While achievement wise Serena not greatest ever tennis wise maybe she is?
- Thread starter grafselesfan
- Start date
I actually see it the opposite to the OP. I believe that achievement-wise she has done pretty good considering her awkward style. I used to drive players and coaches in Montreal and had once driven some coaches. They said that both Williams sisters had just awful technique and were moving around from coach to coach trying to fix each stroke. Their dad may have been the official coach, but they were smart enough to get real professional help. This helped them a lot, but at the heart of it, they are not naturals. They did pretty well playing the power game but, if you don't have any finesse, you can never be labeled a natural tennis player, no matter how many trophies you win.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
2001 was not weak at all in women's tennis.
We had the big 5 in US women: the Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Seles. Hingis was still competitive, the Belgians were starting to come on strong. Women's tennis was exciting and had consistently higher ratings than men's tennis.
So get your facts straight!
Joe Pike
Banned
Venus Williams, summer 2001:
Wimbledon: Davenport (#3) 62 67 61, Henin (#9) 61 36 60
Stanford: loss to Shaughnessy (#15) 62 56 67
Nothing really "all-time-great" until now ...
San Diego: Davenport (#4) 62 75, Seles (#10) 62 63
New Haven: Henin (#6) 63 57 62, Capriati (#2) 64 76, Davenport (#3) 76 64
What do we have until now?
Three wins against Davenport, one of them a 3-setter, two setters but with a long set in each. Two 3-set wins against teenage Henin. Clear victory against extremely over-the-hill Seles. A close match against Capriati (player with about 10 career titles). A loss to journeywoman Shaughessy.
"All-time great"? LOL ...
And then USO: easy wins against above-mentioned Capriati and #10 Serena.
And that is supposed to be the best 3-months span "you ever watched" of any player???
Pity, that you don't watch tennis much ...
Last edited:
Bertie B
Hall of Fame
Windshield-Wiper forehand. Swinging Volley. Two-Handed Backhand. Roddick's abbrev. Racket takeback
Not arguing who invented what, just pointing out how some miss the forest for the trees.
Joe Pike
Banned
Davenport was big, yes.
Seles was a shadow of her 91/92 and 95/96 self.
Hingis was a mental basket-case.
Clijsters was 17 and Henin 18.
Capriati would have won no slams in any other era of women's tennis. Her winning three (!!) slams in 2001/02 says it all.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Venus Williams, summer 2001:
Wimbledon: Davenport (#3) 62 67 61, Henin (#9) 61 36 60
Stanford: loss to Shaughnessy (#15) 62 56 67
Nothing really "all-time-great" until now ...
San Diego: Davenport (#4) 62 75, Seles (#10) 62 63
New Haven: Henin (#6) 63 57 62, Capriati (#2) 64 76, Davenport (#3) 76 64
What do we have until now?
Three wins against Davenport, one of them a 3-setter, two setters but with a long set in each. Two 3-set wins against teenage Henin. Clear victory against extremely over-the-hill Seles. A close match against Capriati (player with about 10 career titles). A loss to journeywoman Shaughessy.
"All-time great"? LOL ...
And then USO: easy wins against above-mentioned Capriati and #10 Serena.
And that is supposed to be the best 3-months span "you ever watched" of any player???
Pity, that you don't watch tennis much ...
dont watch tennis much? I have nearly all of the above matches, you mentioned, recorded and have watched more than once...
Versus visiting some website to find just the arbitrary scores like you obviously have.
Not only are you being dismissive of Venus Williams, you are also short changing Capriati Seles and Davenport of that time frame!
I only wish womens tennis would be as exciting now as it was then!
The fore mentioned final of Venus against Seles in San Diego was a classic demonstration of Venus Williams' capability. BTW Seles was playing very well that tournament, defeating Hingis and Capriati; I suggest you watch it.
Same can be said for the Davenport match at San Diego.
Also the Venus > Capriati semi at the USO 2001 is another prime example. That Venus would defeat any womens player ever IMO!... including any Steffi Graf or Navortilova or Serena.
It also had the largest television audience of any tennis match that entire year! Again, I suggest you watch it.
Trust me I am very thankful I am not watching whatever "game" you happen to be watching which is so far from reality it isnt even funny. Just curious, have you had your eyes checked later, your glass prescriptions updated perhaps?
No boredone3456 have no connection or relation whatsoever other than they we both post on TW and we are both sane.
So what. Sabatini, Novotna, and Yannick Noah are in the hall of fame. The way things are going lately look for even Conchita Martinez to be inducted soon too. That you seem to have thought being inducted to the Hall of Fame makes you on the short list of all time greats just further shows your cluelessness to the game.
The fact you seem to think Seles was part of the "big 5" and not Hingis shows again you dont even really know what you are trying to talk about. Hingis, despite clearly being down from her 1997-1999 level and mentally out of it, was ranked #1 almost the whole year. Granted while ranked #1 few considered her the true top dog when she hadnt won a slam in awhile. However ever since Hingis had taken over the #1 ranking in early 1997 Hingis had ALWAYS been considered above an increasingly past her prime Seles, ever since late 1996 in fact. Hingis was obviously ranked much higher, was dominating Seles head to head, yes Seles did get a win over Hingis once in awhile but Hingis won the vast majority of their meetings, was winning more tournaments, going further in the slams. Yet somehow Seles was part of the "big 5" and not Hingis.
Presuming you have the faintest clue what was really going on in womens tennis back then (a generous assumption given your posts to date) you are obviously trying to make Seles out to be far less past her prime than she was really was, by somehow insinuating her place in the game then was higher than Hingis. The truth is BOTH Seles and Hingis were clearly past their primes by 2001. Hingis was never the same after 2000, and Seles was never the same after the stabbing period but by 2001 she was far more removed from her old self than even say 1996-1998. Seles was even more past her prime than Hingis, yet neither were their old selves. Davenport was injured atleast half of 2001-2003, and because of all these injuries along with a bit of the mental burnout factor was clearly not playing up to her 1998-2000 or 2004-2005 level. The pre pubescent Henin and Clijsters, and the late blooming Mauresmo, were all far from their prime levels at that point. So that leaves the overrated Capriati and a pre-prime and far less mentally tough Serena as Venus's only real competition in 2001. You could have atleast mentioned 2000 as a better example. After all Venus had atleast as good a year in 2000 as 2001 and in 2000 Davenport and Hinigis were actually still playing very well, much better than 2001, and Serena was about the same as 2001.
As it turned out once Serena matured and began to reach her prime in 2002 Venus stopped winning. Then when Henin became a big threat it got even worse for Venus. Now why is that if Venus's best is the best according to you? Why was her greatest little blip of semi-dominance (cant even say true dominance when it was limited to only grass and fast hard courts, and about 4 months in 2 different years) after Hingis, Davenport, and Seles were all on the way down, and before Serena, Henin, and Clijsters to come into their own. How do you explain Venus losing 5 slam finals in a row to Serena if her best is the best according to you. What are you going to say, she was past her prime? Is that why she reached the finals of 5 of the 7 slams she played and on all surfaces, a far better ratio of performance than ever her best years of 2000 and 2001 where she was crushed in all 3 of her slow court slams Sorry that doesnt fly. Venus in 2002 and 2003 was as good as ever, by the fact she was making nearly every slam final, which she couldnt even do in 2000 and 2001, proves. Serena once she reached her best was simply better than Venus, even at Venus's best.
Also how do you explain how during the Venus era (if you want to even call it that) where she won 4 of her slams, Capriati won 3 of the other 4 slams, and Pierce the other 1. If Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Henin, Clijsters, and Serena were all that strong during this interim time frame how do you explain how the likes of Capriati won almost all the other half of the slams during this time? The answer is of course they werent. Yes some stellar field that was when the remaining half slams Venus didnt win all went to Capriati and Pierce, LOL!
Statements like this simply make me even more convinced you probably didnt even watch womens tennis back in this time period you are speaking of, other than on youtube clips. That actually was a terrible match, and a reflection of how poor the quality of womens tennis was during a brief period so weak Capriati was the 2nd best player in the World. Capriati hit only 4 winners the whole match, Venus had only 21 but well over 40 unforced errors. The two women combined for only 25 winners and about 75 unforced errors. Capriati in the first set hit only 2 winners and over 20 errors, and still was up 4-1 in the set at one point.
Venus was neither overwhelmingly overpowering, dominant with her serve, prominent at the net, forced to be defensively stellar, and certainly wasnt that consistent. Capriati just couldnt hurt her with anything, didnt have a weapon big enough to hit through Venus, nor was she crafty or diverse enough to come up with any kind of alterior way to win points. I ensure you pretty much anyone on here who also saw this match will back up my claim how poor quality it was.
So this is the best example you can come up with to how Venus at her best is unbeatable and would defeat Serena, Navratilova, and Graf. :lol: Again I will remind you that Venus in 2002-2003 was every bit as good or even better than 2000-2001. The difference is she was facing a true great like Serena on the other side of the net, rather than an era filler like Capriati. Hitting half the # of winners as unforced errors was no longer good enough. Serena's best being better than Venus's isnt even a debate, she proved it on the court by first being one of a flock of women to pass the interim filler challenger Capriati by, then by ripping Venus off her perch atop the womens game and stomping all over her everywhere- clay, grass, hard courts, you name it.
When you reach 5 slam finals in a row and lose to the same player, and never come close to regularly reaching slam finals again, any argument your best is better than that players goes out the window. Then come 2003 Henin passed Venus by too, and since that point Venus got discouraged and doesnt even bother trying anymore outside Wimbledon and to some degree the U.S Open, the only place(s) she feels she has any chance vs the likes of Serena and Henin. Some approach for the women whose "best tennis is best of all time" right. As for Capriati, Venus's biggest "competition" during her reign, as I said once Serena, Henin, Clijsters, even Mauresmo began to come into their primes as well, and Davenport and Pierce began making comebacks to the top, and even the Russian women emerged, Capriati dropped like a stone from being the unofficial #2 to being only the 3rd best, 5th best, 6th, 7th, 10th....until her retirement at the end of 2004. Hardly a surprise. As I already said Capriati being the 2nd best player in the World during Venus's time on top only goes to show how weak things really were then.
Last edited:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
so much incoherency, in your last few posts, i won't bother addressing all of it. First cluelessness is still not a word! Second, when I mentioned the US womens big 5, I was referiing to US citizens: Seles is a US citizen, Hingis is not...try looking it up!
Second, as far as the fore-mentioned US open semi between Venus and Capriati, the reason Capriati only had 4 winners was because of Venus' speed and defensive capability (the best I have ever seen from a woman), not due to Capriati's lack of fire power. If you are one to only judge a match by its winner vs unforced error count (which btw is in itself a subjective judgment) then me and you will never agree. i thought that match was very good, exciting and entertaining; the tv ratings would seem to bolster my point of view, but i digress.
also capriati never beat venus, she had serena's number for quite a while. and capriati has not officially retired, and remeber injury and her eye condition is what put her on the sidelines.
and again venus's peak was 2001, She was not as good the following year or since. And her losses to Serena were due in greater part to her emotional attachment to her baby sister than to Serena getting better (although Serena did get better and had her peak in 2002-2003). Now the sisters just play when they face each other. The main thing Venus lacks is the utter soul consuming drive as compared to Serena or Graf/Navratilova for that matter. Which IMO bolsters my stance that her best is 'the' best. If she actually had drive and motivation to the level of her sister or Graf/Navratilova her results (although still very good and will cement her place in women's tennis history) would be far greater.
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
You mean as in this unique summer of 2001, when she beat 18-year-old Henin twice in 3 sets on fast courts and lost to Megan Shaughnessy?
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You mean as in this unique summer of 2001, when she beat 18-year-old Henin twice in 3 sets on fast courts and lost to Megan Shaughnessy?
No,
I don't think Venus ever had that type of drive and motivation. She likes to compete, especially when she is competitive. She likes to overcome struggles. But as far as having the attitude of a Graf, Navratilova, Seles, or even Serena; she doesn't.
From a selfish fan standpoint, I would love to have seen what she would have accomplished if she had it.
Personally, I don't think she feels its worth it to take it to that other level. (Again we are talking about great champions... Venus' drive is lower only relatively speaking.)
For instance, I don't think Venus would ever go off like Serena did at this years US Open. She doesn't put that much of herself into a match to lose it like that.
Interesting, at this years US Open, even with a bum knee Venus had a 6-0 set against Kim even though she lost but Serena couldn't take a set...
Joe Pike
Banned
She is one of the greatest grass courters of the open era, without a doubt. And she had 2 or 3 really outstanding years.
What I never understand why some of her fans firmly believe that her peak was the best women's tennis ever had to offer. Those fans always come up with the "summer of 2001" when she beat Davenport (who won three slams in 1998-2000) three times and - in three-setters - a 18-year-old Henin twice.
Capriati struggles to hit winners vs any top player. In the U.S Open semis vs Dementieva in 2004, a player with one of the worst serves in WTA history and who many years later has still never won a slam, she had only 11 winners to Dementieva's 41. According to Mary Carillo and John McEnroe in the booth atlast Dementieva was having an off day and still beat Capriati playing her best, and again this is a slamless player still 5 years down the road. Capriati was also owned by virtually every top 6 or 7 player in both her primes in the early 90s and early 2000s- Graf, prime Seles, Venus, Serena, Davenport, past her prime Seles, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, Henin, Mauresmo. The only exceptions are Clijsters she is even with (but losing all 3 meetings in Kim's prime in 2003) and Hingis she did well against in the early 2000s. Capriati just isnt that good, her being the 2nd best player during Venus's reign shows how weak that year or two was.
All but 1 of Venus's match vs Capriati were at her peak in 2001. Serena never lost to Capriati at her peak in 2002-2003 either. If Venus like Serena had more matches with Serena outside her peak she would have lost matches to her too.
Anyway Capriati isnt that important. You are overrating her only since she makes Venus look better. Serena was owning Davenport ever since 1998, her first year on tour. Venus didnt start doing well vs Davenport until 2000. Serena has the better head to head with Hingis. Serena has a better head to head with Clijsters. Serena has a better head to head with Sharapova. Serena has a better head to head with Mauresmo.
Is that why she made 5 of 6 slams finals from 2002 French-2003 Wimbledon, something she never came close to doing in 2001? Like it or not 2002 and 2003 was Venus's peak as far as her actual tennis, even moreso than 2000 and 2001. That is why she was making the finals of nearly every big event, which she wasnt good enough to do even in 2000 and 2001 when she was the top player in the World. In 2000 and 2001 she was embarassed in all 3 Australian and French Opens she played. In 2002 and 2003 she made the finals of 2 of 3, and lost a very tough 3 setter to an inspired Seles while injured in the other. The only difference was peak Serena was now there and Serena is just the better player.
Anyway Venus in the summer of 2000 was even better than 2001 also. 2001 was only her 4th best year ever tennis wise, and even if you insist on just results 2000 was better, and 2002 was far more consistently good. Your now resorting to using Capriati of all people as one of your main boosters to Venus reaching a "best ever level" is one of the most desperate and failed attempt of straw grapsing I have ever seen.
Now they just play when they face each other according to you, both players are now clearly past their prime, and Serena still wins most of the time. Again Serena > Venus.
There is so much fail here I dont even know how to respond. This reminds me of Safina's recent press conferences "nobody remembers slam winners, only #1s". By this logic Clijsters or Sabatini would be one of the best players ever, after all what would they have accomplished if the had the soul consuming drive to be the best that their superiors like Graf and Henin had.
You seem delusional about Venus's place in womens tennis history as it is. Do you even realize Henin despite having retired for awhile at only age 25 still currently has the same # of slams as Venus who is almost 30 now (almost certain to end up with more now that she is returning), has a much more balanced record, and much more time ranked #1. Earlier you said Venus "might" be behind Serena, which is also comical given that Serena has 11 slams, has the non calender slam while Venus hasnt even won 2 of the 3 slams in her whole career, and Serena has dominated Venus with both at or near their bests, and has spent much more time at #1 also. Venus is only the 3rd greatest player of the last decade alone.
She still had to go 3 sets with a pre-prime baby Henin who was about half the player she would be starting in spring 2003 at that point, on her worst surface by far. This was "peak Venus" too according to you, a peak that she only mantained for a few months ever according to you also. Do you really think Graf or Navratilova at their peaks (which in their cases lasted many years) would have needed 3 sets to beat an 18 year old Henin on GRASS, LOL!
By the way in Venus's meeting with Henin that years on Henin's surface, "peak Venus" was thumped 6-4, 6-1 by pre-prime baby Henin on clay. Then later that year at the French lost 1st round to Barbara Schett. Goes to show yet again while Venus is great on grass, how hopeless she is on surfaces like clay even at her "peak". On her 2nd worst surface, rebound ace, she had to go to 8-6 in the 3rd set to beat a past her prime Amanda Coetzer in th quarters, and was humiliated 6-1, 6-1 by Hingis in the semis. A player who is ever to be touted the best ever at her best hs to be able to play on all surfaces, not just her favorites. How on earth can a player who at her best is inept on clay, and iffy on slower hard courts, ever be the best ever at her best.
Last edited:
Lionheart392
Professional
There is no point arguing with Williams fanatics, it is futile.
True but it is fun in a way to school them nonetheless. Their arguments are so chalked full of holes it is funny. They could atleast try and hide them better.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
That is why I just gave up, its like what I went through with JulesB at first, then I just realized that its a waste of time even though it may give me another post lol. By the way, its nice to be talking to myself on a message board LOL :twisted:.
Lionheart392
Professional
At first I laughed when Julesb got banned but now I really miss him/her/it
Life just isn't the same without Julesb's weekly 'Graf is the most overrated player in history and owes all her slams to a very sharp knife!' thread.
lambielspins
Banned
I actually think you might well be right. The only problem is her best only lasted 18 months, and the greatest women of all times bests lasted 7, 8, 10, 12 years in some cases. And everything else she ever produced is far removed from her best.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
His basic point is relevant in considering her an all-time great, with or without a HoF entry; that the HoF allows just about anyone into it for less than legendary achievements is another matter. Make no mistake: winning a slam--even one--is a great career landmark (certainly above the embarassing title of being a slamless #1), but I do not consider that HoF-worthy considering the company such players will keep in a historical sense.
That is true. Even if the HOF had worthy standards both Williams would get in and deservedly so. Henin would also. I think that is it of the recent group. I wouldnt even put Sharapova in at this moment.
The HOF has really sunk into dangerous territory by how low they have sent the standards of recent inductees. While it might be unfair to some future players who could miss out with much better credentials than some recent inductees they need to raise those standards alot tougher again to mantain the Hall of Fame's credability. Having the likes of Novotna, Noah, and Sabatini inducted is an embarassment. They have all had fine careers they can be proud of, including the pivotal landmark of a slam singles victory you refer to, but not what should be even close to HOF worthy. It will look funny to many years from now when people speak of two women they remember mostly for choking in alot of big matches, being part of joke non rivalries with Graf (especialy Novotna), and for winning only 1 slam are in the Hall of Fame.
Last edited:
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
Novotna had a huge double career and has been in the top 10 in single almost all through the 90's. She deserve to be. Sabatini made 18 semifinals in GS from 85 to 95. It's debatable. Noha, I agree. He does not belong there.
As for Sharapova, of course she will be. 3 GS titles and made women's tennis very popular.
Sabatini is there because she's one of the most popular players ever and she had a pretty consistent career.
Ten years in the top ten. Six years in the the top five.
When BJK compared Ivanovic with Sabatini, she did it popularity wise. The Hall of Fame is not about achievements only. It's also about fame and what these players brought to the sport. BTW, Kourki and the other girls wouldn't have had the endorsements they had if Gaby wouldn't has gotten them 10 years earlier.
Ten years in the top ten. Six years in the the top five.
When BJK compared Ivanovic with Sabatini, she did it popularity wise. The Hall of Fame is not about achievements only. It's also about fame and what these players brought to the sport. BTW, Kourki and the other girls wouldn't have had the endorsements they had if Gaby wouldn't has gotten them 10 years earlier.
grafselesfan
Banned
Making Hall of Fame standars such that 1 slam wonders can get in due to the popularity is still ridiculous. Granted I think Sabatini is the best player to win only 1 slam now that Clijsters has broken free of that category. She was unlucky to prime in the late 80s and early 90s with Graf, Seles, Navratilova, and Sanchez Vicario all, and be a formidable up and coming player in the mid 80s with Navratilova, Evert, Graf, and Mandlikova. Her charisma and popularity was definitely huge in bringing more attention to the sport around the time, and she was sort of a trailblazer for womens tennis in her country of Argentina which had been strong in mens but not really in womens up until then. Yet all that being said she still should not be in the Hall of Fame if they had proper standards and guidelines which were alot tougher than they are now.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
If you call your incoherent or incredibly arbitrary ramblings 'schooling'; I'm glad I don't attend your school. Are you even tenured yet?
Here is my point, as I have tried to explain endlessly. When choosing which player's best is the best, going back in time and pouring over stats and records, or even score lines is nearly pointless.
Any player's best is actually a hypothetical. We have never seen any players' best. So what I am doing is taking individual aspects of each player’s game when playing well, that I have seen in matches, and comparing them to others. I also should mention I am assuming playing on a medium to fast hard-court surface (probably the most neutral of surfaces), not clay or grass.
I will state the aspects of the game that I am focusing on in their order of importance (again this is all my opinion, if you disagree so be it)
Movement/Defense:
Venus Williams in her prime is the fastest woman I have ever seen on a tennis court. Her movement was simply amazing at her peak and is the reason why so few players would hit many winners against her. What is also important here is that she could turn defense into offense so often. She would come up with devastating shots off of awkward positions and places on the court.
Steffi Graf was also a very good mover and perhaps had better foot work than Venus at her prime, but she was no where near as explosive.
Same can be said for Henin - awesome foot work just not as explosive
Serena in her prime did not move quite as fast or as well and had less reach.
I feel movement/defense is probably the most import aspect in the game and allows players that have it to do things others can not.
.............................................................................................
Serve:
Venus Williams has the most consistently powerful 1st serve in women’s' tennis history. I know other women have hit it as hard or slightly harder once or twice, but Venus can hit serves above 125 mph several times in one game not just in one entire match. Her first is also one of the heaviest and has alot of work on it.
An inform Serena also has a big first serve, but not as big. She may hit more aces on average than Venus, but Venus has more service winners overall. Serena also places her serve a little better and has a more consistent second serve. However, if I am assuming these players are playing at their best then they will not be missing many first serves.
Graf had a good serve with very good placement but wasn't nearly as big. Same can be said for Navratilova.
Lindsay Davenport also had an effective serve, but again was not nearly as explosive.
Alicia Molik was also an excellent server and deserves to be mentioned in this category.
.....................................................................................................
Service Return:
Venus ranks among the best service returners in my mind. She is amongst the most aggressive at her best and gets her racket on more good serves than any other player. Infact with her great improvisation skills, she can be out of position and still get a great return in play.
Lindsay Davenport has a devastating return when she is on. She has probably hit more return winners than anyone. She takes it early and makes it penetrate beautifully. However she doesn't get her racket on as many returns as Venus.
Monica Seles is very similar to Davenport. One of the most aggressive returners in history with amazing angles coming off of her racquet. She probably hit the return earlier than anyone. But with 2 hands on both sides her reach was limited and would get aced way more than Venus.
Serena has a very good return when playing her best; penetrating and forceful. However, she has been handcuffed in the past with her grips on return. She is one of the few top players I have seen hit a two handed forehand on returns because she was too slow to change grips when necessary. She also does not have the reach of Venus on the return.
Graf's return is technically very good and consistent. However she can be exposed on her backhand return, often times slicing it in and not being as aggressive, ala Federer. This can be a weakness and allow the server, especially a big server, to get an early advantage in the point.
...................................................................................................
Power of the Ground:
Venus Williams, at her best, is the most explosive women’s' player off the ground that I have ever seen. She has more pace than any other player off both sides, in particular off the backhand. I have heard Lindsay Davenport say this several times since she started commentating for Tennis Channel.
Lindsay Davenport hits the cleanest and heaviest ball in women’s tennis. She doesn't have the same pace as Venus but her balls in general have better direction.
Serena is somewhere in the middle between Venus and Lindsay. Heavier balls than Venus but not as much pace; and more pace than Lindsay but not as heavy.
Graf has probably the world class forehand. She hits it cleanly with very good pace and penetration. But her backhand can be a real weakness. She hardly ever came over her backhand and would continually slice. This can present an opening to other excellent players to take advantage.
Monica Seles was also very good off the ground with extreme angles and great pace. She took the ball very early and had very good accuracy and penetration. However Monica would sometimes get handcuffed on what was her forehand side and would not always hit it as cleanly.
..................................................................................................
Mental Toughness:
Its here where Venus lags slightly behind the best of the best. She doesn't have the same drive of a Graf, Navratilova, Seles, or Serena. However, she does have great fortitude and loves to compete.
...................................................................................................
Craftiness/Touch:
Venus lags way behind in this category. In my opinion touch and craftiness can quickly be overcome by power and explosiveness. Touch really only comes into play when an opponent is hanging in with her counterpart and has something extra craftiness in the bag to pull out thus unsettling the person across the net.
Graf had great craftiness, whether it was the amazing approach shots or drop volleys etc. Henin is also very good in this respect and maybe Hingis in her absolute prime.
....................................................................................................
All that is to say: Venus Williams at her best is the best. Her sheer level of outrageous offensive combined with amazing defense is just too much for any other player playing at their best to handle. Period, point blank. That is my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you or boredone are not changing my mind.
jones101
Hall of Fame
Good, well thought post and I must say I agree with everything on this list.
Joe Pike
Banned
The facts say otherwise:
In her best two years ever (2000/01) she lost to Coetzer, Dokic, Schett, Maleeva, Shaughnessy among others - players who never ever made a slam final.
In her best 3 months ever (summer 2001) she lost to Shaughnessy, beat 18-year-old Henin twice on fast courts only in 3-setters, beat Davenport three times and Capriati twice.
Graf for example lost only to Navratilova, Sabatini and Shriver in 1987/88.
Graf had SEVERAL 3-month runs when she didn't even lose a single set.
Graf beat players who made 12 slam finals in their careers with 62 61 and 60 62 respectively in slam finals.
Graf broke Navratilova on Wimbledon's grass seven (!) times in a row at the end of the 1988 final.
Navratilova had comparable peak achievements. She destroyed the greatest clay-courter ever, Chris Evert, 63 61 in a FO final. Navratilova had a 74-win streak in 1983/84.
Peak Graf and Navratilova would not have lost to Shaughnessys, Maleevas or Schetts. Graf and Navratilova would not have lost sets to a 18-year-old Henin on fast courts during their peak 3 months.
Last edited:
Very well. But, if you haven't realized it already, the consensus in this thread is that Graf at her best is the best. That consensus trumps your opinion. Period, point blank. That is the consensus. Feel free to disagree with it, but your opinion is not going to change that.
This weekend I reviewed some of Serena's matches on youtube. It confirmed what I thought about her game, specifically her net game.
A few observations:
*Apparently, we are not the only ones who think Serena is not a good volleyer. So, do Tony Trabert, Chris Evert, and John McEnroe.
*Serena is much more reluctant to come to the net than Graf.
*Serena prefers to hit a swinging volley over a conventional volley. She has more success with the swinging volley than the conventional volley.
*Tennis commentators frequently cited these reasons for her poor execution at the net: (1) location, depth, and spin (top) of passing shot; (2) long swing on both volleys; (3) position of wrist on forehand volley with respect to racquet face and ball.
Ripster
Hall of Fame
She's the best I've ever seen. The only one that rivals her in terms of ability is Henin IMO.
Bertie B
Hall of Fame
R Round-&-Round-OFLMAO
Bertie B
Hall of Fame
????
McEnroe thinks we should go back to wooden rackets. Reactionary. Evert, she who can't hold off a divorce or Navratilova ain't fit to comment. She also thinks Serena plays like a caged animal...professional & objective.
I know this is a WTA discussion, but...Federer is much more reluctant to come to the net than Sampras...didn't stop him from being a much better player.
You know, the game is constantly evolving.
The commentators also said Steffi's game was "homemade." It's why she couldn't hit a proper topspin backhand.
Joe Pike
Banned
Joe Pike
Banned
Navratilova wouldn't agree.
She remembers USO 86, Lipton 87, FO 87, Wim 88, Wim 89 ...
DRII
G.O.A.T.
maybe thats because this thread is full of old fuddy duddies, oh i mean traditionalist, like you!
One thing your not acknowledging drII, if serena and steffi played 20 times, serena would only have 3-4 good days. She cannot maintain her lvl, as shown with her inablity to keep #1. Steffi on the other hand was consistent day in and day out.
Another thing your not seeing is steffi's slice to serena's forehand. Serena pulls up on it every time (by far her worst shot), giving steffi's forehand something to step in on.
Another thing your not seeing is steffi's slice to serena's forehand. Serena pulls up on it every time (by far her worst shot), giving steffi's forehand something to step in on.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Chadwixx, I vote Venus' best as the best, not Serena.
And I agree, over the long term you go by results and Graf has Venus on that one... No Doubt!
But given just one match on a given day when both are playing at their highest level, on a medium to fast paced hard court I pick Venus.
Also, most of the time Steffi's back-hand slice went to her right-handed opponents back-hand side. And Venus would eat that up!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Thanks jones101, I'm not used to hearing that! LOL
lambielspins
Banned
You are in your own little world on that one and you are foolish to keep pushing your failed points thinking people will come to your side here when it is clear you are the only one who thinks this way. How the heck is Venus's best better than Serena when at the peak of her game she was getting dominated by Serena. That makes no sense. She lost 5 straight slam finals to Serena, was she not at her best in any of those 5!?!? And dont give me some crap this wasnt her prime, there is no freaking way Venus wouldnt be in all those slam finals if it wasnt pretty much her peak.
Anyway like flying said Venus isnt even an all surface player. Even at her best there are probably 20 women who could beat her on clay, and atleast 10 on rebound ace. Imagine Venus at her best playing Henin at her best on clay, ROTFL!! Venus might get 3 games if she were lucky. The players whose best tennis is the best ever would have to be an all surface master, not a glorifed grass courter who is also very good on faster hard courts.
Last edited:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Foolish post. Obviously your comprehension is not the highest or you were too lazy to read the rest of the thread...
BTW I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating my opinion.
lambielspins
Banned
Sorry to break reality to you but there was nothing foolish about my post.
Fact 1: Venus made 5 straight slam finals and lost all 5 to Serena at one point. Any suggestion this wasnt Venus at her peak is ******** since this is the only time in Venus's career she was making so many slam finals. She couldnt not be at her best and be making all those finals in the first place. Serena's best >> Venus's best.
Fact 2: Venus even at her best sucks on clay and is mediocre on rebound ace. The player who is the best at her best has to be someone great on all surfaces like Graf, Navratilova, Evert, to some extent Serena. Venus playing her best on clay would be struggling to win games vs people like Henin, Evert, Graf on that surface. That also aleady elminates any posssability her best would be the best ever when she isnt even all surface player.
Joe Pike
Banned
We saw this in the Wimbledon 99 quarters ...
BTW re: just one match on a given day - Venus plays at her highest level in one of 20 matches only. So she wins that one but Graf wins the other 19.
lambielspins
Banned
Yes the Williams so called best tennis is something of a phantom mystery. They play such high risk games they will hardly ever play their so called best, and more often than not they are far from it. They are still great enough to win 11 and 7 slams even inspite of that, however this myth and excuse making of if I played my best tennis goes out the window with those two, as it is a level they rarely reach and with their playing styles are unlikely to reach hardly ever.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Say it aint so Joe...
so we argued this whole time, when we actually agree. What you just said is what i've been saying the whole time.
.................................................................
Although i problably say 7/13 or 8/12 ratio over time in favor of Graf.
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
When Venus plays at her peak only once in 20 matches most probably Graf won't be at her peak at the same time. So peak Venus beats average or below-par Graf.
But in the other 19 matches - when VENUS is only average or below par - Graf will win. Whether she is at HER peak, only average or below par doesn't matter.
And if coincidently BOTH are at their peaks at the same time Graf wins. You only have to remember or watch what GRAF could do at her peak. It was a little bit more than just beating one Capriati 62 64, beating one 18-year-old Henin in three sets or beating one Davenport 76 63 or so.
It was breaking Navratilova 7 times in a row in a Wimbledon final for example.
It was destroying Seles - who had won 5 of the previous 6 slams - with 62 61 in another Wimbledon final.
Last edited:
Do you ever read what you write? You've just claimed that Evert is not qualified to comment on Serena's game because she's been twice divorced. How ridiculous is that?
Serena is not Roger Federer, not even close. Steffi was the female Federer.
Swing volleys are easier to hit, particularly off the backhand side. That does not make them better than conventional volleys. Those players with the ability and talent will continue to use conventional volleys. See Federer.
Commentators never said Steffi's game was "homemade." Unless you can provide us with evidence, I am going to conclude that this is just another of the many things you have made up in this thread.
As to that topspin backhand, how's this for "homemade": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPU8MyBQhk8
Similar threads
