Who was/is better? Venus at 40, or Kimiko at 40?

[puppybutts]

Kimiko Date was about 40 years old during this match. Venus is 40 now. It's amazing looking back how freely Date was still running around. It's also crazy to think of Venus as the young opponent in that match, but she was already about 30.

 

[Jason Swerve]

You already knew the answer to this.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Kimiko Date was about 40 years old during this match. Venus is 40 now. It's amazing looking back how freely Date was still running around. It's also crazy to think of Venus as the young opponent in that match, but she was already about 30.

Kimiko Date by far. She beat several slam winners of the 2010s at that age. A time traveller from the 1990 and living proof of the decline of women's tennis in the 21st century.

However, Venus's case is a sad one. She doesn't seem to have anything in life except tennis. She should have retired after her last hurrah in 2017. Reminds of the great Muhammad Ali. Who also missed the moment to retire.

 

[kevin qmto]

Venus’s whole life has been about her being a tennis player. It’s like someone who became a soldier at a young age and fought too many battles. They end up never wanting to go home. Venus doesn’t want to retire, she just wants to be a tennis player.

 

[puppybutts]

You already knew the answer to this.

somewhat guilty as charged, not too many 40-year-old tennis players to compare and i was curious about people's thoughts of the two. i'm also not really familiar with kimiko's performances other than the video i linked. also, venus' year isn't finished yet...no one expected her 2017 resurgence, which leaves the faintest possibility of what she might accomplish before she retires. but admittedly it's not looking good.

 

[puppybutts]

Kimiko Date by far. She beat several slam winners of the 2010s at that age. A time traveller from the 1990 and living proof of the decline of women's tennis in the 21st century.

However, Venus's case is a sad one. She doesn't seem to have anything in life except tennis. She should have retired after her last hurrah in 2017. Reminds of the great Muhammad Ali. Who also missed the moment to retire.

it's a tough decision...to make as many finals as she did and come away with nothing. for the public, it's easy to say retire when you're on top, but who wants to come that close and say that's all they have left?

 

[puppybutts]

Venus’s whole life has been about her being a tennis player. It’s like someone who became a soldier at a young age and fought too many battles. They end up never wanting to go home. Venus doesn’t want to retire, she just wants to be a tennis player.

that's a good comparison. i don't blame her...many people don't want to retire from their jobs when it is time. it gives them purpose, structure, something to do and look forward to. tennis is no different.

 

[R. Schweikart]

that's a good comparison. i don't blame her...many people don't want to retire from their jobs when it is time. it gives them purpose, structure, something to do and look forward to. tennis is no different.

The difference is that sports tell you brutally that you are not as good anymore as you were in your heyday.
In normal jobs that is not the case.

 

[Jason Swerve]

that's a good comparison. i don't blame her...many people don't want to retire from their jobs when it is time. it gives them purpose, structure, something to do and look forward to. tennis is no different.

There're many tennis avenues that don't involve squeezing up-and-comers out of match opportunities.

 

[puppybutts]

There're many tennis avenues that don't involve squeezing up-and-comers out of match opportunities.

i've heard this before regarding wildcards venus receives. i don't entirely understand how wildcards work, but given venus was only recently pushed out of the top 100 and floated between maybe 50-70 for awhile, was she actually taking away that many spots that she didn't earn?

 

[Jason Swerve]

i've heard this before regarding wildcards venus receives. i don't entirely understand how wildcards work, but given venus was only recently pushed out of the top 100 and floated between maybe 50-70 for awhile, was she actually taking away that many spots that she didn't earn?

It's good and bad, and the 'taking spots' is more arbitrary. Good because she'll be an easy mark for an up-and-comer looking to improve their ranking and chances of progress past that round (almost like providing a bye). Bad because that new player will waste their energy on her and not receive as many points as she could if she'd played a properly ranked player. Venus can still play decently- in early spurts. She loses soon after, but the early spurts can be an unnecessary drain on her opponents.

 

[boredone3456]

I do think physically Date at 40 may trump Venus at 40. That would have more to do with Venus's medical condition than anything else. You can tell Venus's body, despite still being the talented and beautiful woman that she is, just isn't as strong as it used to be due to something beyond her control.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I do think physically Date at 40 may trump Venus at 40. That would have more to do with Venus's medical condition than anything else. You can tell Venus's body, despite still being the talented and beautiful woman that she is, just isn't as strong as it used to be due to something beyond her control.

Does Venus still suffer from this weird illness (forgot the name)?

 

[boredone3456]

Does Venus still suffer from this weird illness (forgot the name)?

I believe she still has Sjogren's syndrome. From what I remember reading about it when she announced the diagnosis I think its a permanent auto-immune illness that you can only manage the symptoms of at this time. I think its definitely taken a toll on her. I commend her for finding a way to manage her symptoms and still be able to play.

 

[asifallasleep]

Who cares who was in better shape at a particular age. It's what you did your entire career that matters. Good heavens!

You are seriously comparing Kimiko to an all time great. An all time great with an auto immune disease late in her career. Well done!!

You are aware that accomplishments in sports come at the cost of wear and tear on the mind and body based on the quality and sheer number of matches.

Finally, Venus always played old lady tennis, Kimiko's strength was her movement. Venus was never a great mover. Big serve and big forehand.

2014	US Open	R128	Hard	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	2-6 6-3 6-3
2013	Miami Masters	R64	Hard	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	7-6(3) 3-6 6-4
2012	Miami Masters	R128	Hard	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	6-0 6-3
2011	Wimbledon	R64	Grass	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	6-7(6) 6-3 8-6

Grand Slam Singles results
Singles
Prize money	$3,988,378
Career record	450–268 (62.7%)
Career titles	8 WTA, 14 ITF
Highest ranking	No. 4 (13 November 1995)
Australian Open	SF (1994)
French Open	SF (1995)
Wimbledon	SF (1996)
US Open	QF (1993, 1994)

Grand Slam Singles results
Career record	814–258 (75.9%)
Career titles	49 WTA
Highest ranking	No. 1 (February 25, 2002)
Current ranking	No. 102 May 17, 2021)
Australian Open	F (2003, 2017)
French Open	F (2002)
Wimbledon	W (2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2008)
US Open	W (2000, 2001)

 

[atatu]

No reason for Venus to retire, she's still making money doing something she likes to do, I know a lot of people who keep working making less money than she does working at jobs that they hate, and they don't retire.

 

[helterskelter]

Finally, Venus always played old lady tennis, Kimiko's strength was her movement. Venus was never a great mover. Big serve and big forehand.

This is just a weird line. Old lady tennis = big serve and big forehand? I'd have thought old lady tennis was the Evert, Austin, or Hingis style, not the modern power baseline game. Also, Venus always has had a better backhand than forehand, just like Serena in that regard. And Venus was never a great mover? She wasn't?

I like the rest of your post.

 

[Slowtwitcher]

Venus' life: sad!
Old men posting on the internet about how sad Venus' life is: totally not sad!

 

[asifallasleep]

This is just a weird line. Old lady tennis = big serve and big forehand? I'd have thought old lady tennis was the Evert, Austin, or Hingis style, not the modern power baseline game. Also, Venus always has had a better backhand than forehand, just like Serena in that regard. And Venus was never a great mover? She wasn't?

I like the rest of your post.

LOL. Ok maybe not the best use of words. That comment was specifically about her movement.

I certainly would not call Evert, Austin or Hingis old lady tennis either. Those 3 were excellent movers in there eras.

Serena was a far superior mover than Venus. Venus was a big serve and big forehand. Her backhand was more reliable, but that unreliable forehand was devastating
when she timed it properly.

Hingis was a gazelle.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Who cares who was in better shape at a particular age. It's what you did your entire career that matters. Good heavens!

You are seriously comparing Kimiko to an all time great. An all time great with an auto immune disease late in her career. Well done!!

You are aware that accomplishments in sports come at the cost of wear and tear on the mind and body based on the quality and sheer number of matches.

Finally, Venus always played old lady tennis, Kimiko's strength was her movement. Venus was never a great mover. Big serve and big forehand.

2014	US Open	R128	Hard	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	2-6 6-3 6-3
2013	Miami Masters	R64	Hard	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	7-6(3) 3-6 6-4
2012	Miami Masters	R128	Hard	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	6-0 6-3
2011	Wimbledon	R64	Grass	Venus Williams	Kimiko Date-Krumm	6-7(6) 6-3 8-6

Very interesting!
So Venus at age 31 to 34 (and still a top player then) had three tough three-setters against a 40- to 43-year-old player who never made a slam final in the Graf/Seles/Sanchez era!

BTW, Kimiko Date beat Sharapova, Stosur, Li in 2010 and Muguruza, Pennetta in 2014 among others. Five slam winners of the 2010s! The tiny Japanese grandma is the living proof how much better women's tennis was in the 1990s compared to the 2010s. The 2010s had only one great player, Serena Williams. Who therefore had it relatively easy to win 12 of her 23 slams in that decade.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Venus' life: sad!
Old men posting on the internet about how sad Venus' life is: totally not sad!

Most old men probably have far more fun at work than Venus. She always looks so sad nowadays. I think she afraid of life after tennis.

 

[asifallasleep]

Very interesting!
So Venus at age 31 to 34 (and still a top player then) had three tough three-setters against a 40- to 43-year-old player who never made a slam final in the Graf/Seles/Sanchez era!

BTW, Kimiko Date beat Sharapova, Stosur, Li in 2010 and Muguruza, Pennetta in 2014 among others. Five slam winners of the 2010s! The tiny Japanese grandma is the living proof how much better women's tennis was in the 1990s compared to the 2010s. The 2010s had only one great player, Serena Williams. Who therefore had it relatively easy to win 12 of her 23 slams in that decade.

I am not sure what your point is. On any given day any player can win or lose. No one suggested Kimiko wasn't a very good player. Greatness in tennis is measured by slam totals.

Based on your logic, Soderling is better than Nadal because he beat him at Wimbledon in 2009?

Oh and btw, there's nothing easy about winning slam titles, no matter the competition. I always find it interesting how people want to discredit the accomplishments of others.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I am not sure what your point is. On any given day any player can win or lose. No one suggested Kimiko wasn't a very good player. Greatness in tennis is measured by slam totals.

Based on your logic, Soderling is better than Nadal because he beat him at Wimbledon in 2009?

Oh and btw, there's nothing easy about winning slam titles, no matter the competition. I always find it interesting how people want to discredit the accomplishments of others.

Did I say that Date was better than Venus? No, I didn't say that.
Old Kimiko did not beat ONE current star (which could have been a fluke). Sie beat five different slam winners of the 2010s.

Debating about the strength of players or eras is not "discrediting the achievements of others".
Discrediting is claiming that someone didn't deserve a win and/or "would not have won if".

 

[asifallasleep]

Did I say that Date was better than Venus? No, I didn't say that.
Old Kimiko did not beat ONE current star (which could have been a fluke). Sie beat five different slam winners of the 2010s.

Debating about the strength of players or eras is not "discrediting the achievements of others".
Discrediting is claiming that someone didn't deserve a win and/or "would not have won if".

Sorry, I grouped you in with the OP. Peak form Henin and Clijsters would have destroyed most of the players from 2010 onwards.

 

[atatu]

Did I say that Date was better than Venus? No, I didn't say that.
Old Kimiko did not beat ONE current star (which could have been a fluke). Sie beat five different slam winners of the 2010s.

Debating about the strength of players or eras is not "discrediting the achievements of others".
Discrediting is claiming that someone didn't deserve a win and/or "would not have won if".

Yeah, well when you make the statement "The 2010s had only one great player, Serena Williams. Who therefore had it relatively easy to win 12 of her 23 slams in that decade" that's pretty much saying that she would not have won if she had faced the players from the 1990's isn't it ? Also I don't think you can really put Sanchez in the same category as Seles and Graf.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Yeah, well when you make the statement "The 2010s had only one great player, Serena Williams. Who therefore had it relatively easy to win 12 of her 23 slams in that decade" that's pretty much saying that she would not have won if she had faced the players from the 1990's isn't it ? ...

No, it only says she would have had to fight more for her slam wins.

 

[Slowtwitcher]

Most old men probably have far more fun at work than Venus.

Old men having fun at work...

 

[R. Schweikart]

Old men having fun at work...

Yes, chasing female interns around and guzzling a few beers for lunch each day!

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Kimiko. Because I bought bakery products at her bakery in Tokyo.

 

[Jason Swerve]

This is just a weird line. Old lady tennis = big serve and big forehand? I'd have thought old lady tennis was the Evert, Austin, or Hingis style, not the modern power baseline game. Also, Venus always has had a better backhand than forehand, just like Serena in that regard.

Hingis competed in the modern power game while injured for years. We can cease with the playground rumors. Her '00 is among the best ever years for someone who didn't win a slam. Maybe even the best. Evert was a Top 3 competitor into the '80s where power was growing and she was suffering from an injury too. Both these players never recovered their injuries, and they kept winning at the top.

Sure, we'd add the asterisk that Serena usually beat Hingis and Graf usually beat Evert. We'd add another asterisk that Serena and Graf 95% of the time played on their best surfaces. Serena in '02 was a better clay courter than Hingis in '02. Not in any prior year. Graf was a better hard courter than Evert but not a better clay courter. They played once on clay when Graf was in her prime and when Evert was declining with injuries. Not to mention, Evert was past her prime in general and still had leads against Graf in both sets. You can have Tracy Austin. Either which way, none of this was 'old lady tennis'.

And Venus was never a great mover? She wasn't?

She wasn't.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Hingis competed in the modern power game while injured for years. We can cease with the playground rumors. Her '00 is among the best ever years for someone who didn't win a slam. Maybe even the best.
...
Graf was a better hard courter than Evert but not a better clay courter. They played once on clay when Graf was in her prime and when Evert was declining with injuries. Not to mention, Evert was past her prime in general and still had leads against Graf in both sets.
...

The best ever year for someone who didn't win a slam was Navratilova in 1989.
She won 8 of 16 tournaments that year - better than Hingis in 2000 with 10 fo 20.
She had a 91.3 % winning percentage that year - better than Hingis in 2000 with 88.5 %.
But most importantly she had to cope with peak Steffi that year - whereas Hingis stayed slamless in a year when Davenport and Pierce won slams.

Evert never played prime Graf on clay.
The last clay match they played was in April 1986 when Steffi was 16 year old and had not even won one tournament until then whereas Evert played better than ever in her career that year (according to herself).

 

[helterskelter]

LOL. Ok maybe not the best use of words. That comment was specifically about her movement.

I certainly would not call Evert, Austin or Hingis old lady tennis either. Those 3 were excellent movers in there eras.

Serena was a far superior mover than Venus. Venus was a big serve and big forehand. Her backhand was more reliable, but that unreliable forehand was devastating
when she timed it properly.

Hingis was a gazelle.

It surprises me to hear "old lady tennis" being used to refer to poor movers. I'd have thought "old lady tennis" meant something more like a player whose game is either more cerebral or more consistent and reliable, and is not based on power. Hingis was an extremely cerebral player, as was Evert. Evert and Austin were also extremely steady, consistent, and reliable. None of them was a powerhouse. That's why I thought they would be described as playing old lady tennis, if anyone was.

I think that Venus was an extremely good mover, in her day. Both she and Serena sometimes had dodgy footwork early on - that's why Serena had a good rivalry with Capriati, for a while, as the latter was sometimes able to exploit her footwork - but they were very fast around the court.

Almost all players have more "devastating" forehands than backhands, but I'd still say that Venus's signature groundstroke was her backhand.

 

[Purestriker]

Kimiko Date by far. She beat several slam winners of the 2010s at that age. A time traveller from the 1990 and living proof of the decline of women's tennis in the 21st century.

However, Venus's case is a sad one. She doesn't seem to have anything in life except tennis. She should have retired after her last hurrah in 2017. Reminds of the great Muhammad Ali. Who also missed the moment to retire.

She says the WTA's insurance is just too good to pass up. Also, she is still a big draw that fans want to see and so she is going to continue to get WC's. Good for her! I hope her and Coco can win some doubles matches at RG.

 

[bluetrain4]

I wonder what Date's career would have looked like without the missing gap between her early retirement and her comeback. She made Slam SFs on every surface and she could definitely test the best on a given day - even if she didn't do it every time she played the top players.

 

[asifallasleep]

It surprises me to hear "old lady tennis" being used to refer to poor movers. I'd have thought "old lady tennis" meant something more like a player whose game is either more cerebral or more consistent and reliable, and is not based on power. Hingis was an extremely cerebral player, as was Evert. Evert and Austin were also extremely steady, consistent, and reliable. None of them was a powerhouse. That's why I thought they would be described as playing old lady tennis, if anyone was.

I think that Venus was an extremely good mover, in her day. Both she and Serena sometimes had dodgy footwork early on - that's why Serena had a good rivalry with Capriati, for a while, as the latter was sometimes able to exploit her footwork - but they were very fast around the court.

Almost all players have more "devastating" forehands than backhands, but I'd still say that Venus's signature groundstroke was her backhand.

I would associate alzheimer's and having a walker with an old lady moreso than being cerebral. Hingis was both cerebral and an excellent mover. She definitely did not play old lady tennis.

 

[helterskelter]

I would associate alzheimer's and having a walker with an old lady moreso than being cerebral. Hingis was both cerebral and an excellent mover. She definitely did not play old lady tennis.

Ah, I get the misunderstanding: by old lady tennis, you mean the tennis an old lady would play! I thought you meant the tennis an old lady would want to watch! I figured older people are more likely to appreciate cerebral and consistent tennis rather than powerful and flashy tennis. Hence I thought of Evert and Hingis - both of whom were good movers, I agree - as playing old lady tennis.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I wonder what Date's career would have looked like without missing gap between her early retirement and her comeback. She made Slam SFs on every surface and and she could definitely test the best on a given day - even if she didn't do it every time she played the top players.

Had Date continued to play during this gap (1997-2008) she most probably would have been a multiple slam winner.
Players like Majoli, Capriati, Kuznetsova, Myskina, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Ivanovic won slams in that period.

 

[PDJ]

At 40, Date. Easily.
I loved watching her play.

Venus Williams - she should play for as long as she wants. Winning titles is so far off she's not damaging her legacy as aside from the odd time, she's not really been a contender. And you get the sense she plays because she loves to play.
Her sister is different: the obsessive quest for 2 more majors appears to be her driving force.
I suspect Venus has more fun playing.

 

[PDJ]

i've heard this before regarding wildcards venus receives. i don't entirely understand how wildcards work, but given venus was only recently pushed out of the top 100 and floated between maybe 50-70 for awhile, was she actually taking away that many spots that she didn't earn?

I think I'm right in stating that major winners are guaranteed unlimited wild cards.

 

[Jason Swerve]

I think I'm right in stating that major winners are guaranteed unlimited wild cards.

Yes, but exemptions still take wild cards from a 'slot'. A tournament only has so many available, like only having so many spots on a roster.

 

[PDJ]

Yes, but exemptions still take wild cards from a 'slot'. A tournament only has so many available, like only having so many spots on a roster.

I get that. And it's a pity for upcoming/lesser known players, but Williams is a marquee name, plus put the time in to allow for subsequent privileges.
I've seen her play quite a few times at Wimbledon and would still prefer to see her over some player I've never heard of.
That said, there are a couple of players/former champions that have seen better days I'd throughly enjoy watching lose.

 

[boredone3456]

At 40, Date. Easily.
I loved watching her play.

Venus Williams - she should play for as long as she wants. Winning titles is so far off she's not damaging her legacy as aside from the odd time, she's not really been a contender. And you get the sense she plays because she loves to play.
Her sister is different: the obsessive quest for 2 more majors appears to be her driving force.
I suspect Venus has more fun playing.

Venus is definitely playing for the same reason Davenport did for the last couple years of her career, she loves the sport and she loves the fans. I'm sure Venus would love to have one last dream run at Wimbledon or the US Open, sure. Her Legacy as a player however is already cemented, shes a legend. She could hang it up tomorrow or play another 5 years never winning anything again and I'd feel the same.

As for the wildcard question, I don't know if major winners are guaranteed unlimited wildcards, but the wildcard situation at the majors needs a total overhaul to begin with. I get giving locals a chance, but literally every wildcard except for trade offs among the major hosting nations, goes to locals. At tournaments below major levels this makes sense. However at the French Errani has had to play qualifying in the last few years (despite being a former finalist) and a young french player no one has ever heard of gets a wild card and more often than not loses in the first round. The system needs fixing.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Venus is definitely playing for the same reason Davenport did for the last couple years of her career, she loves the sport and she loves the fans. I'm sure Venus would love to have one last dream run at Wimbledon or the US Open, sure. Her Legacy as a player however is already cemented, shes a legend. She could hang it up tomorrow or play another 5 years never winning anything again and I'd feel the same.
...

Venus hasn't won a slam in the last 12 years.
Won 3 slams in the last 20 years.
Has won only 6 titles in the last 10 years.
Hasn't been in the top 4 since 2002.

Most of today's fans see her as the older sister of Serena who usually loses.

 

[PDJ]

Venus hasn't won a slam in the last 12 years.
Won 3 slams in the last 20 years.
Has won only 6 titles in the last 10 years.
Hasn't been in the top 4 since 2002.

Most of today's fans see her as the older sister of Serena who usually loses.

Some of us simply see her as the sister we like. And wish her well.

 

[PDJ]

Venus is definitely playing for the same reason Davenport did for the last couple years of her career, she loves the sport and she loves the fans. I'm sure Venus would love to have one last dream run at Wimbledon or the US Open, sure. Her Legacy as a player however is already cemented, shes a legend. She could hang it up tomorrow or play another 5 years never winning anything again and I'd feel the same.

As for the wildcard question, I don't know if major winners are guaranteed unlimited wildcards, but the wildcard situation at the majors needs a total overhaul to begin with. I get giving locals a chance, but literally every wildcard except for trade offs among the major hosting nations, goes to locals. At tournaments below major levels this makes sense. However at the French Errani has had to play qualifying in the last few years (despite being a former finalist) and a young french player no one has ever heard of gets a wild card and more often than not loses in the first round. The system needs fixing.

There was also something about The Italian not giving Schiavone a wild card towards the end of her career. There own countrywoman who aside from holding a major, but also tireless Fed Cup duty.
That sucked.

 

[boredone3456]

Venus hasn't won a slam in the last 12 years.
Won 3 slams in the last 20 years.
Has won only 6 titles in the last 10 years.
Hasn't been in the top 4 since 2002.

Most of today's fans see her as the older sister of Serena who usually loses.

Well I do not happen to be "most fans" and "most fans" who actually know the game and are more than casual fans who watch on TV respect her for what she achieved. Just because you don't seem to doesn't mean the rest of don't.

 

[boredone3456]

There was also something about The Italian not giving Schiavone a wild card towards the end of her career. There own countrywoman who aside from holding a major, but also tireless Fed Cup duty.
That sucked.

I remember that...I think they chose to give a wild card to Errani that year over her, which I found perplexing to say the least. Now Errani herself deserved one as well, but of the 2....

 

[PDJ]

Venus is definitely playing for the same reason Davenport did for the last couple years of her career, she loves the sport and she loves the fans. I'm sure Venus would love to have one last dream run at Wimbledon or the US Open, sure. Her Legacy as a player however is already cemented, shes a legend. She could hang it up tomorrow or play another 5 years never winning anything again and I'd feel the same.

As for the wildcard question, I don't know if major winners are guaranteed unlimited wildcards, but the wildcard situation at the majors needs a total overhaul to begin with. I get giving locals a chance, but literally every wildcard except for trade offs among the major hosting nations, goes to locals. At tournaments below major levels this makes sense. However at the French Errani has had to play qualifying in the last few years (despite being a former finalist) and a young french player no one has ever heard of gets a wild card and more often than not loses in the first round. The system needs fixing.

From the BBC

A former Grand Slam champion is currently free to accept as many wildcards as they wish, but that is a rule which is likely to be reviewed, according to the WTA's chief executive.

 

[JLyon]

I do think physically Date at 40 may trump Venus at 40. That would have more to do with Venus's medical condition than anything else. You can tell Venus's body, despite still being the talented and beautiful woman that she is, just isn't as strong as it used to be due to something beyond her control.

bingo, if not for her medical issues, I think Venus would still be Top 50, due to her talent, but the medical issues have taken their toll, it is truly sad to see because she might have won a few more if not for the medical issues.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Venus is definitely playing for the same reason Davenport did for the last couple years of her career, she loves the sport and she loves the fans. I'm sure Venus would love to have one last dream run at Wimbledon or the US Open, sure. Her Legacy as a player however is already cemented, shes a legend. She could hang it up tomorrow or play another 5 years never winning anything again and I'd feel the same.

As for the wildcard question, I don't know if major winners are guaranteed unlimited wildcards, but the wildcard situation at the majors needs a total overhaul to begin with. I get giving locals a chance, but literally every wildcard except for trade offs among the major hosting nations, goes to locals. At tournaments below major levels this makes sense. However at the French Errani has had to play qualifying in the last few years (despite being a former finalist) and a young french player no one has ever heard of gets a wild card and more often than not loses in the first round. The system needs fixing.

It goes by the rankings and popularity. I haven't been following them lately. I'd expect Venus to still have relative pull, at least in the American swing.

One thing I'll say, the base was heavily complaining about Venus barely playing anything in 2000 (including me). They might've still said she could've played more when she was perfect for it, but she's anything but lazy about tennis now. There's nothing to really admire or pity, here. The executives figure she's got the right to play these top events: she's obviously earned the right to play them.