she has Venus's record is completely Wimbledon centric. She failed to end a year at number 1 as well. Henin won 3 of the 4 slams and made the final of the other slam twice, and took sets off players who both are arguably better on grass than her in those finals.
 
Serena cost Venus 5 or more slams easily?? What slams would those be exactly? I can only think of 4 that Venus may have won without Serena there: 2002 Wimbledon, 2002 US Open, 2003 Australian and 2008 US Open. If your including the 2002 French in your estimation sorry but no, Venus was incredibly lucky to even get to the final with the joke draw she had before her, and without Serena Capriati would have been the favorite to beat Venus in the final as the real final that year was Serena/Capriati. And even of the 4 I listed, none of those would have been pure locks for Venus, Clijsters could have given Venus trouble in the 2003 Aussie Final, Jankovic is a much worse matchup for Venus that Serena and would have given her plenty to handle at the 2008 US Open, only the 2002 Wimby and US Open's would have odds on fallen to Venus, and at the 2002 US Open Venus wasn't even playing that well to begin with, so without Serena and a changed draw, things could have gone down different for Venus anyway. Wimbledon of 2002 probably would have been hers that year without Serena though. 2003 Wimbledon, hopefully, isn't on your list, Venus was injured in the final and Serena for a bit seemed like she was taking it easy on her sister before the 3rd set where she finally decided to put Venus out of her misery.

These are the slams I think Venus would have won without Serena:

2002 Wimbledon
2002 U.S Open
2003 Australian Open
2008 U.S Open
2009 Wimbledon

With a chance for Wimbledon 2003, and an outside chance for the French 2002 which is why I said atleast 5.

I cant believe you excluded Wimbledon 2009. Venus owns Dementieva, and Dementieva is one of the biggest big match chokers out there. There is no way she was going to beat Venus in the Wimbledon final had she converted her match point vs Serena in the semis. Venus wouldnt have played that badly if it were Dementieva in the final, and Elena would have choked if she even had a chance to win, and Venus is a worse matchup for her than Serena anyway. Regarding the 2003 Australian Open, Clijsters chokes in all her slam semis or finals vs Henin, Venus, and Serena that year so I doubt the AO final would have been any different, plus Venus was actually playing really well there, and Venus crushed Kim on a similar surface a few weeks later. Regarding the 2008 U.S Open final, yes Jankovic has decent showings vs Venus but she still isnt going to beat her in a slam final on a fast surface. As for the 2002 U.S Open I agree she wasnt in great form but I dont see who would have beaten her. Mauresmo couldnt even do it in the semis so wouldnt have in a final, and Davenport wouldnt score a win over Venus again until 2004 and was coming back from an injury. I agree Venus would have likely lost to Capriati at the 2002 French, but she is 4-0 lifetime vs Capriati so even though it is clay who knows for sure.

Wimbledon 2003 I think is a toss up. Yes I realize Venus was injured but she still beat Clijsters and Davenport. I think it would have been between Henin and Venus, and Henin was destroyed by Serena in the semis, had a wrist injury, and has a history of struggling at Wimbledon of course.
 
Last edited:
I think if Justine hadn't retired for a year she would have been number one. Surprised that Amelie M is ranked higher than Sveta K....
 
I think if Justine hadn't retired for a year she would have been number one. Surprised that Amelie M is ranked higher than Sveta K....

and if Borg hadnt retired early he would probably be the greatest ever today, he already is one of the greatest ever and an outside greatest ever candidate, but he would probably be the consensus pick today. He would have won atleast the next 2 or 3 French Opens probably, maybe won another Wimbledon or 2, maybe won a U.S Open, won an Australian or 2 if he even bothered to play. Who knows with McEnroe's ups and downs and early burnout, and his personal ownage of the further aging Connors and Lendl (which probably continues until Lendl really improves and Borg ages in 85) he might yet won the elusive Calender Slam. In the end it doesnt matter since he chose to retire, you never hear serious talk about him as the GOAT that would have been, and for good reason. The same is true of Justine.
 
These are the slams I think Venus would have won without Serena:

2002 Wimbledon
2002 U.S Open
2003 Australian Open
2008 U.S Open
2009 Wimbledon

With a chance for Wimbledon 2003, and an outside chance for the French 2002 which is why I said atleast 5.

I cant believe you excluded Wimbledon 2009. Venus owns Dementieva, and Dementieva is one of the biggest big match chokers out there. There is no way she was going to beat Venus in the Wimbledon final had she converted her match point vs Serena in the semis. Venus wouldnt have played that badly if it were Dementieva in the final, and Elena would have choked if she even had a chance to win, and Venus is a worse matchup for her than Serena anyway. Regarding the 2003 Australian Open, Clijsters chokes in all her slam semis or finals vs Henin, Venus, and Serena that year so I doubt the AO final would have been any different, plus Venus was actually playing really well there, and Venus crushed Kim on a similar surface a few weeks later. Regarding the 2008 U.S Open final, yes Jankovic has decent showings vs Venus but she still isnt going to beat her in a slam final on a fast surface. As for the 2002 U.S Open I agree she wasnt in great form but I dont see who would have beaten her. Mauresmo couldnt even do it in the semis so wouldnt have in a final, and Davenport wouldnt score a win over Venus again until 2004 and was coming back from an injury. I agree Venus would have likely lost to Capriati at the 2002 French, but she is 4-0 lifetime vs Capriati so even though it is clay who knows for sure.

Wimbledon 2003 I think is a toss up. Yes I realize Venus was injured but she still beat Clijsters and Davenport. I think it would have been between Henin and Venus, and Henin was destroyed by Serena in the semis, had a wrist injury, and has a history of struggling at Wimbledon of course.

I can't believe I forgot Wimbledon 2009, so that does expand it to 5, but I still rule out any chance of the French in 2002 and would only give her slight odds at the 2003 Wimbledon crown due to the injury she had.

the 2003 Aussie I'm not sure either way, if Kim had held on to beat Serena, even with a slighty smaller mini choke, it would have been a huge boost in confidence for her going against Venus. Kim and Venus would have been the favorites there that year without Serena, but with no Serena there would have been very different draws, so who knows what really would have happened. I am personally not sure, I think Kim could have surprised and pulled it out but given her history who knows, but with a different Draw Venus herself might not even make it far enough depending on the opponent as she has suffered really bad beats there as it is now, so it would really be a toss.

2002 US Open, hard to say again. Serena was overall a step above the rest there in terms of form, so take her out and it becomes very deep. Venus wasn't playing her best there compared to her previous 2 years, and Lindsay, Mauresmo and probably a few others would have moved up the food chain with no Serena there. Venus would have been the heavy favorite being 2 time defending champion, but there would not have been a lock given the way she played that year.

2002 Wimbledon, I give that to Venus without Serena, Venus played well up until the final and than she checked out in the 2nd set and Serena thrashed her in the last few games and it just was bad. With no Serena Venus probably makes 3 straight at Wimbledon.

2003 though....tough. I mean with the stomach injury Venus had, and the pain she was in as the final went on...I really don't know. It would depend on who the opponent ended up being I guess. If it was Clijsters Venus would win as even injured I would favor Venus on grass..Mauresmo or Henin though would be tougher, but Mauresmo failed miserably in the semi's so yes in the final probably at least more of the same or it would have been even worse. Henin could have done it as she finally hit her stride in 2003...but who knows. Venus could tough it out...but I really am not sure.

2008 US Open...I still think the QF between the sisters was just to weird, Venus would have been a top favorite, Jankovic would have been a test though as she is just a bad matchup for Venus. Jankovic didn't play awful in the final until the last few games of the second set when she had set points and gagged, but Serena is a better matchup for her, so against Venus it could change...dunno. Again no serena the draw is different so whose to say its them in the final.

the 2002 French though, no way, Venus's draw was sort of like Conchita's 1994 Wimbledon, once in a lifetime luck on her worst surface. Take Serena out, the draw becomes different and even Venus at or near her peak in 2002 probably has a hell of a time getting to the final with a draw even marginally tougher, so thats the reason I say no. She had a good H2H with Jenn, but change the draw and its a whole new ball game. If we remove serena and left the draw the same....60/40 in favor of Jenn factoring in the H2H.

I would give Venus the 2002 Wimbledon, 2009 Wimbledon (I don't even need to talk about it, I don't know why I even left that out...poor mental processing on my part). The others she is still a favorite at them but even without her sister its still murky ground for Venus.
 
I agree with grafselesfan that it's ridiculous to use the 'what if Henin hadn't retired' argument to try and beef up/overstate her career achievements. Had she been forced out of the sport against her own will like Connolly or Seles, then I could understand the 'what if' arguments. However she voluntarily left the tour, and nobody was holding a gun to her head. We can only give her credit for what she actually achieved, and not what she might have achieved.
That said, I really don't think it's that close between her and Venus at all. TMF and I both detailed that aside from the grand slam count, singles-wise Henin leads Venus in most other significant stats or departments.

I would probably switch Kuznetsova's and JCap's positions around. JCap reached world no. 1 for a handful of weeks in 2001 and 2002 when women's tennis was enjoying a strong and high quality era. Kuznetsova has never reached world no. 1 at all, despite the WTA tour being a complete and utter mess during the past 18 months.

Surprised that Amelie M is ranked higher than Sveta K....

Why? Mauresmo won twice as many WTA titles as Kuznetsova over the past decade, was world no. 1 for 39 weeks, won the YEC (while Kuznetsova's YEC record is absolutely terrible) and won far more Tier I and Tier II titles.
 
I would probably switch Kuznetsova's and JCap's positions around. JCap reached world no. 1 for a handful of weeks in 2001 and 2002 when women's tennis was enjoying a strong and high quality era. Kuznetsova has never reached world no. 1 at all, despite the WTA tour being a complete and utter mess during the past 18 months.

Now that you mention positions, would you switch Davenport and Mauresmo's ranking on the list, considering...

But three seasons as No. 1, plus appearances in four major finals, and an amazingly consistent winning record — she was the only woman who won 60 or more matches in a season four times..

...which appears more impressive (not even mentioning her edge in slam victories) than Mauresmo..?
 
When I read the title, I thought it was both men and women, with Serena no. 1. Now that would have been going on a limb. This is just plain obvious. I like Henin better, but Serena achieved more.

Question: is something like this coming out for men's tennis as well?

It would have. Alas, the Tennis Week site is no more.

As the author of the women's list, I'll post my men's top 10 of the decade soon.
 
Back
Top