PDA

View Full Version : Did the Williams sisters dominate ...


Sam L
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:15 PM
... during a weak period in women's tennis?

I know what some of you are going to say: troll, hater, etc... save it! This is an honest question.

Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.

And then the sisters dominated until around 2003. What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.

So I question, was that period from late 99 to early 03, a period of just over 3 years a weak period in women's tennis? That saw Steffi Graf leave physically and Martina Hingis leave mentally then physically, and before the arrival or Justine and Maria.

Thoughts?

!<blocparty>!
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:26 PM
Dumb thread.

So, when were the strong periods of womens tennis?

MH0861
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:28 PM
The Williams Sisters = Strong period in tennis.

GoDominique
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:29 PM
... during a weak period in women's tennis?

I know what some of you are going to say: troll, hater, etc... save it! This is an honest question.

Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years.
:weirdo::weirdo::weirdo:

vogus
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:35 PM
it's a fair question to ask, but i think the what the Williams did was force the other players to lift their games and psyches to try and catch them. I think actually 2002-03 was a very strong period, when the Williams were playing at top level and the rest of the tour was fighting to catch them.

I think history has shown that the Williams were playing at a very high level above the rest of the tour for about 3 years, which ultimately it was not possible for them to maintain (for various reasons). Now they have been clearly passed not only by the top players, but by the second tier players as well, like a horse fading on the home stretch.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Sam L just asked Williams fans to build a coffin without frills and then dug a deep hole on the ground to bury him alive.

Hope you survive this onslaught, brave man.

vogus
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:38 PM
:lol:

stupid thread, if Vee and Serena fully rededicated themselves to tennis again and were healthy they would dominate, the reason their domination didnt last long was because of injuries




you can talk about this until your face turns purple since it's hypothetical, but i don't believe that injury-free Williams sisters would have dominated the tour in 2006. Especially Venus showed poor form even when healthy.

GoDominique
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:41 PM
Serena might win more slams if she dedicated more time to tennis.

Venus' game however has degenerated into a hopeless state. She's done.

Craigy
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:43 PM
Yes they did dominate, they killed their opponents. Serena only lost 5 times in 2002, that strikes out DOMINATION to me...

TonyP
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:46 PM
The truth is, every player accomplishes what he or she accomplishes. There are those today who say Federer is only winning so often because of weak competition.

And Graf only won so many slams because Seles was taken out by the stabbing.

The argument is used most often by her detractors about Hingis, but it is no more valid there, either. In fact, one could say that had the Hingis who beat Venus 6-1, 6-1 at the AO in 2001 not started to undergo injury problems, including the ankle surgery that took her out at the end of that year and the second ankle surgery that forced her to miss two slams in 2002, maybe the Williams sisters would not have done as well that year, either.

But these are all just ifs. Federer has won what he has won, so have Graf, Seles, Hingis, and the Willies. Claiming any of it was due to weak competition is pretty silly.

pooh14
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:47 PM
Sam L just asked Williams fans to build a coffin without frills and then dug a deep hole on the ground to bury him alive.

Hope you survive this onslaught, brave man.


:lol: right. gosh, he must be really brave to even start a thread like this.

anyway the answer to the thread is NO. They dominate cause they brought a whole new aspect to the game, power game...no players were ready to face it.

GoDominique
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:49 PM
Yes she's definatley done i mean when was the last time she won a slam, oh yes last yr Wimbledon when she hammer the defnding Chamion than beat the then Number 1 Davenport in a classic just when everyone said she was done shes a journeywoman the game has completley passed her by, whatever :rolleyes:
That was a fluke. Or, to put it more politely, an Ivanisevic-like dream run, helped by a favourable draw. :)

And, it was 18 months ago. Venus is even worse now.

Farina Elia Fan
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:51 PM
I think this is a very fair question to ask but I disagree - Venus and Serena shaped the game as it is today. Davenport was still around then and was a force and they got passed her.

However are they any longer a force? consistantly - no imo

GoDominique
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:55 PM
Ye cause i mean its everyday that the 1 and 2 players in the world get beaten back to back by someone and to do it in 2 classic matches well hell sure anyone could do it thats why im winning Wimbledon these says :lol:
What the fuck are you talking about?

Brooks.
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:55 PM
Sam L is a complete idiot. That is all I will say.

TeamUSA#1
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:56 PM
... during a weak period in women's tennis?

I know what some of you are going to say: troll, hater, etc... save it! This is an honest question.

Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.

And then the sisters dominated until around 2003. What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.

So I question, was that period from late 99 to early 03, a period of just over 3 years a weak period in women's tennis? That saw Steffi Graf leave physically and Martina Hingis leave mentally then physically, and before the arrival or Justine and Maria.

Thoughts?

In one word... NO.

During that time you had the following players at the tops of their games all competing

Davenport
Capriati
Seles
Hingis
Mauresmo
Clijsters
Henin
plus Vee and Serena

and in the next tier was
Myskina
Dementieva
Daniela
Rubin
Dokic

The top 10 during those years, especially from 2001-2003, was tons stronger than it is today. Today's game has suffered because of the increase in injuries and the top 10 is weaker because of it. The fact that Serena won 4 stright slams during that time was incredible.

Farina Elia Fan
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:56 PM
That was a fluke. Or, to put it more politely, an Ivanisevic-like dream run, helped by a favourable draw. :)

And, it was 18 months ago. Venus is even worse now.

thats a little harsh because she did play very well at wimbledon then but she can only produce that form once in a blue moon and I completely agree with your last statement :worship:

vogus
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:58 PM
In one word... NO.

During that time you had the following players at the tops of their games all competing

Davenport
Capriati
Seles
Hingis
Mauresmo
Clijsters
Henin
plus Vee and Serena

and in the next tier was
Myskina
Dementieva
Daniela
Rubin
Dokic

The top 10 during those years, especially from 2001-2003, was tons stronger than it is today. Today's game has suffered because of the increase in injuries and the top 10 is weaker because of it. The fact that Serena won 4 stright slams during that time was incredible.


good post.

Brooks.
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:59 PM
I love how Justine "arrived" in 2003...she reached her peak when Serena had her knee surgery? ...please...she barely beat Serena on her best and Serena's worst surface (and we all know the history of that match) and then got killed by Serena a few weeks later at Wimbledon...Justine barely survived Capriati at the US Open ...Justine reached her "peak" b/c Serena and Venus got injured

jamatthews
Nov 15th, 2006, 02:59 PM
In one word... NO.

During that time you had the following players at the tops of their games all competing

Davenport
Capriati
Seles
Hingis
Mauresmo
Clijsters
Henin
plus Vee and Serena


Surely hardly any of those were at the top of their game?

GoDominique
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:06 PM
whatever, cant wait for Vee to win anotrher slam and for you to say its a fluke, plus i dont know how you can say her game is worse when shes played like 5 events this yr and shes done well in most of them :o
She will not win another slam.

Oh, and it sounds as if some people have lowered their expectations a little when reaching one semifinal means "doing well". :o

Paneru
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:11 PM
What the fuck are you talking about?

That you are an idiot who is bashing Venus by simply
dismissing the fact that she knocked off the top two
players in the world which were classic matches. Not
to mention she beat an in-form Pierce.

You are one of the many fucktards that write-off Venus
only to have venus make you choke on your words and
then you have to find some way shape or form to diminish
what she did and just how great it was.

Yet, what else is new! :)

If Venus should win the Australian Open I look
forward to see what you'll be saying though
I could already guess. ;)

Paneru
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:13 PM
She will not win another slam.

Oh, and it sounds as if some people have lowered their expectations a little when reaching one semifinal means "doing well". :o

Which is what you said before she won 05' Wimbledon
and many joined you after her horrific 05' RG. Then again,
that was just luck in beating four top 15 seeds. :cool:

Paneru
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:15 PM
Then again, I say keep the hatin' and bashin'
coming because it's fun to see people like some
here eat crow. Crow that V&S have been making many
in the tennis world eating since they came onto the tour. :D

LoveFifteen
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Haters can find a way to marginalize and dismiss every "era" in women's tennis.

"Steffi got big cuz Nav was getting burned out."

"Mon got big cuz Steffi had daddy problems."

"Steffi got big cuz Mon got stabbed."

"Hingis got big cuz Steffi got injured."

"The Williams got big cuz Hingis had a mental meltdown"

"Henin got big cuz the Williams got injured"

"Serena got big cuz she ate too many Big Macs."

etc etc etc

davidmario
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Venus' game however has degenerated into a hopeless state. She's done.

So that's why she beats Ivanovic in straight sets after not playing for 3 months:cuckoo:
That makes no sense.

Nicolás89
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.

Thoughts?

i agree with you in this:wavey:

and i love carrie underwood:hearts: :lol:

Nicolás89
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:38 PM
Haters can find a way to marginalize and dismiss every "era" in women's tennis.

"Steffi got big cuz Nav was getting burned out."

"Mon got big cuz Steffi had daddy problems."

"Steffi got big cuz Mon got stabbed."

"Hingis got big cuz Steffi got injured."

"The Williams got big cuz Hingis had a mental meltdown"

"Henin got big cuz the Williams got injured"

"Serena got big cuz she ate too many Big Macs."

etc etc etc

exactly :worship:

players can dominate just for one reason because they are better than everyone else:wavey:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:38 PM
Haters can find a way to marginalize and dismiss every "era" in women's tennis.

"Steffi got big cuz Nav was getting burned out."

"Mon got big cuz Steffi had daddy problems."

"Steffi got big cuz Mon got stabbed."

"Hingis got big cuz Steffi got injured."

"The Williams got big cuz Hingis had a mental meltdown"

"Henin got big cuz the Williams got injured"

"Serena got big cuz she ate too many Big Macs."

etc etc etc

only one of them is true :tape: :lol: :lol:

irma
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Serena must be very sad that she lost SamL as fan now she isn't winning :lol:

TeamUSA#1
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Surely hardly any of those were at the top of their game?


WHAT?!?!

Davenport Was ranked #1 and won many titles
Capriati Won 3 slams, reached the #1 ranking, and went far (SF/F) in every tournament she played

Seles went far (SF/F) in just about every tournament she played
Hingis was ranked #1 and won many, many titles
Mauresmo Won her share of titles and always got to the QFs/SFs of slams
Clijsters Reached 4 slam finals, won tons of tournaments, and reached #1
Henin Won 2 slams, won titles, and got to #1
plus Vee and Serena won 9 slams between the 2 of them, both were ranked #1, and won many titles

It that isn't players at the top of their game and a VERY, VERY strong top 10, then I dont know what is.... Plus the level of play during those years was so much better and consistent.

LH2HBH
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:12 PM
No I don't believe so. The Williams Sisters played against some of the best of all time and won.

The only people that weren't there yet were the Russians.

The Williams beat Steffi (albeit in her twilight)

The Williams beat Monica Seles #2

The Williams beat Martina Hingis.

The Williams beat Jennifer Capriati at her absolute peak!

The Williams beat Lindsay Davenport.

The Williams beat the Belgians.

All of these players rose again and had their times in the sun but believe me, the Williams beat them soundly! They dominated during a time when women's tennis was at a peak, in my opinion!

Please don't beat up the poster! It's a valid question even though I don't agree!

le bon vivant
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:39 PM
Another bipolar Sam L troll thread. :yawn:
Notice he doesnt even defend his position, just makes a thread he knows will start shit and then leave.
But when even GoDominique gives you the :weirdo:, :awww:.
Seek help Sam.

bandabou
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Hmmm....don't think so. It ain't like with the russians who only rose after the sisters were injured/ gone. The sisters were already beating everybody left and right. Serena specially was already beating Hingis, Davenport, Seles, even Graf...so it was just a matter of time. The Belgians and the russians were never really factors till the sisters got injured...

Vlover
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:50 PM
... [QUOTE]during a weak period in women's tennis?
What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.

You have a right to be a hater but not your own FACTS. Both sisters played the Wimbledon finals in '03 and fell to injuries that prevented both from playing the USO and that is what happen in '03. Since then both have not recovered 100% but still manage to win a major in '05 with your implied stonger field today.

Pleas go check the records of this very strong field that you are eluding to and the Williams Sisters. Also I think Maria was the one who suffered the double blow last year from both sisters.

Your agenda is very transparent and some of us are playing along because what else is there right now.:lol:

RenaSlam.
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:51 PM
Sam L, this post was stupid and unnecessary.

:worship: to an idiot.

hingis-seles
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:02 PM
In one word... NO.

During that time you had the following players at the tops of their games all competing

Davenport
Capriati
Seles
Hingis
Mauresmo
Clijsters
Henin
plus Vee and Serena

and in the next tier was
Myskina
Dementieva
Daniela
Rubin
Dokic

The top 10 during those years, especially from 2001-2003, was tons stronger than it is today. Today's game has suffered because of the increase in injuries and the top 10 is weaker because of it. The fact that Serena won 4 stright slams during that time was incredible.

That's really pushing it. Lindsay skipped the Australian Open, Roland Garros, and Wimbledon in 2002. She didn't win a singles title in 2002 and was choking matches all over the place (Schnyder in Zurich, for example). Hingis skipped Roland Garros and Wimbledon and then came back too soon, losing in the 4th Round of the US Open. She lost to Dokic in Montreal and Myskina in New Haven (Up 7-6, 4-1, Hingis lost the match 6-7, 6-4, 6-0). I'd hardly call that being on the top of their games. Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo were on the rise, but not quite there yet. Henin and Clijsters had terrible 2002 campaigns at the Slams, bar Justine's Wimbledon semi and Kim's AO semi. Jennifer fell apart after Roland Garros, losing to Mauresmo in the Wimbledon and US Open quarters. Seles started off 2002 strong, but injuries set in (losing to Stephanie Foretz in Charleston :help: and skipping the big clay warm-ups and the entire summer hardcourt season before the US Open, following a straight-set loss to Lisa Raymond in Stanford). Daniela Hantuchova was a consistent GS quarterfinalist! I'm not saying it was the weakest year ever, but 2002 doesn't exactly scream depth.

Not that it's Serena's problem. She was head and shoulders above everyone else and playing tennis at a phenomenal level.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:03 PM
WHAT?!?!

Davenport Was ranked #1 and won many titles
Capriati Won 3 slams, reached the #1 ranking, and went far (SF/F) in every tournament she played

Seles went far (SF/F) in just about every tournament she played
Hingis was ranked #1 and won many, many titles
Mauresmo Won her share of titles and always got to the QFs/SFs of slams
Clijsters Reached 4 slam finals, won tons of tournaments, and reached #1
Henin Won 2 slams, won titles, and got to #1
plus Vee and Serena won 9 slams between the 2 of them, both were ranked #1, and won many titles

It that isn't players at the top of their game and a VERY, VERY strong top 10, then I dont know what is.... Plus the level of play during those years was so much better and consistent.

Their DOMINATION didn't even start until early 2002, anyway.

Davenport came back half the player she used to be, and only showed her 2000/2001 level for a few weeks in 2004.
Capriati never reached the level she was at from Jan-July 2001. IMO.
Seles hadn't been a legit slam contender since 1998.
Hingis was shit.
Mauresmo still sucked.

The above weren't anywhere near their peak when domination started.

Anywho, LoveFiften's post pretty much sums up everything. :)

hingis-seles
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:06 PM
WHAT?!?!

Davenport Was ranked #1 and won many titles
Capriati Won 3 slams, reached the #1 ranking, and went far (SF/F) in every tournament she played

Seles went far (SF/F) in just about every tournament she played
Hingis was ranked #1 and won many, many titles
Mauresmo Won her share of titles and always got to the QFs/SFs of slams
Clijsters Reached 4 slam finals, won tons of tournaments, and reached #1
Henin Won 2 slams, won titles, and got to #1
plus Vee and Serena won 9 slams between the 2 of them, both were ranked #1, and won many titles

It that isn't players at the top of their game and a VERY, VERY strong top 10, then I dont know what is.... Plus the level of play during those years was so much better and consistent.

Hingis won Sydney, Doha, and Dubai in 2001. In 2002, she won Sydney and Tokyo. That's 5 titles in 2 years. Well, we'll make it 6 if you want to include Hopman Cup 2001.

treufreund
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:43 PM
sorry but this is yet another thread designed to spark feuds and bitterness.

Nobody can take away what the Sisters have accomplished nor deny what they have brought to this game. I am not saying that the creator of this thread had any malicious intent, but I don't see much good coming out of this type of thread.

jazzfuzion
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:44 PM
In one word... NO.

During that time you had the following players at the tops of their games all competing

Davenport
Capriati
Seles
Hingis
Mauresmo
Clijsters
Henin
plus Vee and Serena

and in the next tier was
Myskina
Dementieva
Daniela
Rubin
Dokic

The top 10 during those years, especially from 2001-2003, was tons stronger than it is today. Today's game has suffered because of the increase in injuries and the top 10 is weaker because of it. The fact that Serena won 4 stright slams during that time was incredible.

and i always felt that the turning point for serena was at the french open 2002,capriati was leading 6-3,6-5 and serena won eventually the match,and then of course the tournament and since then,never the same player again,just 45656th times better than everyone else..BUT.it doesn't seem to be the case these days.no problem for me anyway,never liked her,for obvious reasons ha

LH2HBH
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:47 PM
You might as well say that Justine Henin-Hardenne is only #1 in the world because Martina Navratilova's game dropped way down and she ended up retiring.

:rolleyes:

spencercarlos
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:00 PM
:scaratch: poor form getting to the semi's of a tier 1 and Quaters of a slam in only your 3rd and 4th event of the yr losing in 3 sets to the eventually winner of the tier 1 and even at Wimbledon Jankovic was inspired, look what she achieved after that and Vee still was close to beating her
:lol:
Hingis reached Quarterfinals on her first grand slam in 3 and half years, now you think its a big acomplisment that Venus reached Quarterfinals at Roland Garros 2006 :lol: with such a cakewalk draw for her? IMO

spencercarlos
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:04 PM
That's really pushing it. Lindsay skipped the Australian Open, Roland Garros, and Wimbledon in 2002. She didn't win a singles title in 2002 and was choking matches all over the place (Schnyder in Zurich, for example). Hingis skipped Roland Garros and Wimbledon and then came back too soon, losing in the 4th Round of the US Open. She lost to Dokic in Montreal and Myskina in New Haven (Up 7-6, 4-1, Hingis lost the match 6-7, 6-4, 6-0). I'd hardly call that being on the top of their games. Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo were on the rise, but not quite there yet. Henin and Clijsters had terrible 2002 campaigns at the Slams, bar Justine's Wimbledon semi and Kim's AO semi. Jennifer fell apart after Roland Garros, losing to Mauresmo in the Wimbledon and US Open quarters. Seles started off 2002 strong, but injuries set in (losing to Stephanie Foretz in Charleston :help: and skipping the big clay warm-ups and the entire summer hardcourt season before the US Open, following a straight-set loss to Lisa Raymond in Stanford). Daniela Hantuchova was a consistent GS quarterfinalist! I'm not saying it was the weakest year ever, but 2002 doesn't exactly scream depth.

Not that it's Serena's problem. She was head and shoulders above everyone else and playing tennis at a phenomenal level.
And Hingis 2001 after Doha or Dubai was pathetic all the way :help:
Lindsay got injured in the last event of 2001.

The Daviator
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Whatever you think about 2002/2003, women's tennis today is infinitely weaker than it was then...

Kim was playing amazing tennis in 2003, same with Justine once the clay season began, and V&S still reached the finals in 2/3 Slams they entered, Davenport wasn't playing great by any means those two years (won just a single title in those two years), but she was still dangerous, moreso than in 2006 :tape: and Capriati was pretty up-and-down, but again still dangerous, tennis was much better back then...

SJW
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:31 PM
They dominated in one of the strongest periods in history.
Which #1s does Serena have a losing record against? :)
99-03 was an amazing time for Women's tennis.
The quality got better and better...now it's getting worse and worse.

Joachim1978
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Hmmm, interesting question.

I don't really think there was a definitive Williams era. There was the period when Venus should have dominated after she broke through to win Wimbledon in 2000 - she should have really dominated and won everything up until the end of 2001 at that point, but she had a few awkward matches that affected her momentum badly. Serena's era was more definite - From RG 02-Wimbledon 03, the only real blip was her inability to defend at the French.

But I guess between the sisters, they pretty much owned the tour from 2000-2003, sure Jennfier Capriati, Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin had their moments, with Monica Seles, Amelie Mauresmo and Elena Dementieva consistently a step behind, but it was really up to Venus and Serena and how well they concentrated and how well their bodies held up to the immense strain of their power game.

I think it would be very difficult for either of them to reach the top 5 again. Although I do think they can be anyone on the tour when playing well, and probably will both win more slams - the consistency just isn't there anymore, even after a big win, injuries continue to delay their play and they are getting older...

I actually think it would have been easier for them (Venus especially) to have achieved more wins in 98 and 99. But now I guess we'll never know...

hingisGOAT
Nov 15th, 2006, 07:57 PM
serena: true prodigy, dominated everyone.

venus' reign, however, fell PERFECTLY in-between the fall of hingis & graf and the rise of serena, all three of whom are superior players. despite this glaring hole, venus never even managed to dominate a single season (only a three-month stretch in both 00 & 01).

sweetiepiedoll
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:34 PM
I want the Williams Sisters to dominate in 2007!!!:worship:

*Jool*
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:49 PM
I want the Williams Sisters to dominate in 2007!!!:worship:

I wouldn't mind that

Shonami Slam
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:59 PM
just to add that they peaked over the american peak of tennis, and declined with it.

Kart
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:03 PM
The off season has come around quickly this year :eek:.

dreamgoddess099
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:26 PM
Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Weren't there like four different slam winners in 99 and three different in 2000?


Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.Steffi wasn't dominating the tour by the end of her career and Serena had an even record against her anyway. Her remaining on tour wouldn't have stopped Serena from winning because young inexperienced Serena had already proven twice that she could beat her. Now as for Martina, she was still on tour and getting beat by Serena. Mental collapses, are no excuse because Serena had them too.

And then the sisters dominated until around 2003. What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.They got injured in 2003, that's what happened. Justine and Maria were both on tour in 2005, but that didn't stop Venus and Serena from both winning a slam. That's what happens when the sisters aren't injured, and still neither was at her best.

So I question, was that period from late 99 to early 03, a period of just over 3 years a weak period in women's tennis? That saw Steffi Graf leave physically and Martina Hingis leave mentally then physically, and before the arrival or Justine and Maria.
Thoughts?
By 1999, Steffi was losing to Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Venus and Serena anyway, so I don't see how her remaining on tour would have made a difference. Anyway, Hingis was still on tour winning slams and multiple titles, so I don't see how you figure she was leaving physically and mentally.:confused: Even if you remove Graf and Hingis, you still had Seles going deep into tournaments, Davenport, Mary, Kournikova was in the top ten, ect. Your arguement that it was a weak time in tennis doesn't stand. The tour was high in popularity then, Since 2003 the popularity has gone down and the men once again have the most buzz.

harloo
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:30 PM
Oh Sam stop the trolling. Nicole Kidman must be on hiatus or something because I see you are in rare form.:o

Vlover
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Oh Sam stop the trolling. Nicole Kidman must be on hiatus or something because I see you are in rare form.:o

Nicole is very busy tending to her husband's addiction and rehab.

dreamgoddess099
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:46 PM
She will not win another slam.
You sound like one of those sickos on that list. What, do you plan on killer her or something? That's the only way you could say for certain what she won't do.

Oh, and it sounds as if some people have lowered their expectations a little when reaching one semifinal means "doing well". :o
It's is when you've had an injury filled year that only allowed you to play five sporadic tournaments.

Shuji Shuriken
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:06 AM
Their domininance ended right around 2003, when they were both out for months with injuries. They just couldn't remain healthy enough to play any sort of tennis and regain their form. In my opinion, injuries crippled their dominance along with the rise of the up-and-coming players like Sharapova. Venus nor Serena were the same after their return from those injuries (re:2004).

Shuji Shuriken
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:11 AM
Weren't there like four different slam winners in 99 and three different in 2000?


Steffi wasn't dominating the tour by the end of her career and Serena had an even record against her anyway. Her remaining on tour wouldn't have stopped Serena from winning because young inexperienced Serena had already proven twice that she could beat her. Now as for Martina, she was still on tour and getting beat by Serena. Mental collapses, are no excuse because Serena had them too.

They got injured in 2003, that's what happened. Justine and Maria were both on tour in 2005, but that didn't stop Venus and Serena from both winning a slam. That's what happens when the sisters aren't injured, and still neither was at her best.


By 1999, Steffi was losing to Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Venus and Serena anyway, so I don't see how her remaining on tour would have made a difference. Anyway, Hingis was still on tour winning slams and multiple titles, so I don't see how you figure she was leaving physically and mentally.:confused: Even if you remove Graf and Hingis, you still had Seles going deep into tournaments, Davenport, Mary, Kournikova was in the top ten, ect. Your arguement that it was a weak time in tennis doesn't stand. The tour was high in popularity then, Since 2003 the popularity has gone down and the men once again have the most buzz.
Geez...I should have read this before I even bothered posting :worship: :wavey:

KBdoubleu
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:15 AM
worthless thread

GoDominique
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:30 AM
By 1999, Steffi was losing to Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Venus and Serena anyway.
Yeah but she was beating them too.

UDACHi
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:56 AM
I love how Justine "arrived" in 2003...she reached her peak when Serena had her knee surgery? ...please...she barely beat Serena on her best and Serena's worst surface (and we all know the history of that match) and then got killed by Serena a few weeks later at Wimbledon...Justine barely survived Capriati at the US Open ...Justine reached her "peak" b/c Serena and Venus got injured

you could also make a point that venus and serena reached their respective peaks before justine had started to play her best. ;)

the double standards are outrageous.

rjd1111
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:04 AM
... during a weak period in women's tennis?

I know what some of you are going to say: troll, hater, etc... save it! This is an honest question.

Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.

And then the sisters dominated until around 2003. What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.

So I question, was that period from late 99 to early 03, a period of just over 3 years a weak period in women's tennis? That saw Steffi Graf leave physically and Martina Hingis leave mentally then physically, and before the arrival or Justine and Maria.

Thoughts?


The Sisters were matching up well against Graf when she retired.
Hingis didn't collapse. She stayed highly ranked after 99. The Sisters just matured and caught up to her. It wasn't a weak era. Cappy won several Slams and Davenport was Playing. The quality of players was very high.

And Pul lease, Justine never arrived. She was playing then and getting her Butt whipped. After Vee & Ree met in the 03' Wimby final Serena
Had her knee surgury and was out for 8 months. Vee had the
Ab tear and was also out for months. It was at this time that Juicy
won the USO and AO. The mouse that played while the Cats were
Away. When Serena came back she was beating Juicy at the FO
and Juicy had to cheat to win. Justine is 1-7 against Venus and
she has never beaten Serena on anything but Clay.

As for Maria She still hasn't " Arrived " . She had one win at Wimby
,which she deserved, And went 2 years getting beat at all the Slams
She won the USO when all the players who were beating her in
those Slams were either injured or coming off of injury layoffs.
We saw what happened at the YEC when Justine had a few matches
under her belt.

serenafan08
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:05 AM
Beating the likes of Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis (until she left the game), Henin-Hardenne, and Mauresmo is not a sign of a weak field - at any point. They dominated at a point where they were physically and mentally stronger than everyone else. When the sisters got injured, the tour had the chance to improve and catch up to them, and that's exactly what happened. It doesn't diminish what Serena and Venus did at all - and you shouldn't try to either by starting this thread. :rolleyes:

rjd1111
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:10 AM
you can talk about this until your face turns purple since it's hypothetical, but i don't believe that injury-free Williams sisters would have dominated the tour in 2006. Especially Venus showed poor form even when healthy.


That poor form got her 5 GS, 6Gs Dbls, GS Mixed, Olympic Gold.
And it was just 2005 when that Bad form let her dominate Wimby.

rjd1111
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:20 AM
That was a fluke. Or, to put it more politely, an Ivanisevic-like dream run, helped by a favourable draw. :)

And, it was 18 months ago. Venus is even worse now.

Draw? Pratt, Craybas ( Who beat Serena ), Hantucova,
The much Bally-Hooed No2 Sharapova ( an old fashioned Whuppin )
and No1 Ranked Davenport.

hdfb
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:29 AM
To be fair, whenever you label the William Sisters as dominant, they are leagues above the rest, and hence the rest would seem weak.

Either way, you can only ever really dominate when the field is weak, unless you are a super great like Graf, which I am not ready to liken the Williams Sisters with just yet. (Or maybe at all at this rate)

pav
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:29 AM
I have to chuckle how any thread referring to the willys in a manner any less than blind worship is labelled a pointless (or worse thread) while the hunting season for other players runs year round. Imagine some of these buggers running a country, it would make Geo Dubbleya seem like little jack horner,could even put Koba in the shade!

V's a star
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:44 AM
serena: true prodigy, dominated everyone.

venus' reign, however, fell PERFECTLY in-between the fall of hingis & graf and the rise of serena, all three of whom are superior players. despite this glaring hole, venus never even managed to dominate a single season (only a three-month stretch in both 00 & 01).

^ forgot 36 match win streak

spencercarlos
Nov 16th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Yes cause an in form Sprem and Schnyder on clay is such a calkwalk draw :rolleyes: , now calkwalk draw would equal Hingis run at Aus, Benesova and Stosur 3rd and 4th round, plz think before you post in future
Whatever a 3 and half year retired Hingis should not be beating this top 100 players in her first GS tournament back and reaching the quarterfinals :lol:, Venus, the Queen of Wimbledon 2005 is expected to reach the quarterfinals of Roland Garros 2006, especially when she did not face any of the top contenders for the Roland Garros title.

spencercarlos
Nov 16th, 2006, 03:09 AM
As for this thread they did dominate because the took tennis to a completly different level, power, athleticism way ahead from other girls on the tour, and they became better players, strategy wise so that put them on top.

spencercarlos
Nov 16th, 2006, 03:12 AM
Beating the likes of Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis (until she left the game), Henin-Hardenne, and Mauresmo is not a sign of a weak field - at any point. They dominated at a point where they were physically and mentally stronger than everyone else. When the sisters got injured, the tour had the chance to improve and catch up to them, and that's exactly what happened. It doesn't diminish what Serena and Venus did at all - and you shouldn't try to either by starting this thread. :rolleyes:
To be honest the tour never catched Serena up, none of the top players today have reached that kind of peak. I think Serena 2002-2003 would be dominating the tour today with 2 slams at least.
Watch Serena lose to Amelie Mauresmo at the Usopen this year, and look for an old match from her peak 2002 year, and Serena is not even 50% of the player tecnically and phisically that she was then.

Parsley
Nov 16th, 2006, 03:44 AM
They both had an explosive career. Total domination followed by an early finish. I think they can still be top 10 players if they train hard etc but they can never be as ahletic as they were before and athletism is an important part of their games. Unlike what some people say they can't dominate again if they wanted to... Maybe Serena can win another slam sometime and although unlikely Venus may have another Wimbledon run in her but don't expect anything more from them.

Brooks.
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:28 AM
To be honest the tour never catched Serena up, none of the top players today have reached that kind of peak. I think Serena 2002-2003 would be dominating the tour today with 2 slams at least.
Watch Serena lose to Amelie Mauresmo at the Usopen this year, and look for an old match from her peak 2002 year, and Serena is not even 50% of the player tecnically and phisically that she was then.

:worship: ;)

WhatTheDeuce
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:38 AM
Okay, this thread is really dumb.

They dominated in the strongest period, not the weakest.

Lindsayfan32
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:14 AM
... during a weak period in women's tennis?

I know what some of you are going to say: troll, hater, etc... save it! This is an honest question.

Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.

And then the sisters dominated until around 2003. What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.

So I question, was that period from late 99 to early 03, a period of just over 3 years a weak period in women's tennis? That saw Steffi Graf leave physically and Martina Hingis leave mentally then physically, and before the arrival or Justine and Maria.

Thoughts?

You have a point but tennis is a cycle able sport and even though I'm not a big fan of the Williams sisters they were way too talented not to have a period of domination. But I think that time is now over they don't seem to have the motivation that had back then but if they wanted to put in the work they could get back to where they were if they wanted to.

brayster87
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:17 AM
You have a point but tennis is a cycle able sport and even though I'm not a big fan of the Williams sisters they were way too talented not to have a period of domination. But I think that time is now over they don't seem to have the motivation that had back then but if they wanted to put in the work they could get back to where they were if they wanted to.


:topic: for a second....Did you receive my email?

Marcus1979
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:38 AM
To be honest the tour never catched Serena up, none of the top players today have reached that kind of peak. I think Serena 2002-2003 would be dominating the tour today with 2 slams at least.
Watch Serena lose to Amelie Mauresmo at the Usopen this year, and look for an old match from her peak 2002 year, and Serena is not even 50% of the player tecnically and phisically that she was then.

Wimbledon 2002 and Roland Garros 2003 she dominated amelie for example

faboozadoo15
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:46 AM
of course they dominated-- during a hell of a strong period, as well. but that's come to pass, it seems. it's wasn't a lengthy domination, but it was a well-publicized and thorough domination.

Ntour
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:57 AM
Yes they did dominate, they killed their opponents. Serena only lost 5 times in 2002, that strikes out DOMINATION to me...

justine only lost 8 this year and nobody is screaming domination

Ntour
Nov 16th, 2006, 10:01 AM
why are we even discussing this they obviously dominated

but hey, where are they now?

the williams era is over, there are way too many good players around now
they wont ever dominate again

hdfb
Nov 16th, 2006, 10:08 AM
To be honest I think the WS can dominate again if they were playing at peak form, but possibly along with JHH. The field currently isn't that impressive in my eyes.

denisgiann
Nov 16th, 2006, 10:47 AM
Τhe answer to your question:Without a doubt the have dominated the sport for two or three years.Can they do it again? Of course not.Even in their best shape they cant own Maria,Justine,Kim,and all the top russian armada.They can be in the top ten win a slam maybe but not domination.This time there are a lot of hard hitting power babes around so domination right now is out of the question;) .

supergrunt
Nov 16th, 2006, 11:08 AM
Τhe answer to your question:Without a doubt the have dominated the sport for two or three years.Can they do it again? Of course not.Even in their best shape they cant own Maria,Justine,Kim,and all the top russian armada.They can be in the top ten win a slam maybe but not domination.This time there are a lot of hard hitting power babes around so domination right now is out of the question;) .

w/e :rolleyes: . True there are a lot of girls that can hit the felt of the ball but they a.) can't play for there lifes at net b.) move like sloths and c.) have nothingelse on their minds BUT hitting the ball hard,deep,and flat. I know some people think that V&S are just mindless ball bashers but hat certainly isn't the case. These "hard hitting babes" are really one dimensional :rolleyes: and Venus and Serena I am sure as you put "at their best level" can own these girls.

Andy T
Nov 16th, 2006, 11:56 AM
My opinion is that Serena Williams dominated but Venus didn't. Serena won 4 in a row and 5 out of 6 02-03 whereas Venus had two good summers. and Capriati matched her with two majors in 2001 anyway.

rjd1111
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:26 PM
My opinion is that Serena Williams dominated but Venus didn't. Serena won 4 in a row and 5 out of 6 02-03 whereas Venus had two good summers. and Capriati matched her with two majors in 2001 anyway.


Who did Serena play in most of those Finals. Venus was dominating
the rest of the tour except for Serena. They dominated.

winone23
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:25 PM
Who did Serena play in most of those Finals. Venus was dominating
the rest of the tour except for Serena. They dominated.

Extactly!!!!!!!

Venus dominated the tour. The only person that could consistently beat her was Serena. So Venus was dominated in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Venus was in 9 slam finals during this period that's pretty damn good.

winone23
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Also Venus defeated Capriati three times in a row in 2001. Capriati was not Venus' equal in 2001.

TeamUSA#1
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:41 PM
That's really pushing it. Lindsay skipped the Australian Open, Roland Garros, and Wimbledon in 2002. She didn't win a singles title in 2002 and was choking matches all over the place (Schnyder in Zurich, for example). Hingis skipped Roland Garros and Wimbledon and then came back too soon, losing in the 4th Round of the US Open. She lost to Dokic in Montreal and Myskina in New Haven (Up 7-6, 4-1, Hingis lost the match 6-7, 6-4, 6-0). I'd hardly call that being on the top of their games. Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo were on the rise, but not quite there yet. Henin and Clijsters had terrible 2002 campaigns at the Slams, bar Justine's Wimbledon semi and Kim's AO semi. Jennifer fell apart after Roland Garros, losing to Mauresmo in the Wimbledon and US Open quarters. Seles started off 2002 strong, but injuries set in (losing to Stephanie Foretz in Charleston :help: and skipping the big clay warm-ups and the entire summer hardcourt season before the US Open, following a straight-set loss to Lisa Raymond in Stanford). Daniela Hantuchova was a consistent GS quarterfinalist! I'm not saying it was the weakest year ever, but 2002 doesn't exactly scream depth.

Not that it's Serena's problem. She was head and shoulders above everyone else and playing tennis at a phenomenal level.

Totally Disagree about 2001-2003

Capriati won 3 slams, reache #1, reached 4 slams SFs, 3 slam QFs, and consistently reached the SF/F of just about every tournament she played

Hingis was in 2 slam finals, won 5 tournaments, was ranked #1 for awhile, and she did all that in less than 2 years since she retired before the end of 2002

Davenport finished #1 in 2001, won 8 tournaments, reached 6 finals in 2003 alone, and was out for 8 months with knee injury in 2002

Clijsters reached #1 in 2003, won 16 titles during that time, was in 3 slam finals, SF or better at 20 out of 21 Tour events in 2003 finished in the top 5 all three years

Henin won 13 tournaments, finished in the top 7 each year and #1 for 2003 and won 2 slams

Seles finished top 10 in 2001 and 2002 won 6 titles, Reached SF or better in first seven events of year in 2002

Mauresmo finished top 10 all 3 years, won 8 titles, out of 34 tournaments played in 02-03, reached QF or better 28 times

cartmancop
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:49 PM
I think the same argument is made about any player who dominates. There are always people who say that the field was weak @ the time. It's been said about Hingis, Henin, Mauresmo this year, and even some have said Graf... In my opinion, the years from 2000-2003 were some of the most competitive years in a while...Many players were capable of winning slams, they just were outplayed by Venus, Serena, JCap and later JHH. I don't think the same can be said now, This year it felt like there were really only three healthy players who had a legitimate shot at winning majors, and they did...

Marcus1979
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:19 AM
good time to bump ;)

Golovinjured.
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:29 AM
Dominikanation?

Ackms421
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:31 AM
Ooooh, this was during their lowest point, huh? Weren't they both outside the top hundred at this time?

Some of the comments in here about them being "done" are priceless. :tape:

Marcus1979
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:33 AM
yeah 2006 when Venus had won only 1 slam since 2001 at the time and Serena had won 1 since 2003

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:38 AM
good time to bump ;)
Why? The Williams era just got extended from 99-03 to 99-09. The whole premise of the original post is now gone. And it's pretty obvious it's not worth discussing anymore. :confused: I.e. No they didn't dominate during a weak era.

Sharapower
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:48 AM
A good question would be "is the current era weak"?

Marcus1979
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:53 AM
Why? The Williams era just got extended from 99-03 to 99-09. The whole premise of the original post is now gone. And it's pretty obvious it's not worth discussing anymore. :confused: I.e. No they didn't dominate during a weak era.

I meant the fact that so people were discounting them a few years ago.

Its just funny to read posts like those in these thread and reflect

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:04 AM
And they keep going and going. All those committed and dedicated players..where are they now? GONE!

It's those disrespectful, uncommitted, blah blah...sisters that are still around. Funny ain't it.

Junex
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:17 AM
I meant the fact that so people were discounting them a few years ago.

Its just funny to read posts like those in these thread and reflect

It just proves that ordinary people are not fortune tellers....
:devil:

Sharapower
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:18 AM
It just proves that ordinary people are not fortune tellers....
:devil:
ditto.

kiwifan
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:19 AM
Why? The Williams era just got extended from 99-03 to 99-09. The whole premise of the original post is now gone. And it's pretty obvious it's not worth discussing anymore. :confused: I.e. No they didn't dominate during a weak era.

You should do yourself a favor and put this statement in the first post so people won't think you belong in a mental health facility. :p

mchumchu
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:20 AM
I think the williams sisters played very well

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:52 PM
sam loser getting pwned left right and centre :rolls: and all the "they are done!!111!1!!!!1!11!" :rolls: serena :worship:

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:57 PM
sam loser getting pwned left right and centre :rolls:

How so? :confused: This thread was created before you even joined the board, maybe before you even became a tennis fan. Wouldn't be surprising consider your knowledge of tennis. :lol:

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:02 PM
You should do yourself a favor and put this statement in the first post so people won't think you belong in a mental health facility. :p
I don't think I need to change anything. There's a date on the post within the context it makes sense.

Being a fan doesn't mean you blindly follow, you have to ask questions.

I'm glad that Serena and Venus are extending their grand slam winning years. I want it to go on well into their 30s.

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:11 PM
Sam L just asked Williams fans to build a coffin without frills and then dug a deep hole on the ground to bury him alive.

Hope you survive this onslaught, brave man.

i know this is from two years ago but I wasn't here then so....:lol::lol::lol:

jade001
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:21 PM
A good question would be "is the current era weak"?

Yes she is, still waiting to see a girl destroying the field like Henin did to win US open in 2007, or Sharapoa at OZ, this is def. A weak period, we lost the 2 most consistent players in 2 months :sad::sad::sad:

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Yes she is, still waiting to see a girl destroying the field like Henin did to win US open in 2007, or Sharapoa at OZ, this is def. A weak period, we lost the 2 most consistent players in 2 months :sad::sad::sad:

isn't that kinda contradictory though? :confused: a player "destroying" a field doesn't somewhat = signs of a weak era? or it's more like "if Henin and Maria are dominating then for sure it's not a weak field" type of thing?
Venus has been "destroying" the Wimbledon field since 07(stopped at this years final though)so i guess she kept you happy for at least 2 years :shrug: .
if anything this just sounds more like a "if the player i like is winning then it's not a weak field ..."

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:34 PM
:lol: jade = pathetic attempt at a hater...bring something original or at least thoughtful, don't contradict yourself

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Yes she is, still waiting to see a girl destroying the field like Henin did to win US open in 2007, or Sharapoa at OZ, this is def. A weak period, we lost the 2 most consistent players in 2 months :sad::sad::sad:
I think the tables have turned. It's the 04-07 period that's now in question of having a weak field IF Serena and Venus can continue have All Williams finals in the next couple of years and collecting slams.

jade001
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:44 PM
isn't that kinda contradictory though? :confused: a player "destroying" a field doesn't somewhat = signs of a weak era?
Venus has been "destroying" the Wimbledon field since 07(stopped at this years final though)so i guess she kept you happy for at least 2 years :shrug: .
if anything this just sounds more like a "if the player i like is winning then it's not a weak field ..."

I think the way they won their slams show me that is wasn't a weak era. They were just too good.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:46 PM
isn't that kinda contradictory though? :confused: a player "destroying" a field doesn't somewhat = signs of a weak era? or it's more like "if Henin and Maria are dominating then for sure it's not a weak field" type of thing?
Venus has been "destroying" the Wimbledon field since 07(stopped at this years final though)so i guess she kept you happy for at least 2 years :shrug: .
if anything this just sounds more like a "if the player i like is winning then it's not a weak field ..."

Owned :lol: :worship:

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:47 PM
I think the way they won their slams show me that is wasn't a weak era. They were just too good.

same can be said about every single slam winner then, at the end of the day they won it because they were simply better or "too good" during that tournament :shrug:.

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:49 PM
I don't think I need to change anything. There's a date on the post within the context it makes sense.

Being a fan doesn't mean you blindly follow, you have to ask questions.

I'm glad that Serena and Venus are extending their grand slam winning years. I want it to go on well into their 30s.

good post.

jade001
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:52 PM
same can be said about every single slam winner then, at the end of the day they won it because they were simply better or "too good" during that tournament :shrug:

Well, for me there is winning and winning, there is no way you can compare how Sharapova, Venus and Henin won their last Slam and the others ones.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:03 PM
are you mashafaan :rolls:

but you are right..there is no comparison

the 3 finals masha won, she dominated her opponents
serena's sister dominated her opponents in her 7 slam wins
serena dominated her opponents in all her finals

jh otoh, got so much chokes from kim, then ana and 2 from kuzzy...the times she lost in the finals were players not choking: amelie and masha

have fun :lol:

Expat
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:03 PM
1999 - 2003 not at all
the current period is a very weak one

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:08 PM
Well, for me there is winning and winning, there is no way you can compare how Sharapova, Venus and Henin won their Slams and the others ones.
you were the one who went to say that this is a weak era (not saying i agree or disagree) but then you turned it around and pointed out 2 "demolitions" like as if that showed 2 strong eras :shrug:
if slam domination = strong eras then this era isn't weak no? :confused:

jade001
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:10 PM
are you mashafaan :rolls:

but you are right..there is no comparison

the 3 finals masha won, she dominated her opponents
serena's sister dominated her opponents in her 7 slam wins
serena dominated her opponents in all her finals

jh otoh, got so much chokes from kim, then ana and 2 from kuzzy...the times she lost in the finals were players not choking: amelie and masha

have fun :lol:

I'm a Heninfan but whatever, I didn't want to bring Serena down, it's just I think it's a weak era.

Kworb
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:12 PM
2002 was definitely a weak year aside from the sisters. Capriati was never that stellar, just a nice solid game, and she was the sisters' main challenge that year. Other than that there were Kim and Justine who had not yet reached their peak, an average Mauresmo, a fat Seles and players like Hantuchova and Dokic also in the top 10.

1999-2001 however were very strong years.

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:19 PM
will the criticism ever end?

you should be ashamed of yourself for starting this thread.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:27 PM
Neither Williams dominated in 1999 or early 2000, that was firmly the Davenport/Hingis era.


When they both dominated in 2002, that was a weak time with both Davenport and Hingis out of the question, and really only one main contender alongside them in Capriati. But that doesn't mean anything because they've shown time and time again they can beat anyone and everyone. It's not like they achieved all of their careers in the one year. The field got stronger in 2003 with Henin and Clijsters added to the mix. Venus had brief dominant periods in the summers of 2000 and 2001 where she was unstoppable, and that was an extremely strong period. Serena won the USO 99 taking out Seles, Davenport and Hingis. They both had remarkable slam runs in 2005, each taking out 1 and 2 Davenport/Sharapova on the way. Now going into the last couple of years they've each won multiple slams, and again by taking out the best players. Serena has been no.1 again.


They have been around for over 10 years beating over 10 years worth of elite players so it really doesn't mean anything that 2002 was a weaker time.

jade001
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:33 PM
you were the one who went to say that this is a weak era (not saying i agree or disagree) but then you turned it around and pointed out 2 "demolitions" like as if that showed 2 strong eras :shrug:
if slam domination = strong eras then this era isn't weak no? :confused:

Well, all I know this year doesn't belong to the strong era.

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:39 PM
2002 was definitely a weak year aside from the sisters. Capriati was never that stellar, just a nice solid game, and she was the sisters' main challenge that year. Other than that there were Kim and Justine who had not yet reached their peak, an average Mauresmo, a fat Seles and players like Hantuchova and Dokic also in the top 10.

1999-2001 however were very strong years.
most of the matches Capriati played against Serena went to tight 3 sets, their matches are quality matches, she just didn't win more slams because she had 2 players peaking during that time
Hingis was still around as well and even though Kim was not peak Kim she had a RG final the year before and mind you she won against Serena at the YEC.
Not only that but this is an era where we knew that despite the fact that the top players were crushing everybody in the first rounds (slams and none slams) we knew that we were going to have quality tennis played from 1/4Qf till the end of the tournament and it would be all decided on who plays better instead of who outchokes who.
i can't agree with 2002 being a weak year
Well, all I know this year doesn't belong to the strong era.
fair enough but the examples you gave just don't back you up AT ALL

Marcus1979
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:05 PM
2003 was a quality year at the start shame with the long term injuries both suffered after Wimbledon that year

I remember 2 brilliant SF at the Australian Open that year

Venus Vs Justine Henin
Serena Vs Kim Clijsters

I still remember that big match between Davenport and Justine at R16 when Davenport was on the comeback trail from injury

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:13 PM
Neither Williams dominated in 1999 or early 2000, that was firmly the Davenport/Hingis era.


When they both dominated in 2002, that was a weak time with both Davenport and Hingis out of the question, and really only one main contender alongside them in Capriati. But that doesn't mean anything because they've shown time and time again they can beat anyone and everyone. It's not like they achieved all of their careers in the one year. The field got stronger in 2003 with Henin and Clijsters added to the mix. Venus had brief dominant periods in the summers of 2000 and 2001 where she was unstoppable, and that was an extremely strong period. Serena won the USO 99 taking out Seles, Davenport and Hingis. They both had remarkable slam runs in 2005, each taking out 1 and 2 Davenport/Sharapova on the way. Now going into the last couple of years they've each won multiple slams, and again by taking out the best players. Serena has been no.1 again.


They have been around for over 10 years beating over 10 years worth of elite players so it really doesn't mean anything that 2002 was a weaker time.

:bs: you just backed up that bs with a way to save your ass....was there ever really a strong time in women's tennis then??? you cry down any ws fan whenever they use injury as an excuse but here you are doing the same thing...hypocrite :o

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:24 PM
:bs: you just backed up that bs with a way to save your ass....was there ever really a strong time in women's tennis then??? you cry down any ws fan whenever they use injury as an excuse but here you are doing the same thing...hypocrite :o

:haha:

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:24 PM
:bs: you just backed up that bs with a way to save your ass....was there ever really a strong time in women's tennis then??? you cry down any ws fan whenever they use injury as an excuse but here you are doing the same thing...hypocrite :o

What does that even mean, can you speak properly? Let's calm down here...how am I using injury as an excuse? Hingis was out of it, past it, no longer at her best in 2002, where did I say she was injured? Davenport simply didn't play for most of 2002. 2000, 2001 were much stronger years than 2002, I don't know how you could question that. But as I said before, it doesn't really matter.

mdterp01
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:33 PM
... during a weak period in women's tennis?

I know what some of you are going to say: troll, hater, etc... save it! This is an honest question.

Let's consider this. The so-called Williams era started in late 99 and 2000. Just before then Steffi Graf retired and Martina Hingis went into mental collapse on the court. Two players that could've dominated for the next few years. So that left a gap.

And then the sisters dominated until around 2003. What happened in 2003? Justine arrived and then Maria arrived in 2004. A double blow for the Williams era. And we're seeing the blows continue now and it can only get worse.So I question, was that period from late 99 to early 03, a period of just over 3 years a weak period in women's tennis? That saw Steffi Graf leave physically and Martina Hingis leave mentally then physically, and before the arrival or Justine and Maria.

Thoughts?

Yes...lets see what has happened. Justin Henin?? BURNED OUT AND RETIRED!!! Maria Sharapova??? Recovering from shoulder surgery and hasn't been a factor vs Venus or Serena in a few years now. Serena has won 3 of the past 4 grand slams. Venus continues to win Wimbledon. The blows are happening to the wrong people. Venus and Serena have outlived their detractors and doubters. :wavey:

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:39 PM
What does that even mean, can you speak properly? Let's calm down here...how am I using injury as an excuse? Hingis was out of it, past it, no longer at her best in 2002, where did I say she was injured? Davenport simply didn't play for most of 2002. 2000, 2001 were much stronger years than 2002, I don't know how you could question that. But as I said before, it doesn't really matter.

even though Hingis wasn't at her best she still managed to take Serena to 3 sets in Scottsdale. to me she just really lost it at some point and didn't care anymore.
00 and 01 were stronger but 02 wasn't weak by any means, imo that is (anyway just wanted to point that out :lol:)

Yes...lets see what has happened. Justin Henin?? BURNED OUT AND RETIRED!!! Maria Sharapova??? Recovering from shoulder surgery and hasn't been a factor vs Venus or Serena in a few years now. Serena has won 3 of the past 4 grand slams. Venus continues to win Wimbledon. The blows are happening to the wrong people. Venus and Serena have outlived their detractors and doubters. :wavey:

look at the date of the post :hug:

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:47 PM
2002 wasn't a weak year at all, not as strong as 2000 or 2001, I agree with Sphenx.

Don't forget Clijsters played some of her best tennis at the end of 2002 to win the YEC and collect some of the points that would make her number one the next year. She was the only person that year to beat Serena in straight sets, so one can hardly say she wasn't a factor or an elite player.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:11 PM
What does that even mean, can you speak properly? Let's calm down here...how am I using injury as an excuse? Hingis was out of it, past it, no longer at her best in 2002, where did I say she was injured? Davenport simply didn't play for most of 2002. 2000, 2001 were much stronger years than 2002, I don't know how you could question that. But as I said before, it doesn't really matter.


:lol: i am calm... i don't hype myself over the shit you and other detractors like to spew, but much in the same way you can find an excuse for 2002/2003 being weak i can find reasons why every year since has been weak...

2004 - serena just returning from injury
2005 - serena hardly played
2007 - came back from a year off
2008 - starting to finally find the form she once had

i guess 2004 - 2008 were weak years since the person who had dominated for the two years before was off the tour and not at her best :wavey: have fun


wait let me edit: EVERY year is/was weak!!

martina/chris declined and therefore graf had no competition
graf and seles' success was dependent on each other's problems
and it goes on...

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:18 PM
In 07 when Justine won 2 slams and all those tournaments, did she not face the same players that Venus and Serena are playing today? How is this era any different from the one Justine played in......Justine had to play and beat the same players that the Williams' are beating now. If this is a weak era then so was Justine.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:18 PM
2002 was definitely a weak year aside from the sisters. Capriati was never that stellar, just a nice solid game, and she was the sisters' main challenge that year. Other than that there were Kim and Justine who had not yet reached their peak, an average Mauresmo, a fat Seles and players like Hantuchova and Dokic also in the top 10.

1999-2001 however were very strong years.This is a bunch of baloney.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:23 PM
In 07 when Justine won 2 slams and all those tournaments, did she not face the same players that Venus and Serena are playing today? How is this era any different from the one Justine played in......Justine had to play and beat the same players that the Williams' are beating now. If this is a weak era then so was Justine.

justine was obviously some sort of SHIN - justine (anyone who plays street fighter would understand that terminology lol), that she beat peak everyone, but now those same players have returned to shit level and are making things easy for serena :worship: serena should send a post card to SHIN - justine for helping her win slams...because with justine on tour serena would have never won 11 slams :awww:

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:41 PM
2002 wasn't a weak year at all, not as strong as 2000 or 2001, I agree with Sphenx.

Don't forget Clijsters played some of her best tennis at the end of 2002 to win the YEC and collect some of the points that would make her number one the next year. She was the only person that year to beat Serena in straight sets, so one can hardly say she wasn't a factor or an elite player.

Agreed. I should have said "weaker" rather than "weak".

About Clijsters, certainly towards the end of the year she started her rise to no.1 but I wouldn't say she was a factor for the whole year.

:lol: i am calm... i don't hype myself over the shit you and other detractors like to spew, but much in the same way you can find an excuse for 2002/2003 being weak i can find reasons why every year since has been weak...

2004 - serena just returning from injury
2005 - serena hardly played
2007 - came back from a year off
2008 - starting to finally find the form she once had

i guess 2004 - 2008 were weak years since the person who had dominated for the two years before was off the tour and not at her best :wavey: have fun



You miss the point. Serena was still very much a factor and still played well between 2004-2007 and even without her there were plenty of others around. 2002, the Sisters + Capriati were really the only players at the top of their game which is why IMO it was one of the weaker years of this decade.

mdterp01
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:43 PM
even though Hingis wasn't at her best she still managed to take Serena to 3 sets in Scottsdale. to me she just really lost it at some point and didn't care anymore.
00 and 01 were stronger but 02 wasn't weak by any means, imo that is (anyway just wanted to point that out :lol:)



look at the date of the post :hug:

Right...2006. Justine was still playing and Maria hasn't been a factor against the WS since 2007. Maria and Justine were their great hopes to stop Serena and Venus from winning more slams. Now its Vika or any up and comer who looks like they have the potential to stop the egg flowing on the people's faces who said that Serena and Venus were done winning grand slams. Now its "weak era" foolishness because they need to stop the bleeding.

RenaSlam.
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:43 PM
Terrible thread. :tape:

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:44 PM
Agreed. I should have said "weaker" rather than "weak".

About Clijsters, certainly towards the end of the year she started her rise to no.1 but I wouldn't say she was a factor for the whole year.



You miss the point. Serena was still very much a factor and still played well between 2004-2007 and even without her there were plenty of others around. 2002, the Sisters + Capriati were really the only players at the top of their game which is why IMO it was one of the weaker years of this decade.Very seldomly did she play well.

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:53 PM
2002, the Sisters + Capriati were really the only players at the top of their game which is why IMO it was one of the weaker years of this decade.

Hmm not sure if I agree that it was one of the weaker years of the decade, probably one of the stronger ones.

Capriati and the Williams were the elite players but they were there all season long, and as we mentioned Clijsters joined them towards the end of the year and Henin was always looming as a potential upset-causer, Davenport was lurking towards the end of the season pushing Serena the most of anyone at the US Open and Hingis had a fantastic run until Miami, nearly winning her 6th Grand Slam.

There were lots of people in the mix but only the three consistently throughout the year.

2004 and onwards, the problem has been even with lots of people in the mix only one or two have been consistently 'elite' throughout the entire year. Which is why I would put 2002 as one of the stronger years of the decade, three multi-slam champions in the top three and going deep in tournaments for the entire year. The kind of stuff we could only dream of in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 etc. 2006 was a strong year with Mauresmo, Henin and Sharapova forming a 'Big Three' for the entire year.

Marcus1979
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:53 PM
in that period Serena won Miami, and the 2005 Australian Open can't remember many more so yeah 2004-2006 serena rarely played well. Altho the 2004 Miami was not exactly her at top of her game.

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:58 PM
In 07 when Justine won 2 slams and all those tournaments, did she not face the same players that Venus and Serena are playing today? How is this era any different from the one Justine played in......Justine had to play and beat the same players that the Williams' are beating now. If this is a weak era then so was Justine.


Duh. The reason why this year the competition is weaker is Justine herself. In 2007, Serena, Venus, Justin all played all (or most) of the big tournaments. And in case you missed it: since AO 2008 Justine hasn't played any big tourneys anymore at all :wavey:


Yes...lets see what has happened. Justin Henin?? BURNED OUT AND RETIRED!!! Maria Sharapova??? Recovering from shoulder surgery and hasn't been a factor vs Venus or Serena in a few years now. Serena has won 3 of the past 4 grand slams. Venus continues to win Wimbledon. The blows are happening to the wrong people. Venus and Serena have outlived their detractors and doubters. :wavey:


:confused::confused:

Marcus1979
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Duh. The reason why this year the competition is weaker is Justine herself. In 2007, Serena, Venus, Justin all played all (or most) of the big tournaments. And in case you missed it: since AO 2008 Justine hasn't played any big tourneys anymore at all :wavey:





:confused::confused:


Not Venus or Serena's fault that justine burned herself out at a relavily young age.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:08 PM
Not Venus or Serena's fault that justine burned herself out at a relavily young age.

:tape: the excuses all roll off :lol:

mdterp01
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Venus continues to win Wimbledon
:confused::confused:


Yeah...the OP title date was 2006. Venus won it in 2007 and 2008. No she didn't win it this year, but 2 out of the 3 years she won it, and lost the final this year to lil sis.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Duh. The reason why this year the competition is weaker is Justine herself. In 2007, Serena, Venus, Justin all played all (or most) of the big tournaments. And in case you missed it: since AO 2008 Justine hasn't played any big tourneys anymore at all :wavey:

So Justine carried the entire WTA on her shoulders.....no wonder she was burnt out.....You fail to see the issue......Justine played against the same players that Venus and Serena now have to play against......Isn't it hypocritical to now say that Justine won her tournaments with a strong field and when the Williams's play against the same opponents the field is weak.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:36 PM
its just a matter of taste...

my fave was winning so the field was strong but she's too good...
otoh my most hated player on tour is winning with the same field but that field is weak

V's a star
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:37 PM
LOL how do u say "what happend in 2003" and then go Justine and Maria came along but completely leave out that the sisters where out for 6-8 months during that time there sister was murdered. Thats the 1st sign of bs in this thread

starin
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:01 PM
its just a matter of taste...

my fave was winning so the field was strong but she's too good...
otoh my most hated player on tour is winning with the same field but that field is weak

yeah pretty much. basically if you like the WS then it's not weak if you do not then it's weak. just look at what posters are saying what and it becomes crystal clear about what's going on.

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Not Venus or Serena's fault that justine burned herself out at a relavily young age.


No one said it is their fault. It is no one's fault, just unfortunate that Justine lost her passion for tennis.


[/b]
So Justine carried the entire WTA on her shoulders.....no wonder she was burnt out.....You fail to see the issue......Justine played against the same players that Venus and Serena now have to play against......Isn't it hypocritical to now say that Justine won her tournaments with a strong field and when the Williams's play against the same opponents the field is weak.


That's not correct. You cannot play against and lose to yourself (well except for Serena maybe...). In 2007, Justine had to play against the (let's call them) "regular WTA players" plus Serena and Venus. Serena had to play against the "regular WTA players" plus Venus and Justine. Venus against the RWP's plus Serena and Justine.

In 2009, Serena only has to play against the RWP's plus Venus (her underling in Slam finals). The best player from 2004/5, 2006 and 2007, Justine, isn't in sight anymore. Not Serena's fault but it is stil different now.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:14 PM
That's not correct. You cannot play against and lose to yourself (well except for Serena maybe...). In 2007, Justine had to play against the (let's call them) "regular WTA players" plus Serena and Venus. Serena had to play against the "regular WTA players" plus Venus and Justine. Venus against the RWP's plus Serena and Justine.

In 2009, Serena only has to play against the RWP's plus Venus (her underling in Slam finals). The best player from 2004/5, 2006 and 2007, Justine, isn't in sight anymore. Not Serena's fault but it is stil different now.
In 2007 Justine had to play the Williams in 4 tournaments.....2 she won 2 she lost. The rest of the time she played against the regular WTA players. It seems to me that most of time she played against the regular WTA players.:shrug:

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:34 PM
In 2007 Justine had to play the Williams in 4 tournaments.....2 she won 2 she lost. The rest of the time she played against the regular WTA players. It seems to me that most of time she played against the regular WTA players.:shrug:


That's a nice way to put it and twist the facts. In 2007, Justine won 2 Slams. In both of them, she had to play at least one WS. All 3 matches she won.
Seems to me that Justine won the big tournaments in 2007 by beating the WS. Of course she also had to beat the reagular WTA players since 99% of the players are not named Williams.

Le Chat
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:24 PM
I just put the 2002 Ranking


1. Serena Williams USA 5596 (4 GS back then )
2. Venus Williams USA 4844 (4GS back then )
3. Jennifer Capriati USA 3520 (3 GS back then)
4. Justine Henin Bel 3133 ( FO semifinalist , Wimbledon finalist back then ..)
5. Amélie Mauresmo Fr 3068 (AO finalist , Wimbledon semifinalist back then...)
6. Kim Clijsters Bel 2838 (FO finalist )
7. Monica Seles USA 2796 (9 GS back then )
8. Daniela Hantuchova Slo 2640.75
9. Jelena Dokic You 2403
10. Martina Hingis Sui 2348 (5 GS back then )


If you guys keep on telling that 2002 was a "weak" period , when the truth is it was one of the strongest field WTA has never experienced ..then i dont what to do more to prevent you from being in denial ..:shrug:

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:27 PM
I just put the 2002 Ranking


1. Serena Williams USA 5596
2. Venus Williams USA 4844
3. Jennifer Capriati USA 3520
4. Justine Henin Bel 3133
5. Amélie Mauresmo Fr 3068
6. Kim Clijsters Bel 2838
7. Monica Seles USA 2796
8. Daniela Hantuchova Slo 2640.75
9. Jelena Dokic You 2403
10. Martina Hingis Sui 2348


If you guys keep on telling that 2002 was a "weak" period , when the truth is it was one of the strongest period WTA has never experienced ..then i dont what to do more to prevent you from being in denial ..:shrug:


With Hantuchova and Dokic being in the Top 10, with Davenport and Hingis out or slumping...it was not a totally horrible year but it was weaker then the years before.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:33 PM
That's a nice way to put it and twist the facts. In 2007, Justine won 2 Slams. In both of them, she had to play at least one WS. All 3 matches she won.
Seems to me that Justine won the big tournaments in 2007 by beating the WS. Of course she also had to beat the reagular WTA players since 99% of the players are not named Williams.
Just so you don't think I am picking stats, I agree with what you posted above........However, in 2007 Justine played 14 tournaments. She played a Williams in 4 of those tournaments. She also played a total of 67 matches. She played a Williams in 5 matches the entire year. So tell me How is it now strong era when Henin did most of her winnings against the regular WTA tour and played the Williams a total of 5 matches in a year. Like I said Justine won against the same regular WTA players that people are now saying suck.

Steffica Greles
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:34 PM
Poor analysis.

First of all, Hingis left the game because of the physical demands which the Williams sisters chiefly had forced her to undertake. The game they changed took its toll on her body - Davenport's too (who was out for the first half of 2002). So to say that the Williams dominated because Hingis and Davenport were out of the game is facile: they were out of the game largely because of the Williams sisters. Hingis, of course, ran away at the end of 2002, saying she physically couldn't compete. So there you go.

Secondly, Justine dominated in 2003 because the Williams sisters did not play during the second half of that year; Serena didn't play from Wimbledon 2003 to Miami 2004 - 9 months!

Le Chat
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:35 PM
OK MATT , you talk about Hantuchova and Dokic in the Ranking , who between these two players and julie Halard Decugis , Nathalie Tauziat or Barbara Schett deserve more to be in the Top 10 , i dont know i just ask ..?

WTA ranking 1999


1 Martina Hingis SUI 6,074 2 +1
2 Lindsay Davenport USA 4,841 1 -1
3 Venus Williams USA 4,378 5 +2
4 Serena Williams USA 3,021 20 +16
5 Mary Pierce FRA 2,658 7 +2
6 Monica Seles USA 2,310 6 =
7 Nathalie Tauziat FRA 2,213 10 +3
8 Barbara Schett AUT 2,188 23 +15
9 Julie Halard-Decugis FRA 1,977 22 +13
10 Amélie Mauresmo

Steffica Greles
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:35 PM
Just so you don't think I am picking stats, I agree with what you posted above........However, in 2007 Justine played 14 tournaments. She played a Williams in 4 of those tournaments. She also played a total of 67 matches. She played a Williams in 5 matches the entire year. So tell me How is it now strong era when Henin did most of her winnings against the regular WTA tour and played the Williams a total of 5 matches in a year. Like I said Justine won against the same regular WTA players that people are now saying suck.

If you knew your stats, you'd know that 4 or 5 times in a year is quite a lot.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:40 PM
If you knew your stats, you'd know that 4 or 5 times in a year is quite a lot.
:rolleyes: Still upset are we... My point is that in 14 tournament she meet the cream of the crop at 4. The rest were won against lesser players yet we still call it strong time in women's tennis.
BTW since 5 times is a lot ....How many times Did Justine play Kim and Lindsay in 2003?

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:47 PM
2002 was weaker than 00/01 no one can deny that.

This is a weak/transitional period right now. The young people that have been touted as slam winners aren't near their max level and the other slam winners outside of Serena/Venus are Maria Sharapova(not even top 50), Amelie Mauresmo(30 and been slumping for three years now), Kuznetsova(horrible player in big matches).

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:48 PM
OK MATT , you talk about Hantuchova and Dokic in the Ranking , who between these two players and julie Halard Decugis , Nathalie Tauziat or Barbara Schett deserve more to be in the Top 10 , i dont know i just ask ..?


They probably deserved it all more or less the same. 1999 was still a better year than 2002, though, by far IMO. In 1999 we not only had the players you just listed but we also had Steffi Graf's great comeback where she reached two Slam finals.

Le Chat
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Talking about arguing with people in denial ..

Ackms421
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Justine did get the best of the Williams' in 2007. What people seem to forget is that this was the ONLY year that she did so. Apart from 2007, Justine has never beaten a Williams off of clay (and they have both beaten her on clay to boot). One great year does not the better player make. And it is also accurate that her initial slams came while Serena and Venus were off of the tour. She was their pigeon at that point. If they were there and healthy, she would maybe have 3-4 slams now.

She was a better player than both of them in 2007 (though Serena did beat her once that year, which people also seem to forget...AND they both won a slam also) but in examining the rivalries in their totality, 2007 is an anomaly, not an indicative example. Henin was great on clay and average everywhere else-except for 2007. The 1-3 record in slam finals in 2006 is a great example to showcase her lack of finishing power on fast surfaces...2006 is a more indicative year of her abilities than 2007.

If she thought she could maintain the level she brought in 2007 over a long period of time (like Venus and Serena have done, albeit it off and on, for the past decade) she never would have retired.

Good also to note her last match against Serena, a 6-2 6-0 loss.

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:00 PM
2002 was weaker than 00/01 no one can deny that.

This is a weak/transitional period right now. The young people that have been touted as slam winners aren't near their max level and the other slam winners outside of Serena/Venus are Maria Sharapova(not even top 50), Amelie Mauresmo(30 and been slumping for three years now), Kuznetsova(horrible player in big matches).
2002 wasn't, there was only a years difference, it's just that thwe WS took their play to a different level that year, Well Serena did, Venus admittedly took the smallest step back, but I agree with the last paragraph. The WS are older now, they're not as consistent yet they're still better than everyone on their favourite surfaces and will continue to sweep up until the next contender comes up. The funny thing is, I don't think it's Azarenka. Mladenovic?

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:20 PM
Justine did get the best of the Williams' in 2007. What people seem to forget is that this was the ONLY year that she did so. Apart from 2007, Justine has never beaten a Williams off of clay (and they have both beaten her on clay to boot). One great year does not the better player make. And it is also accurate that her initial slams came while Serena and Venus were off of the tour. She was their pigeon at that point. If they were there and healthy, she would maybe have 3-4 slams now.

She was a better player than both of them in 2007 (though Serena did beat her once that year, which people also seem to forget...AND they both won a slam also) but in examining the rivalries in their totality, 2007 is an anomaly, not an indicative example. Henin was great on clay and average everywhere else-except for 2007. The 1-3 record in slam finals in 2006 is a great example to showcase her lack of finishing power on fast surfaces...2006 is a more indicative year of her abilities than 2007.

If she thought she could maintain the level she brought in 2007 over a long period of time (like Venus and Serena have done, albeit it off and on, for the past decade) she never would have retired.

Good also to note her last match against Serena, a 6-2 6-0 loss.


Deluded crap.

As for Justine's "initial Slams when Serena and Venus were off the tour"...err...both Serena and Venus did play the RG 2003. And Venus also played AO 2004, and that tournament was not played clay but on hardcourt where Justine according to you was just "average" :lol:

"Average" Justine on hardcourt has won more hardcourt Slams than mediocre Venus :lol: :wavey:

Ackms421
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:47 PM
Deluded crap.

As for Justine's "initial Slams when Serena and Venus were off the tour"...err...both Serena and Venus did play the RG 2003. And Venus also played AO 2004, and that tournament was not played clay but on hardcourt where Justine according to you was just "average" :lol:

"Average" Justine on hardcourt has won more hardcourt Slams than mediocre Venus :lol: :wavey:

I don't doubt that she was the better clay player, so your mention of RG 2003 is irrelevant. But, if she was so great she would've beaten them on all surfaces for more than a single year, which she didn't.

She also has a piss poor record against Venus, and prior to 2007 had a piss poor record against Serena.

Her achievements are certainly more comparable to Venus' than to Serena's though. You are right about that. I mean, she's not fit to tie Serena's shoes.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:10 PM
it's amazing matt :lol: he choses when he wants to include 2004/05 if it makes it look good for jh, but then exclude it due to some "life threatening illness" when i say that that she had 04-08 to equal or pass serena in slams but couldn't :rolls:

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:28 PM
I don't doubt that she was the better clay player, so your mention of RG 2003 is irrelevant. But, if she was so great she would've beaten them on all surfaces for more than a single year, which she didn't.

She also has a piss poor record against Venus, and prior to 2007 had a piss poor record against Serena.

Her achievements are certainly more comparable to Venus' than to Serena's though. You are right about that. I mean, she's not fit to tie Serena's shoes.


And why does she have such a poor record against Venus? Because Venus wasn't even good enough from 2003-2006 to make it far enough in the tournaments to even get to play Justine. See AO 2004 or Wimbledon 2006 as examples. When Justine started to come into her own in in the middle if 2003, Venus and Justine played only once, (and not on clay I might add) and look who won in straight sets? :wavey:

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:30 PM
it's amazing matt :lol: he choses when he wants to include 2004/05 if it makes it look good for jh, but then exclude it due to some "life threatening illness" when i say that that she had 04-08 to equal or pass serena in slams but couldn't :rolls:


Your posts makes no sense. Do you have a point?

V's a star
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:39 PM
And why does she have such a poor record against Venus? Because Venus wasn't even good enough from 2003-2006 to make it far enough in the tournaments to even get to play Justine. See AO 2004 or Wimbledon 2006 as examples. When Justine started to come into her own in in the middle if 2003, Venus and Justine played only once, (and not on clay I might add) and look who won in straight sets? :wavey:

??? U jus like to conveniently forget things dont u :lol: jus leave out that Venus was out for probably a year and a half during that time and Justine had her own problems herself. What are the facts Matt?? the facts are Justine won there first and last matches, while Venus won all 7 in between cant deny that becuase they wernt in the years ud like them to be, jus like u try to basically deny Wimbledon as a GS because its played on grass :weirdo:

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:44 PM
??? U jus like to conveniently forget things dont u :lol: jus leave out that Venus was out for probably a year and a half during that time and Justine had her own problems herself. What are the facts Matt?? the facts are Justine won there first and last matches, while Venus won all 7 in between cant deny that becuase they wernt in the years ud like them to be, jus like u try to basically deny Wimbledon as a GS because its played on grass :weirdo:


LOL...I only tried to explain why the H2H so loopsided and twisted in Venus' favour.

And I only said that Wimbledon is played on an ancient surface...probably even you can't deny it. But the tournament itself is (still) as important and relevant as all the other Slams. (Especially now that Venus can't even win there anymore ;) :lol:)

Ackms421
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:54 PM
And why does she have such a poor record against Venus? Because Venus wasn't even good enough from 2003-2006 to make it far enough in the tournaments to even get to play Justine. See AO 2004 or Wimbledon 2006 as examples. When Justine started to come into her own in in the middle if 2003, Venus and Justine played only once, (and not on clay I might add) and look who won in straight sets? :wavey:

She "came into her own" conveniently just as the Williams sisters left the tour with injury. And yes, she was certainly a better player than Venus in 2007-that ONE year-which is when she got her lone victory off of clay...which improved her record to an astounding 2-7.

Yep, she's great alright.

V's a star
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:56 PM
LOL...I only tried to explain why the H2H so loopsided and twisted in Venus' favour.

And I only said that Wimbledon is played on an ancient surface...probably even you can't deny it. But the tournament itself is (still) as important and relevant as all the other Slams. (Especially now that Venus can't even win there anymore ;) :lol:)

ooow that be a gd one honey if we were back in 2004. But unfortunately Venus made it to the final again being the 2 time defending champ never losing more then 4 games in a set :rolleyes:

I dont see how its twisted Venus won 7 straight matches fair and square thats the facts. Now what u try and twist is because JH won there last match and only 2nd win over Venus, that Justine did or was going to dominate her........Is that really what ur trying to say? still dont get it

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:01 AM
She "came into her own" conveniently just as the Williams sisters left the tour with injury.


The WS were both injured at Charleston and RG 2003? I must have missed that :lol:

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:12 AM
I dont see how its twisted Venus won 7 straight matches fair and square thats the facts. Now what u try and twist is because JH won there last match and only 2nd win over Venus, that Justine did or was going to dominate her........Is that really what ur trying to say? still dont get it


:rolleyes: Venus won her first Slam in 2000. Justine won her first Slam in 2003. All but the last match of all the matches between Venus and Justine happened between 2001 and the beginning of 2003. Between 2003 and 2007 Justine won 7 Slams on 3 different surfaces, Venus won nothing off grass. Seriously, it is not that hard to see why the H2H is twisted :rolleyes:

Ackms421
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:16 AM
The WS were both injured at Charleston and RG 2003? I must have missed that :lol:

Dude, who are you arguing with? You are talking about clay. We all agree she could better them on clay...But victories off of clay against the Williams' are still confined to ONE-SINGLE-YEAR.

You can't get around that...And she won the USO in 2003 ONLY because they weren't there. You know when she, ahem, "came into her own."

V's a star
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:20 AM
:rolleyes: Venus won her first Slam in 2000. Justine won her first Slam in 2003. All but the last match of all the matches between Venus and Justine happened between 2001 and the beginning of 2003. Between 2003 and 2007 Justine won 7 Slams on 3 different surfaces, Venus won nothing off grass. Seriously, it is not that hard to see why the H2H is twisted :rolleyes:

Nothings twisted here accept 4 u. h2h's are what they are. Again are u really trying to say that Justine did or was going to dominate Venus in ur imaginary matches, because she won there last match against eachother and only 2nd carreer win???

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Dude, who are you arguing with? You are talking about clay. We all agree she could better them on clay...But victories off of clay against the Williams' are still confined to ONE-SINGLE-YEAR.

You can't get around that...And she won the USO in 2003 ONLY because they weren't there. You know when she, ahem, "came into her own."


Justine won the US Open 2003 because she was the best player and because she played amazing tennis. And I don't care that she beat the WS off clay "only" in 2007. How often did Justine play the WS off clay since her first Slam win? Except for in 2007, she played Serena twice and Venus zero times. These two matches are hardly the deciding ones, either.

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Nothings twisted here accept 4 u. h2h's are what they are. Again are u really trying to say that Justine did or was going to dominate Venus in ur imaginary matches, because she won there last match against eachother and only 2nd carreer win???


OK, this is my last to a poor Venus fan like you:

No, I'm not saying that Justine would have dominated Venus in all possible meetings from 2003-2007. But I think it is safe to say that the H2H between them would not have been as loopsided had they met more often between 2003 and 2007 instead of 2001-2003.

goldenboi356
Jul 11th, 2009, 01:15 AM
They are dominating right now it seems... however, it is pertinent to say that they are elders against the current inexperienced field. So i would say now is their weakest period of dominance in terms of the quality of their opponents.

Sharapower
Jul 11th, 2009, 01:47 AM
The WS were both injured at Charleston and RG 2003? I must have missed that :lol:

The WS are ALWAYS injured when they lose.
When shall thou learn, unworthy fan of a tennis midget?

starin
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:03 AM
The WS are ALWAYS injured when they lose.
When shall thou learn, unworthy fan of a tennis midget?

kinda like Sharapova :tape::help:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:23 AM
The WS are ALWAYS injured when they lose.
When shall thou learn, unworthy fan of a tennis midget?

kinda like you and others always claim maria's only healthy matches against serena were in 04...conveniently :lol:

Marcus1979
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:23 AM
Deluded crap.

As for Justine's "initial Slams when Serena and Venus were off the tour"...err...both Serena and Venus did play the RG 2003. And Venus also played AO 2004, and that tournament was not played clay but on hardcourt where Justine according to you was just "average" :lol:

"Average" Justine on hardcourt has won more hardcourt Slams than mediocre Venus :lol: :wavey:


Love how u conveniently forget gamesmanship on Justines part in the SF against serena with the now fabled hand incident.

We all know Venus never should of played RG that year as she had that abdominal strain.

Sharapower
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:37 AM
kinda like Sharapova :tape::help:

That overhyped average-looking barbie? No, she sucks, she's totally untalented. That cold-hearted baby-eating bitch only beats injured players (and I think she uses witchcraft to win, not mentioning the WTA rigs the draws to make her win).

rjd1111
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:15 AM
it's a fair question to ask, but i think the what the Williams did was force the other players to lift their games and psyches to try and catch them. I think actually 2002-03 was a very strong period, when the Williams were playing at top level and the rest of the tour was fighting to catch them.

I think history has shown that the Williams were playing at a very high level above the rest of the tour for about 3 years, which ultimately it was not possible for them to maintain (for various reasons). Now they have been clearly passed not only by the top players, but by the second tier players as well, like a horse fading on the home stretch.


Just where are all of these players who have

passed them by...I guess they don't play Wimbledon.

rjd1111
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:24 AM
Τhe answer to your question:Without a doubt the have dominated the sport for two or three years.Can they do it again? Of course not.Even in their best shape they cant own Maria,Justine,Kim,and all the top russian armada.They can be in the top ten win a slam maybe but not domination.This time there are a lot of hard hitting power babes around so domination right now is out of the question;) .

This stuff is quite funny! But I guess not to the poster!

Pureracket
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:27 AM
The WS are ALWAYS injured when they lose.
When shall thou learn, unworthy fan of a tennis midget?Kinda like a three year shoulder injury, eh?

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:36 AM
Kinda like a three year shoulder injury, eh?

*DEAD* :haha:

~CANUCK~
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:20 AM
Once again a thread turns into a who can bash an opposing players fan base more instead of actually discussing the topic at hand. Maybe one day we will all get along and stop throwing insults to make ourselves feel better.