PDA

View Full Version : Justine Henin- Becoming "The greatest of them all"?


QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:22 PM
I used to hate Justine Henin until her results really struck me and say "I'm the best female tennis player in the world.

If you look at her physique, Its realy hard to imagine she will dominate everyone but that is what really happening in WTA right now. In every tournament she enters its very safe and bankable to put your money she will win the whole thing. And to much extent, You can still bet her to bag everything even with the players who used to own her are in the field.

There are few players I can think of who can stop her, buts easier to say than done.

1. Serena Williams- I think it happens to top players to lose your confidence onced you lose everytime you meet. I wonder when she will bounced back.
2. Lindsay Davenport- She always had the chance to beat her but always come's short.
3. Venus Williams- This is a question mark, but how can you think Venus will win if she can't win tier 3's and Justine is winning tier 1's and 2's.
4. Amelie Mauresmo- Will she ever be consistent?

Justine has 7 slams and I'm afraid she is just in mid part of her career.

treufreund
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Nice thread! But why be afraid that she is only in the middle of her career? ;)

Conor
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:28 PM
She is rather fabulous isnt she...

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:34 PM
Nice thread! But why be afraid that she is only in the middle of her career? ;)

Let's just say, I'm not really a fan of her and I'm afraid it will take longer for someone to stop her. Her 7 slams count will continue and its not really my liking. But Do I have a choice? NO!

Also, I might be afraid of more threads comming up in 2008 saying, who's the best of her generation.

taddict
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:35 PM
She is rather fabulous isnt she...

Without a shadow of a doubt ..... :drool: :lick: :bounce:

:worship: :worship: :worship:

micah63
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:38 PM
I used to hate Justine Henin until her results really struck me and say "I'm the best female tennis player in the world.

If you look at her physique, Its realy hard to imagine she will dominate everyone but that is what really happening in WTA right now. In every tournament she enters its very safe and bankable to put your money she will win the whole thing. And to much extent, You can still bet her to bag everything even with the players who used to own her are in the field.

There are few players I can think of who can stop her, buts easier to say than done.

1. Serena Williams- I think it happens to top players to lose your confidence onced you lose everytime you meet. I wonder when she will bounced back.
2. Lindsay Davenport- She always had the chance to beat her but always come's short.
3. Venus Williams- This is a question mark, but how can you think Venus will win if she can't win tier 3's and Justine is winning tier 1's and 2's.
4. Amelie Mauresmo- Will she ever be consistent?

Justine has 7 slams and I'm afraid she is just in mid part of her career.

:confused:
Serena, Venus and Amelie each have won slams in the last 18 months.
Lindsay hasn't won a slam in the last 92 months ....

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:39 PM
:confused:
Serena, Venus and Amelie each have won slams in the last 18 months.
Lindsay hasn't won a slam in the last 92 months ....


What is your point?

cecilija
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Let's just say, I'm not really a fan of her and I'm afraid it will take longer for someone to stop her. Her 7 slams count will continue and its not really my liking. But Do I have a choice? NO!

Also, I might be afraid of more threads comming up in 2008 saying, who's the best of her generation.

It is not as if she won 7 slams in two years, is it? From 2004 till this year she had 'only' been winning one slam per year. That's not the record of someone who could be the greatest of them all.

In other words, you are exaggerating way too much. :tape:

pigam
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:42 PM
well, she is really good. However, plenty of players can beat her. And she knows/realises it. That's why she is/stays good. That's why I admire her.

We'll see. Tennis is tennis, and also she can slump. ATM, she's doing great, but wait untill she doesn't get to the finals, and people will be calling her "only a claycourter" all over again ;)

She'll just be one of these players who'll have to prove herself day in day out. Again, we'll see. Plenty of players can beat her, but she can beat plenty of players ... (wasn't that philosophical :unsure: :bolt: )

micah63
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:44 PM
What is your point?


Lindsay is no danger anymore.
Hopefully she can make top 20 again.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:45 PM
It is not as if she won 7 slams in two years, is it? From 2004 till this year she had 'only' been winning one slam per year. That's not the record of someone who could be the greatest of them all.

In other words, you are exaggerating way too much. :tape:

I might be exagerating but not too much. But I put question mark as the greatest of them all isnt' it?

Well lets see, if you dis-agree, Who do you think can stop her from YEC, AO and RG - The next 3 majors titles.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:48 PM
Lindsay is no danger anymore.
Hopefully she can make top 20 again.

If you really believed she can't do any damage anymore, its your choice.

But I for one, will put her on top players of my list than can beat Henin on a good day in a major tournament but its easier than done as I have said.

taddict
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:49 PM
All it takes is a "bad day at the office" as they say and anyone can beat her. I personally think Venus, Serena and Ana I will trouble her at the YEC :scared:. I hope not, but they certainly can. If Sveta plays anything like she played against Serena when she beat her, then she can trouble her as well :unsure:

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:52 PM
well, she is really good. However, plenty of players can beat her. And she knows/realises it. That's why she is/stays good. That's why I admire her.

We'll see. Tennis is tennis, and also she can slump. ATM, she's doing great, but wait untill she doesn't get to the finals, and people will be calling her "only a claycourter" all over again ;)

She'll just be one of these players who'll have to prove herself day in day out. Again, we'll see. Plenty of players can beat her, but she can beat plenty of players ... (wasn't that philosophical :unsure: :bolt: )

I used to be one of those tennis fans who can't admit she is dominating.
Its definitely un-imaginable to see her dominant over power hitters but Justine's work ethics is very admirable. Her capabilities are limitless. her results speaks volumes.

bandabou
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:53 PM
a Lindsay-fan adoring Justine...hmmm...well, well..

j-fan
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:54 PM
A good question. My crystal ball says the answer is obvious. But, although I agree with my crystal ball, I will have to wait for another two to three years to let you know.

:angel: :angel: :angel:

taddict
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Plenty of players can beat her, but she can beat plenty of players ... (wasn't that philosophical :unsure: :bolt: )

I thought it was more .......... profound than philosophical :lol:

shap_half
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I love Justine and I always want to think only the best can come from her, but I do think a lot can stop her. Not just opponents, but also her health. She seems to get little bugs here and there; little aches and there; little soreness, etc. And I think that confidence and pressure can be issues for her, but hopefully winning against both Serena and Venus at the USO will help in that department.

Right now she's playing well. I hope it continues. I do believe that game wise she is quite capable of dominating no matter who's around because she's always challenging to elevate her game.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:57 PM
All it takes is a "bad day at the office" as they say and anyone can beat her. I personally think Venus, Serena and Ana I will trouble her at the YEC :scared:. I hope not, but they certainly can. If Sveta plays anything like she played against Serena when she beat her, then she can trouble her as well :unsure:

Unless Serena wins YEC, there's no threat at the top. I said threat and not even a contention. If other than Serena wins it, Its just one of those tournaments. If Justine wins it, I have no doubt she is the best.

YEC is just between Justine and Serena, others winning wont give any importance at all.

Jenin fan
Oct 15th, 2007, 09:59 PM
I used to hate Justine Henin until her results really struck me and say "I'm the best female tennis player in the world.

If you look at her physique, Its realy hard to imagine she will dominate everyone but that is what really happening in WTA right now. In every tournament she enters its very safe and bankable to put your money she will win the whole thing. And to much extent, You can still bet her to bag everything even with the players who used to own her are in the field.

There are few players I can think of who can stop her, buts easier to say than done.

1. Serena Williams- I think it happens to top players to lose your confidence onced you lose everytime you meet. I wonder when she will bounced back.
2. Lindsay Davenport- She always had the chance to beat her but always come's short.
3. Venus Williams- This is a question mark, but how can you think Venus will win if she can't win tier 3's and Justine is winning tier 1's and 2's.
4. Amelie Mauresmo- Will she ever be consistent?

Justine has 7 slams and I'm afraid she is just in mid part of her career.

I would list Venus above Lindsay, because Venus has a pretty big lead in the h2h. Also, I agree with you about how she is pretty much a favorite to win a tournament, unless it is Wimbledon. Hopefully she can get a win there soon!:)

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 10:01 PM
I would list Venus above Lindsay, because Venus has a pretty big lead in the h2h. Also, I agree with you about how she is pretty much a favorite to win a tournament, unless it is Wimbledon. Hopefully she can get a win there soon!:)


they are not in any order.

supergrunt
Oct 15th, 2007, 10:01 PM
Well just the fact that you are asking that says no. When Serena dominated it was undisputed that she was teh best. No one is questioning Federer's domination now. With Justine its like "Is she dominating?" or "Is she the best?"

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 10:04 PM
Well just the fact that you are asking that says no. When Serena dominated it was undisputed that she was teh best. No one is questioning Federer's domination now. With Justine its like "Is she dominating?" or "Is she the best?"

I'm not questioning her domination of 2007. She clearly is the best of 2007.

The one is question mark is " Is Justine becoming the greatest of them all?" if she continues at this rate? She is just one slam behind Serena and I dont see anyone clearly stopping her.

taddict
Oct 15th, 2007, 10:05 PM
Well just the fact that you are asking that says no. When Serena dominated it was undisputed that she was teh best. No one is questioning Federer's domination now. With Justine its like "Is she dominating?" or "Is she the best?"

Where does it say anything about domination? :confused:

Serena-rules-no1
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:09 PM
greatest without winning Wimbledon??

go take some tennis history lessons

The Daviator
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:14 PM
Lindsay is no danger anymore.
Hopefully she can make top 10 again.

Maybe not to Justine, but she is a danger :p And I edited your post to be a little more accurate ;)

LindsayRulz
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:23 PM
She is rather fabulous isnt she...

So humble.

Lindsay is no danger anymore.
Hopefully she can make top 20 again.

I'm pretty sure Lindsay could beat Justine on grass. But you can still think she's no more danger :p

a Lindsay-fan adoring Justine...hmmm...well, well..

uh? :confused:

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:29 PM
a Lindsay-fan adoring Justine...hmmm...well, well..

Well, I guess I'm one of those people who can aplaud my opponent.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:35 PM
Changed the title to something more clearer cuz people dont recognize the question mark.

terjw
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:42 PM
Well it seems like she is getting better. 2007 is the first time I think she's really dominated. To all intents and purposes she's been #1 the whole year. Yeah I know Maria was #1 at the beginning for a few weeks. But ....

However, in the strictest sense of the word - I don't really call any player in the women's game truly great since Graf. We haven't had a Sampras or Federer equivalent. If Justine keeps this 2007 standard up for a few years - then OK she might get up with them. But I don't think that will happen. It's far easier said than done. She's definitely beatable. And I just think it will all get closer in 2008.

iWill
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:47 PM
It is not as if she won 7 slams in two years, is it? From 2004 till this year she had 'only' been winning one slam per year. That's not the record of someone who could be the greatest of them all.

In other words, you are exaggerating way too much. :tape:

Well she has to start the streak some where......

I'll be honest I am not a fan of Justine however I can't help but admire and respect all the things she does on the court. She does so much while working with soo little (mostly her physique)

I do however feel that she may only be half way done as far as her career but this is her prime I don't see her getting too much better than she is right now because she already does everything well.

Obviously if anyone can stop her the first choice would be Serena. Very closely behind Venus but honestly I don't know if they are going to put in all the work to do it consistently. They may take her out on faster surfaces when they are match tough and playing well but I still feel like Justine is unstoppable on clay and when people look back on her career that is what will be so remarkable about her, that she consistently competed for and won prolly the hardest GS to win as far as surface goes

Currently shes the best in the world but Serena holding all 4 slams at the same time will still IMO make her greater especially since Justine hasn't even won wimbledon yet.... (shes gonna win it eventually) even when she does win wimbledon she'd have to win 4 in a row for me to put her ahead of Serena (if they stay this close)

Denise4925
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:47 PM
I used to hate Justine Henin until her results really struck me and say "I'm the best female tennis player in the world.

If you look at her physique, Its realy hard to imagine she will dominate everyone but that is what really happening in WTA right now. In every tournament she enters its very safe and bankable to put your money she will win the whole thing. And to much extent, You can still bet her to bag everything even with the players who used to own her are in the field.

There are few players I can think of who can stop her, buts easier to say than done.

1. Serena Williams- I think it happens to top players to lose your confidence onced you lose everytime you meet. I wonder when she will bounced back.
2. Lindsay Davenport- She always had the chance to beat her but always come's short.
3. Venus Williams- This is a question mark, but how can you think Venus will win if she can't win tier 3's and Justine is winning tier 1's and 2's.
4. Amelie Mauresmo- Will she ever be consistent?

Justine has 7 slams and I'm afraid she is just in mid part of her career.

:rolleyes: Greatest of them all who? The ones you posted or of all female tennis players? I don't get the question, but regardless, the answer is no to both.

When she does better than holding all four slam titles at the same time, i.e. a calendar Grand Slam then maybe you can ask that question, but right now, a resounding NO!!

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:51 PM
:rolleyes:

Sorry if its hurts, but she's definitely threatening Serena as the greatest of them all.
Now this thread makes it more valid with this replies.

Denise4925
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:55 PM
Sorry if its hurts, but she's definitely threatening Serena as the greatest of them all.
Now this thread makes it more valid with this replies.

Not really. You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with my response, just as you're trying to do with Justine's results since 2004. See my edit.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 16th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Not really. You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with my response, just as you're trying to do with Justine's results since 2004. See my edit.

Justine's result a mole? lol!!!!

:lol: :lol:

vejh
Oct 16th, 2007, 12:05 AM
I say she needs a few more years comparable to 2003/2006/2007 (wow, those are quite alot of yrs already, aren't they) to be called the greatest of them all. And no she doesn't need to hold 4 slams at once to be considered the greatest (several names jump to mind) of all time. It would also help (me) if she won Wimby.

Objectively speaking, she is one of the greatest playing the game right now, also one of the most underrated (how long will some critics and tennis commentators be in denial?).

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 12:11 AM
Justine has the consistency.

Serena has Wimbledon.

They both need what each other have. But Wimbledon outlasts tour-level consistency on so many levels. She COULD, but she has to achieve a loooooooot more.

Junex
Oct 16th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Its safe to say that I am Justine's biggest fan, no-offense to the phillistines...:angel: but saying she is the greatest of her generation is quite a stretch...yet!

I would so love for Justine to finally dominate and own the WTA!
in my sig was written: "Mission 2008 GOLDENSlam"
I say If Justine can achieve it...she will be the Greatest of her Generation, If not GOAT!!!!

ZeroSOFInfinity
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:12 AM
Obviously if anyone can stop her the first choice would be Serena. Very closely behind Venus but honestly I don't know if they are going to put in all the work to do it consistently.

Er... no. You're wrong about that.

At the moment (and maybe in the coming months, or year), the persons who can stop her are:-

1) Venus (only met once this year - US Open, but gave her a hard time)
2) Jankovic (a player which brings hell to Justine, and could have defeated her.... if only she doesn't suffer a mental breakdown)
3) Tatiana (yes, believe it - her performance in Stuttgart was why I chose her)
4) Ana (OK, maybe not on clay, but mostly on hardcourts / indoors - Zurich might be the place to finally break her losing streak against her)

Serena's struggling with her thigh now and also lacking the confidence to win matches. It'll take a long time to recover from that... :tape:

DemWilliamsGulls
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Some of yall think because Justine had a good year she's unbeatable. She did loose this year to Serena and Bartoli...and came close to loosing to Mauresmo as well. Right now Justine is at the top of her game playing and confidence, while I think others are not. Serena hasnt played her best since the australian, Venus played very well but it was in patches...even when she won wimbledon..i dont think she was at her best. Mauresmo has been patchy as well as Sharapova..who has the game to beat Henin when she's on. I think Henin is just more mentally stronger and more fit than everyone right now..thats why she's hard to beat....NOT unstoppable.

faste5683
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:27 AM
Plenty of players can beat her, but she can beat plenty of players ... (wasn't that philosophical :unsure:)

My mind reels...:tape:

:wavey:

sunset
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:38 AM
I used to hate Justine Henin until her results really struck me and say "I'm the best female tennis player in the world.

If you look at her physique, Its realy hard to imagine she will dominate everyone but that is what really happening in WTA right now. In every tournament she enters its very safe and bankable to put your money she will win the whole thing. And to much extent, You can still bet her to bag everything even with the players who used to own her are in the field.

There are few players I can think of who can stop her, buts easier to say than done.

1. Serena Williams- I think it happens to top players to lose your confidence onced you lose everytime you meet. I wonder when she will bounced back.
2. Lindsay Davenport- She always had the chance to beat her but always come's short.
3. Venus Williams- This is a question mark, but how can you think Venus will win if she can't win tier 3's and Justine is winning tier 1's and 2's.
4. Amelie Mauresmo- Will she ever be consistent?



Justine has 7 slams and I'm afraid she is just in mid part of her career.

Great Post!

Apoleb
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:52 AM
We're getting a little too excited. Justine's prospects are definitely the best among active players, and if I had to make a guess, then I'd say she'll end up as the "greatest of them all" but I wouldn't bet much money on that either. Serena is still comfortably in the lead overall with her 8 slams, her Serena-slam, and the fact that she won the 4 GS while Justine still has not.

Justine is the best player atm easily, but her "dominance" period has only started. Things might not continue like this if either Serena can find her best form (and we're finally sure that she's bent on doing that), or something hinders Justine.

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:56 AM
Er... no. You're wrong about that.

At the moment (and maybe in the coming months, or year), the persons who can stop her are:-

1) Venus (only met once this year - US Open, but gave her a hard time)
2) Jankovic (a player which brings hell to Justine, and could have defeated her.... if only she doesn't suffer a mental breakdown)
3) Tatiana (yes, believe it - her performance in Stuttgart was why I chose her)
4) Ana (OK, maybe not on clay, but mostly on hardcourts / indoors - Zurich might be the place to finally break her losing streak against her)

Serena's struggling with her thigh now and also lacking the confidence to win matches. It'll take a long time to recover from that... :tape:

Tati?? Jelena?? Ana??? :help: They have no chance anytime soon. Doesn't matter if the matches are close.. if Justine is winning EVERY TIME then it's utter domination.

I actually agree with the original poster's list except I'd add Sharapova. Ana and Jelena have the game arguably but they don't the have the mental toughness of Serena, Venus and Maria. And they don't have the talent of Amelie or Lindsay. Tati isn't even top 10 quality so I wont go there.

About Justine?? I think she had an amazing year. Let's see her back it up. Everyone was making big predictions about VEnus and Serena and it seemed like their run would never end. The combo of Henin/Venus/Serena is extremely talented... possibly the most talented trio since the 70's/80's but they are so injury-prone and even Justine seems to have these little injuries or illnesses. Let's hope she stays healthy.

Zweli
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:19 AM
Too early to say,right now she is def. not ,she is just the best player of the moment,she better enjoys this whilst she can bcause I doubt if it will last.Right now she is not thinking about anything except tennis,no boyfriend nor husband to disrupt her,infact lifeless for now.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:23 AM
She is rather fabulous isnt she...
*Death* :lol: :lol: :lol:

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:31 AM
Justine Henin is a deceptive, sneaky, tiny blonde bitch on-court and that's why I like her. She's not my favorite, but you can't simply disregard her on-court excellence since January 1, 2003 to present. She's the best the WTA has to offer and is the only player of her generation to consistently win grand slam tournaments throughout these years and weeks at number one.

My favorites are Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:40 AM
Not really. You're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with my response, just as you're trying to do with Justine's results since 2004. See my edit.

Pick any one of Henin's worst years since 2003 and its still better than Serena or Venus' best since 2004. There has been a change of guard in the WTA and its called the Henin Era. You can't deny it, no matter how much you hate Henin. Its Henin's party and you weren't invited.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:45 AM
Pick any one of Henin's worst years since 2003 and its still better than Serena or Venus' best since 2004. There has been a change of guard in the WTA and its called the Henin Era. You can't deny it, no matter how much you hate Henin. Its Henin's party and you weren't invited.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

:lol: :help: the Henin era?? this is her first dominant year where she was clearly the best player. 2004?? That is a totally subjective year, a year when both sisters were returning from career-altering injuries and the death of their sister. You want to compare Henin's prime to the worst years of the Venus and Serena's career? Does that make any sense?

Let's see what happens from now on. This is the first time since 2003 when Henin has won more than one slam.. it's the first time since January 2004 when she has won a slam off of clay. It's up to Serena or Venus to show that they can step it up also.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:58 AM
:lol: :help: the Henin era?? this is her first dominant year where she was clearly the best player. 2004?? That is a totally subjective year, a year when both sisters were returning from career-altering injuries and the death of their sister. You want to compare Henin's prime to the worst years of the Venus and Serena's career? Does that make any sense?

Let's see what happens from now on. This is the first time since 2003 when Henin has won more than one slam.. it's the first time since January 2004 when she has won a slam off of clay. It's up to Serena or Venus to show that they can step it up also.
I dig you Ace, because you keep it Williams.

But,

It was during Henin's prime in 2004 that she was struck down with viral illness and during the same time Venus and Serena were coming back after injury. So, I want to make it clear that the injury and illness excuse you continually perpetrate is largely moot because most of today's top ten has battled injuries and illness over the past five years:

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

That's five years.

Next,

Henin has lived without a mother since her pre-teen years, such as Venus and Serena have felt the loss of their step-sister four years ago. Let's just stop and say that both losses are probably equally hurtful and still have some effect on all interested party's tennis career.

Lastly,

Historically documented results from any year of tennis on tour can never be described as subjective by any person, no matter how many excuses they try to find diminishing other peoples accomplishments.

Anymore questions? Go here:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

CJ07
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:00 AM
Come on, be fair to Justine. She is clearly the best right now, and would surprise everyone for retiring with single digit slams. She has the consistency and professionalism (?) that the sisters imply don't have. And thats just as important as everything else.

? - debatable

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:06 AM
I dig you Ace, because you keep it Williams.

But,

It was during Henin's prime in 2004 that she was struck down with viral illness and during the same time Venus and Serena were coming back after injury. So, I want to make it clear that the injury and illness excuse you continually perpetrate is largely moot because most of today's top ten has battled injuries and illness over the past five years:

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

That's five years.

Next,

Henin has lived without a mother since her pre-teen years, such as Venus and Serena have felt the loss of their step-sister four years ago. Let's just stop and say that both losses are probably equally hurtful and still have some effect on all interested party's tennis career.

Lastly,

Historically documented results from any year of tennis on tour can never be described as subjective by any person, no matter how many excuses they try to find diminishing other peoples accomplishments.

Anymore questions? Go here:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

Where do I start?? Justine's viral illness is nothing compared to the surgery that Serena had to have on her knee, affecting possibly her greatest weapon... HER MOVEMENT. While Venus's injury affected her greatest weapon, her serve.. which didn't come back in full force until this year.. 3 years! The two are not comparable as Henin was still able to compete and win the Olympics that year. Additionally, that viral illness has not had the same longlasting affects of the injuries Venus and Serena had in 2003.
And yes, Henin has been without her mother since her PRE-TEEN YEARS! No offense to Justine, but she's had time to deal with it. It's not going to be hurting as much as having your sister murdered.

i've never tried to diminish Justine's accomplishments. I just need to point out when fanatics like yourself wish to blow them way out of proportion. Federer has an era, Sampras has an era, Graf has an era, etc. If you want to group them together, the William Sisters have an era... Henin, does not.. yet.

shap_half
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:31 AM
Where do I start?? Justine's viral illness is nothing compared to the surgery that Serena had to have on her knee, affecting possibly her greatest weapon... HER MOVEMENT. While Venus's injury affected her greatest weapon, her serve.. which didn't come back in full force until this year.. 3 years! The two are not comparable as Henin was still able to compete and win the Olympics that year. Additionally, that viral illness has not had the same longlasting affects of the injuries Venus and Serena had in 2003.
And yes, Henin has been without her mother since her PRE-TEEN YEARS! No offense to Justine, but she's had time to deal with it. It's not going to be hurting as much as having your sister murdered.

i've never tried to diminish Justine's accomplishments. I just need to point out when fanatics like yourself wish to blow them way out of proportion. Federer has an era, Sampras has an era, Graf has an era, etc. If you want to group them together, the William Sisters have an era... Henin, does not.. yet.

You are so offensive. I can't believe you would dare compare which death is worse. That's just tactless and incredibly disgusting.

I don't care about the other stuff because your bias will never allow you to see things differently, but this entire part where you actually dare qualify the weight of someone's death compared to anoter person's death (just because one of those people was associated with your favorite and the other was not) is a level of disrespect that I didn't think was possible on this board.

Donny
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:37 AM
You are so offensive. I can't believe you would dare compare which death is worse. That's just tactless and incredibly disgusting.

Sorry, but when Forehand Volley said:


"Henin has lived without a mother since her pre-teen years, such as Venus and Serena have felt the loss of their step-sister four years ago. Let's just stop and say that both losses are probably equally hurtful and still have some effect on all interested party's tennis career."

He immediately opened that can of worms. If one is able to argue that two things are similar, then it logically follows that one can argue that two things are unequal. Both are placing some kind of measure on the two deaths.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:40 AM
Where do I start?? Justine's viral illness is nothing compared to the surgery that Serena had to have on her knee, affecting possibly her greatest weapon... HER MOVEMENT. While Venus's injury affected her greatest weapon, her serve.. which didn't come back in full force until this year.. 3 years! The two are not comparable as Henin was still able to compete and win the Olympics that year. Additionally, that viral illness has not had the same longlasting affects of the injuries Venus and Serena had in 2003.
Just for the record, Henin hasn't played a full schedule on-tour since she was struck with her viral illness. It is by design that she continues to play a redacted schedule as not to exacerbate the chronic fatigue.

But since you want to take a spin on the excuse-o-rama. I will be brutally honest.

I agree that Serena's knee surgery has permanently affected her mental on-court prowess and her movement. She will never be same player that she was and she will never seriously challenge Henin's consistency in the majors. Henin will overtake Serena is career singles slam wins and will go down as the best player of this generation.

Venus has always had trouble with that inconsistent forehand and horrible second serve, even before her abdominal strain. She wasn't injured for three years with an abdominal strain. That premise is just silly.

Let's end with the fact Serena and Venus' career woes are not Henin's cross to bear. Henin's success is an entity of its own, thus given the name "Henin's Era." And there's nothing you say that can change it.

And yes, Henin has been without her mother since her PRE-TEEN YEARS! No offense to Justine, but she's had time to deal with it. It's not going to be hurting as much as having your sister murdered.

Justine might have had more time to deal with her mothers death, but it was her real mother, not her step mother (no offense to Serena and Venus).


i've never tried to diminish Justine's accomplishments. I just need to point out when fanatics like yourself wish to blow them way out of proportion. Federer has an era, Sampras has an era, Graf has an era, etc. If you want to group them together, the William Sisters have an era... Henin, does not.. yet.
Yeah, but even the witch used candy to lure Hansel and Gretel into the forest. You've done nothing but attempt belittle Henin's accomplishments in spite of your objections to such.

shap_half
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:45 AM
Sorry, but when Forehand Volley said:


"Henin has lived without a mother since her pre-teen years, such as Venus and Serena have felt the loss of their step-sister four years ago. Let's just stop and say that both losses are probably equally hurtful and still have some effect on all interested party's tennis career."

He immediately opened that can of worms. If one is able to argue that two things are similar, then it logically follows that one can argue that two things are unequal. Both are placing some kind of measure on the two deaths.

I think that one is completely different than the other. AcesHigh is the one to first bring up how Yetunde's death has affected the sisters. FV is merely showing that death has also happened to Justine and that both are "probably" equally hurtful and have lasting effects but "let's just stop."

To actually go into how one might be more hurtful than another is positively medival. If someone were ever to come up to me and tell me that my loss is something I've had more time to get over and therefore I'm not going to be hurting as much because my loss is not as recent and murder related, I will kick that person in the face. It shows that this person is crass and incredibly disrespectful. I don't care if the statement is prefaced with "no offense."

shap_half
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:47 AM
Justine might have had more time to deal with her mothers death, but it was her real mother, not her step mother (no offense to Serena and Venus).


Seriously, the death comparisons have to stop. It's inappropriate and disgusting. None of us can ever understand how loss is weighed or felt, because we are not in experiencing it. Even if we have undergone loss ourselves, each situation is different.

Please have some respect for the dead and drop any comments any of you may have about those who have already passed and how people did with it.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:49 AM
Forehand_Volley and AcesHigh on a warpath... looks interesting :lol:

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:56 AM
I think that one is completely different than the other. AcesHigh is the one to first bring up how Yetunde's death has affected the sisters. FV is merely showing that death has also happened to Justine and that both are "probably" equally hurtful and have lasting effects but "let's just stop."

To actually go into how one might be more hurtful than another is positively medival. If someone were ever to come up to me and tell me that my loss is something I've had more time to get over and therefore I'm not going to be hurting as much because my loss is not as recent and murder related, I will kick that person in the face. It shows that this person is crass and incredibly disrespectful. I don't care if the statement is prefaced with "no offense."
My personal feeling and my statement that both losses were equally hurtful was trying to show deference to Venus, Serena and Justine. However, Ace gets a little fanatical when it comes to Venus and Serena, so I am not surprised he went there.

Loss is loss, regardless of its origin and can affect different people differently.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 06:28 AM
Forehand_Volley and AcesHigh on a warpath... looks interesting :lol:
Not really all that interesting. I think we've repeated the same things in two other threads within the last week.

QUEENLINDSAY
Oct 16th, 2007, 06:49 AM
you guys are misleading the thread.

The only point I'm trying make in this thread is the rate of Justine dom inance.
She is only lagging one slam to Serena and the truth is she is only half pass her career.
The player she's trailing she beaten the last 3 slams in quarter finals.

I personally think Justine is becoming the real deal.

Serena can always prove me wrong as she did in the past.

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:27 AM
Seriously, the death comparisons have to stop. It's inappropriate and disgusting. None of us can ever understand how loss is weighed or felt, because we are not in experiencing it. Even if we have undergone loss ourselves, each situation is different.

Please have some respect for the dead and drop any comments any of you may have about those who have already passed and how people did with it.

C'mon, we're adults. The point I was making was that Justine's mother's absence hurts, but it does not have the immediate impact that Yetunde's death had. It happened while they were on tour.... that is much more impactful than something that happened a while ago.

I am in no way being disrespectful. Justine's pain may be as great or possibly greater, but I'm saying it did not have the immediate impact on Justine's tennis during this period that the death of Yetunde had. And I'm not the one who started the comparison.

Williamsser
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Justine is unbeatable.

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:37 AM
Just for the record, Henin hasn't played a full schedule on-tour since she was struck with her viral illness. It is by design that she continues to play a redacted schedule as not to exacerbate the chronic fatigue.

But since you want to take a spin on the excuse-o-rama. I will be brutally honest.

I agree that Serena's knee surgery has permanently affected her mental on-court prowess and her movement. She will never be same player that she was and she will never seriously challenge Henin's consistency in the majors. Henin will overtake Serena is career singles slam wins and will go down as the best player of this generation.

Venus has always had trouble with that inconsistent forehand and horrible second serve, even before her abdominal strain. She wasn't injured for three years with an abdominal strain. That premise is just silly.

Let's end with the fact Serena and Venus' career woes are not Henin's cross to bear. Henin's success is an entity of its own, thus given the name "Henin's Era." And there's nothing you say that can change it.



Justine might have had more time to deal with her mothers death, but it was her real mother, not her step mother (no offense to Serena and Venus).


Yeah, but even the witch used candy to lure Hansel and Gretel into the forest. You've done nothing but attempt belittle Henin's accomplishments in spite of your objections to such.

What is a full schedule to you? Justine has played a much more injury-free schedule than the sister's have and although it's reduced compared to hte likes of Jankovic, Clijsters and KUznetsova, it's pretty full except when she had other ailments or missed AO due to personal issues.

And you being so sure that Henin will go down as the best of this generation is quite ridiculous and shows your bias right htere. She is not the best yet and this is not her era... she's playign during the same time as Serena and you can't take a chunk of 3-4 years during which 3 of those years she was not even clearly the best player and suddenly state it's her era because she's dominated Roland Garros and taken hardcourt slams 3 years apart.

I love Henin's game and her talent, but a lot of the stuff you say is premature and very biased. For all you and I know, SErena could run off 3 out of the 4 slams next year because, honestly, she's just that talented and suddenly all this Henin talk would stop. The only reason these dozens of Henin threads are here is because Henin won USO. If she had lost to Venus or Kuznetsova, all of this talk would be nonexistent. So.. I ask this.. does one dominant year mean that Henin will walk all over the competition and start winning 1+ slams per year? Or should we wait and see so that Henin can prove 2007 was not an anomaly.

"Topaz"
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:50 AM
Alright, Justine is doing outstandingly well at the moment. Her work ethics is something to behold. I can sense this situation doesn't seat well with Serena who will finally realise what she has to do to turn things around. Why did I pinpoint Serena, you may ask? Well, because I believe, just as she does, that she can own Justine. However, for that to happen, Serena has to be convinced (herself) that her current form won't do.

I'm not sure Rena's acting career (if she really ever had one) is going places; and she probably knows it. Therefore, tennis has to be it for her. One more beat-down by Justine will be the last draw to get her to shed those 15-20 lb that are handicapping her. Oh boy! As soon as the lighter Serena emerges, there won't be any question as to who is the best.

BTW, I just lost 15 lb myself and it feels so great. Things I hesitated to do before are now executed without a whisper. Now, I'm getting greedy and I want to lose 5 more pounds. As they say, the last ones are always the hardest to shed; but I have no worry, I'm on a roll. Nonetheless, this post is not about me; it's about Serena who hopefully will do what it takes to reclaim her former glory. How old is she now? 26 or so. Well, she has the time, although time is inexorably diminishing.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:17 AM
I can't believe anyone's calling this the "Henin era." Henin YEAR, yes.

I agree with Aces. Let's see if she keeps winning two or three slams a year, then that would be an "Henin era."

Until she gets Wimbledon it's no deal for me. And I'm not saying that because I dislike her, I just don't see how a woman with less grand slams and zero Wimbledon titles period than Serena be better than her or have her own era. It's ridiculous.

Let's wait. God.

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:21 AM
Potential GOAT definitely.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:31 AM
I can't believe anyone's calling this the "Henin era." Henin YEAR, yes.

I agree with Aces. Let's see if she keeps winning two or three slams a year, then that would be an "Henin era."
Henin has won at least two GS titles in two different years, and at least every year between (2003-2007).

Venus Williams 2000 and 2001 *at least 2 GS titles each year
Serena Williams 2002 and 2003 *at least 2 GS titles each year
Justine Henin 2003, 2004 and 2007 *at least 2 GS titles each year, and one GS and one Olympic Gold*

But the Williams Sisters deserve to have an "era" but Henin doesn't, even though Henin has won more tournaments, more weeks at number one and more years winning consecutive GS singles titles (five years and counting). What a tough crowd! LOL

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:34 AM
What is a full schedule to you? Justine has played a much more injury-free schedule than the sister's have and although it's reduced compared to hte likes of Jankovic, Clijsters and KUznetsova, it's pretty full except when she had other ailments or missed AO due to personal issues.

And you being so sure that Henin will go down as the best of this generation is quite ridiculous and shows your bias right htere. She is not the best yet and this is not her era... she's playign during the same time as Serena and you can't take a chunk of 3-4 years during which 3 of those years she was not even clearly the best player and suddenly state it's her era because she's dominated Roland Garros and taken hardcourt slams 3 years apart.

I love Henin's game and her talent, but a lot of the stuff you say is premature and very biased. For all you and I know, SErena could run off 3 out of the 4 slams next year because, honestly, she's just that talented and suddenly all this Henin talk would stop. The only reason these dozens of Henin threads are here is because Henin won USO. If she had lost to Venus or Kuznetsova, all of this talk would be nonexistent. So.. I ask this.. does one dominant year mean that Henin will walk all over the competition and start winning 1+ slams per year? Or should we wait and see so that Henin can prove 2007 was not an anomaly.

The denial is shocking. The reality is telling. And through it all, Henin remains on top:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:36 AM
I am in no way being disrespectful. Justine's pain may be as great or possibly greater, but I'm saying it did not have the immediate impact on Justine's tennis during this period that the death of Yetunde had. And I'm not the one who started the comparison.

Yes, you did:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=11838976&postcount=49

:lol: :help: the Henin era?? this is her first dominant year where she was clearly the best player. 2004?? That is a totally subjective year, a year when both sisters were returning from career-altering injuries and the death of their sister. You want to compare Henin's prime to the worst years of the Venus and Serena's career? Does that make any sense?

Let's see what happens from now on. This is the first time since 2003 when Henin has won more than one slam.. it's the first time since January 2004 when she has won a slam off of clay. It's up to Serena or Venus to show that they can step it up also.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:39 AM
Pretty much. The sisters turned the sport upside down. Henin's been along for the ride. It's because of the sisters she's gotten to be as good as she is.

The sisters deserve their era. They absolutely dominated. Henin gets Roland Garros and is fallible anywhere else. If she hadn't won the US Open this wouldn't be a topic as has been stated before. One grand slam means a lot but in the grand scheme of things I, and many others, must wait until it's OFFICIAL that she has more slams than Serena and wins Wimbledon before she's the best of this generation. It was a joke to consider Henin the GOAT not that long ago and now no one's better.

Henin deserves her spot in the sun but everyone has a come down. If she wins Wimbledon next year and continues beating the sisters then yes, you will have a VERY valid argument that she's the best of her era. Absolutely. But not yet. Is that so hard to understand?

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:05 AM
Justine has played a much more injury-free schedule than the sister's have and although it's reduced compared to hte likes of Jankovic, Clijsters and KUznetsova, it's pretty full except when she had other ailments or missed AO due to personal issues.
All of the players in the top ten have been injured quite frequently over the past five years. Again, you cannot use the injury excuse exclusively for Venus and Serena. All of the women have had injury setbacks.

Betcha didn't know that Venus and Justine have played almost the same amount of tournaments since the year of Venus' abdominal strain. Serena not far behind.

So what's a full schedule to you?

And you being so sure that Henin will go down as the best of this generation is quite ridiculous and shows your bias right htere. She is not the best yet and this is not her era... she's playign during the same time as Serena and you can't take a chunk of 3-4 years during which 3 of those years she was not even clearly the best player and suddenly state it's her era because she's dominated Roland Garros and taken hardcourt slams 3 years apart.
Again, during this period, Henin has won over twice as many hardcourt tournaments than clay tournaments. In spite of that fact, you continually perpetrate the myth that Henin is just a clay court specialist.

Reality check:

Henin ended the year #1 in 2003, 2006 and 2007, winning GS events in all three of those years she ended #1. She has also won the YEC, Olympic Gold medal and more majors than anyone in the WTA since the year of her first GS title win.

Henin has won three GS hardcourt tournaments
Henin has won four GS claycourt tournaments
Henin has won one Olympic Gold


I love Henin's game and her talent
Could have fooled me. If you had any respect for her game and talent, you would be quick to respect it instead of diminishing it.
For all you and I know, SErena could run off 3 out of the 4 slams next year because, honestly, she's just that talented and suddenly all this Henin talk would stop.
Serena's has won five tournaments since Wimbledon 2003....and you truly think Serena is going to "run off 3 out of the 4 slams" next year????

Serema is no longer physically or mentally imposing enough to "run off 3 out of the 4 slams next year" when she can't even win 6 tournaments in five years. In spite of that reality, I still root for her to win at times.

The only reason these dozens of Henin threads are here is because Henin won USO. If she had lost to Venus or Kuznetsova, all of this talk would be nonexistent. So.. I ask this.. does one dominant year mean that Henin will walk all over the competition and start winning 1+ slams per year? Or should we wait and see so that Henin can prove 2007 was not an anomaly.
Henin's 2003 almost matches her 2007, and she won a GS title every year in between including an Olympic Gold medal, something no one in the WTA has been able to accomplish.

2003: 2 GS titles, #1 YE ranking
2004: 1 GS title, 1 Olympic Gold
2005: 1 GS title
2006: 1 GS title, 4 GS finals, YE #1, YEC
2007: 2 GS titles, YE #1

Henin has nothing prove. She continues her stellar play over the past five years and no one seems to be good enough to derail her. The imagery of 6 feet athletic women chasing little Henin around the globe without much success is telling.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:21 AM
Pretty much. The sisters turned the sport upside down. Henin's been along for the ride. It's because of the sisters she's gotten to be as good as she is.

The sisters deserve their era. They absolutely dominated. Henin gets Roland Garros and is fallible anywhere else. If she hadn't won the US Open this wouldn't be a topic as has been stated before. One grand slam means a lot but in the grand scheme of things I, and many others, must wait until it's OFFICIAL that she has more slams than Serena and wins Wimbledon before she's the best of this generation. It was a joke to consider Henin the GOAT not that long ago and now no one's better.

Henin deserves her spot in the sun but everyone has a come down. If she wins Wimbledon next year and continues beating the sisters then yes, you will have a VERY valid argument that she's the best of her era. Absolutely. But not yet. Is that so hard to understand?
I'm going to be as nice about this as I can. (Venus, forgive me.)

How can you say Venus Williams dominated the WTA when she's only been ranked #1 for 12 weeks (less than Tracy Austin), including the two years she won two grand slam tournaments the same year, never won the YEC and never ended a year ranked #1???? You can't call someone dominant who hasn't achieved a measure of historical success in but a few areas outside of Wimbledon.

Junex
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:29 AM
ssshhhh......

There was no Henin Era...
as well as there is no Venus Era...
and no Serena Era....

gEt It Toogeeetheeeeerrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ikemstar
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:35 AM
What a stupid, pointless thread. Wake me up in a year. *If* she is still doing well, we can have this discussion.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:53 AM
Here, I'll better define it:

Henin Era
(c. 2003 - present)

The Crow
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:01 AM
Wow, this actually turned in a "my fav player had worse injuries and deaths in the family than yours" :rolleyes: :tape:

Upto now, Serena is still the best of the 'generation'. But the fact that we are having this discussion now, proves that Justine had a great year (after some already good years).

Can Justine pass Serena? Sure.
Is it likely? I dunno.
Is it a certainty? Hell no!
Will there always be discussion on this in wtaworld, no matter what happens in the future? Hell yes! ;)

Forehand_Volley
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:06 AM
Upto now, Serena is still the best of the 'generation'.
Even though she hasn't been able to win six tournaments since Wimbledon 2003? No wonder this generation struggles in comparison to others historically.

taddict
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Right now she is not thinking about anything except tennis,no boyfriend nor husband to disrupt her,infact lifeless for now.

Oh really? Did she show you her schedule and diary or are you her PA? :lol: You are most definitely wrong there (for a change :rolleyes: )

taddict
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:04 AM
I dig you Ace, because you keep it Williams.

But,

It was during Henin's prime in 2004 that she was struck down with viral illness and during the same time Venus and Serena were coming back after injury. So, I want to make it clear that the injury and illness excuse you continually perpetrate is largely moot because most of today's top ten has battled injuries and illness over the past five years:

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

That's five years.

Next,

Henin has lived without a mother since her pre-teen years, such as Venus and Serena have felt the loss of their step-sister four years ago. Let's just stop and say that both losses are probably equally hurtful and still have some effect on all interested party's tennis career.

Lastly,

Historically documented results from any year of tennis on tour can never be described as subjective by any person, no matter how many excuses they try to find diminishing other peoples accomplishments.

Anymore questions? Go here:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

:worship: :worship: :worship:

The Crow
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:06 AM
Even though she hasn't been able to win six tournaments since Wimbledon 2003? No wonder this generation struggles in comparison to others historically.

I'm not looking at it in a certain period of time but over a whole career. And Serena has won the most GS's and has won all 4 GS's as the only one of this generation. Justine (or someone else) will have to equal or do better in at least one of them.

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 01:54 PM
ssshhhh......

There was no Henin Era...
as well as there is no Venus Era...
and no Serena Era....

gEt It Toogeeetheeeeerrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: even though this might be seen as sarcastic, it's true. There was no Venus era, there was no Serena era and there is no Henin era.

AcesHigh
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:10 PM
All of the players in the top ten have been injured quite frequently over the past five years. Again, you cannot use the injury excuse exclusively for Venus and Serena. All of the women have had injury setbacks.

Betcha didn't know that Venus and Justine have played almost the same amount of tournaments since the year of Venus' abdominal strain. Serena not far behind.

So what's a full schedule to you?

Yes I did know that Venus and Justine have played the same amount of tournaments. Serena is pretty far behind I believe though or if you subtract the number of withdrawals during tournaments, there is a starking contrast. :rolleyes: I never said S&V were the only ones injured. I'm talking about the severity of their injury and how it is incomparable to the viral illness of Justine. However, this point doesn't even really matter right now although I think it's silly to dismiss their injuries like you seem to do.


Again, during this period, Henin has won over twice as many hardcourt tournaments than clay tournaments. In spite of that fact, you continually perpetrate the myth that Henin is just a clay court specialist.
I've never said Henin is a clay court specialist. You're putting words in my mouth. I've said she's dominated Roland Garros and out of the 15 slams off of clay since 2003, she's won 3. In comparison she's won 4 of the 5 Roland Garros titles. She has only been dominant at one slam. The rest of the slams she is vulnerable, even on top of her game.

Could have fooled me. If you had any respect for her game and talent, you would be quick to respect it instead of diminishing it.
I respect her game.. doesn't mean she's the best of this generation, because she isn't. She is definitely the best this year though.

Serena's has won five tournaments since Wimbledon 2003....and you truly think Serena is going to "run off 3 out of the 4 slams" next year????

Serema is no longer physically or mentally imposing enough to "run off 3 out of the 4 slams next year" when she can't even win 6 tournaments in five years. In spite of that reality, I still root for her to win at times.

Yet, she's still won 2 slams despite injury, lack of form and fitness, etc. She's the only one that can come out of nowhere and win slams, and I didn't say it's likely, I said it's possible and she's the only one I see able to do it.

Henin's 2003 almost matches her 2007, and she won a GS title every year in between including an Olympic Gold medal, something no one in the WTA has been able to accomplish.

2003: 2 GS titles, #1 YE ranking
2004: 1 GS title, 1 Olympic Gold
2005: 1 GS title
2006: 1 GS title, 4 GS finals, YE #1, YEC
2007: 2 GS titles, YE #1

Henin has nothing prove. She continues her stellar play over the past five years and no one seems to be good enough to derail her. The imagery of 6 feet athletic women chasing little Henin around the globe without much success is telling.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

You've talked about her accomplishments over and over and over. The reality is that she's had an AMAZING year, but pre-2007, Henin never had a year where she was clearly the best.

2003: Henin/Serena
2004: Henin/Sharapova
2005: Kim Clijsters
2006: Amelie Mauresmo
2007: Henin

I'm just saying.. like it has been repeated several times by other people. LET'S WAIT for 2008 to start making such claims. :wavey:

Donny
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:14 PM
Word of advice to AcesHigh: It's pretty much useless having this debate with Forehand Volley. This is what this thread looks like:

FV: "Henin's clearly the best of her era"
Someone else: "I say Serena's better"
FV: "Why are you diminishing Henin's achievements!!!1"

It's like talking to a wall, really. I admire your persistence though.

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:28 PM
The reality is that she's had an AMAZING year, but pre-2007, Henin never had a year where she was clearly the best.

2003: Henin/Serena
2004: Henin/Sharapova
2005: Kim Clijsters
2006: Amelie Mauresmo
2007: Henin


You've actually given a strong case for why Justine is the greatest of this generation with that list. Who appears on it more than once? Justine only. And she appears 3 times.

jawadde
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:30 PM
2003: Henin/Serena
2004: Henin/Sharapova
2005: Kim Clijsters
2006: Amelie Mauresmo / Henin
2007: Henin

2006 is not only Mauresmo's year ;)

I agree it is to soon to speak off a Henin era.. yet. But She is clearly the best player off the last 5 years and maybe off her generation

taddict
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:34 PM
You've actually given a strong case for why Justine is the greatest of this generation with that list. Who appears on it more than once? Justine only. And she appears 3 times.

:spit: Oops :tape:

Donny
Oct 16th, 2007, 02:50 PM
You've actually given a strong case for why Justine is the greatest of this generation with that list. Who appears on it more than once? Justine only. And she appears 3 times.

That'd be logical, IF the generation began in 2003 and end in 2007. Which of course, it doesn't.

If Henin can have an era spanning 2006, when she clearly wasn't the best player, then what prevents this time period from being the Serena era?

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:12 PM
You've actually given a strong case for why Justine is the greatest of this generation with that list. Who appears on it more than once? Justine only. And she appears 3 times.

Or perhaps the most consistent...that's Justine main weapon imo..her consistency. Always has that one major that she can count on to win almost every year: RG.

Whereas Serena for a 18-month stretch was pretty much unbeatable at EVERY major..that's the difference between Justine and Serena.

thrust
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:18 PM
well, she is really good. However, plenty of players can beat her. And she knows/realises it. That's why she is/stays good. That's why I admire her.

We'll see. Tennis is tennis, and also she can slump. ATM, she's doing great, but wait untill she doesn't get to the finals, and people will be calling her "only a claycourter" all over again ;)

She'll just be one of these players who'll have to prove herself day in day out. Again, we'll see. Plenty of players can beat her, but she can beat plenty of players ... (wasn't that philosophical :unsure: :bolt: )

Great post! The actual truth, very well stated.

The Crow
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:31 PM
2003: Henin/Serena
2004: Henin/Sharapova
2005: Kim Clijsters
2006: Amelie Mauresmo
2007: Henin


Why is 2005 Kim's year and 2006 Amelie's year? I could make a strong case for putting Henin's name there as well (together with Amelie or Kim), and then I'd see Henin's name appearing every year of the past 5 years. Dominance during a restricted amount of time is one thing, but I'd take consistency over a longer period of time into account as well when judging one's career.

Again, I make no case whatsoever of calling Justine the best of her generation, but you belittle her accomplishments imo (maybe for arguments sake, but still).

ogc
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:37 PM
Or perhaps the most consistent...that's Justine main weapon imo..her consistency. Always has that one major that she can count on to win almost every year: RG.

Whereas Serena for a 18-month stretch was pretty much unbeatable at EVERY major..that's the difference between Justine and Serena.

So essenialy yuo are telling us that best player shuoldn't be consistent? SHe should come to GS unprepared, win it somehow (lucky shots comes to mind), try to do that at the other three but fail? HOW the hell this defines best of the era?

Kworb
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Or perhaps the most consistent...that's Justine main weapon imo..her consistency. Always has that one major that she can count on to win almost every year: RG.

Whereas Serena for a 18-month stretch was pretty much unbeatable at EVERY major..that's the difference between Justine and Serena.
Yes, Serena dominated from March 2002 until July 2003. For a little over a year, Serena dominated the tour. But that is not enough to be considered the greatest of her generation! Some say that Henin fans are jumping to conclusions too quickly because of her great results in 2007. But Serena's fans cling to a similar period and say that it is enough to proclaim her the greatest. It doesn't make any sense. Both have dominated the tour in a similar fashion, but over the years Henin has shown more consistency, which is the only difference between the two that counts. So, Henin is the greatest.

Mina Vagante
Oct 16th, 2007, 03:59 PM
Yes, Serena dominated from March 2002 until July 2003. For a little over a year, Serena dominated the tour. But that is not enough to be considered the greatest of her generation! Some say that Henin fans are jumping to conclusions too quickly because of her great results in 2007. But Serena's fans cling to a similar period and say that it is enough to proclaim her the greatest. It doesn't make any sense. Both have dominated the tour in a similar fashion, but over the years Henin has shown more consistency, which is the only difference between the two that counts. So, Henin is the greatest.

Henin will never even be considered for the greatest ever- UNTIL SHE WINS WIMBLEDON. you cant call some-one who has never won the oldest and most prestigous tournament in the world, the greatest of all time

Matt01
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:24 PM
Henin will never even be considered for the greatest ever- UNTIL SHE WINS WIMBLEDON. you cant call some-one who has never won the oldest and most prestigous tournament in the world, the greatest of all time

Nowadays, winning Wimbledon isn't any more important than winning e.g. Roland Garros, though.

Yes, Serena dominated from March 2002 until July 2003. For a little over a year, Serena dominated the tour.

Serena didn't even dominate for a whole year IMO. After Miami 2003 she didn't win another torney until Wimbledon the same year, because Justine ended Serena'a domination in Charleston and RG 2003 :angel:

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Precisely ree-and-ross. Even from July 2003 to the start of 2005 Serena wasn't exactly a slouch, with at least two slams, YEC and Wimbledon finals, and some more slam quarterfinals. Basically from February 2005 to January 2007 Serena did pretty much nothing while Henin's still not caught up, although yes, she's getting closer.

Get Wimbledon first, Juju. Then you're onto something.

---

And Venus only lost nine times in 2000 and 2001, and only nine times in 2002 (guess how many of those are Serena losses). She was a favorite to win any event she entered and did win quite a few. That's pretty dominant as far as I'm concerned, although that's so trivial--technically yes, there is no "Serena/Venus/Justine era," but if anyone DID have an era in this generation, it'd be the Williams sisters.

I still attest they've done more for tennis than any other athlete since Arthur Ashe and BJK--along with being great champions and absolutely brutal when they competed. They've always been "different" from the other stars and #1s in the sport and this is no different. Stats have never been in their favor and they never will, and they know this and have acknowledged it. But they are the best of this generation, with Serena leading the pack.

But you'll throw some random, useless fact about Justine saying I'm wrong and that no one compares to Justine with yet more stats.

Kworb
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Nowadays, winning Wimbledon isn't any more important than winning e.g. Roland Garros, though.

Serena didn't even dominate for a whole year IMO. After Miami 2003 she didn't win another torney until Wimbledon the same year, because Justine ended Serena'a domination in Charleston and RG 2003 :angel:
Good point. I suppose her period of domination was from March 2002 until March 2003. 13 months with 11 tournament wins and 4 losses. Compare that to Justine, who since June 2006 (a period of 17 months) has lost six times (not counting the loss to Mauresmo at the YEC) and has won 12 tournaments. It's very similar.

Vlad Tepes
Oct 16th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Serena's domination is regarded as being more important, as she won all the GS in that period, which is probably true. Justine has had more periods of domination, although not to that extent:

- she held 3/4 GS titles from January - May 2004
- played all the 4 GS finals in 2006, won 1, won YEC, ended #1
- won 2/3 GS played in 2007, 8 tournaments so far, YE #1 with more than a month to spare, despite missing the Australian summer

So far, I would say that Serena has the slight edge, but as soon as Justine equals her number of GS titles, she would arguably be the best, with many more weeks at #1, Olympic gold, more titles, 3 years ended as #1, etc. That is even without Wimbledon - if she also gets that, there really would be no doubt.

I agree that none of the 3 have an era of their own so far, but Venus really shouldn't even be in this discussion, to claim that she dominated the tour, despite spending only 11 weeks at #1 (less than anyone who ever reached that position in the open era) and winning only 2 of the 4 slams is extremly far-fetched.

shap_half
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:00 PM
C'mon, we're adults. The point I was making was that Justine's mother's absence hurts, but it does not have the immediate impact that Yetunde's death had. It happened while they were on tour.... that is much more impactful than something that happened a while ago.

I am in no way being disrespectful. Justine's pain may be as great or possibly greater, but I'm saying it did not have the immediate impact on Justine's tennis during this period that the death of Yetunde had. And I'm not the one who started the comparison.

Yes you are incredibly disrespectful and your inability to recognize the disrespect is frightening.

bandabou
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:04 PM
Yes, Serena dominated from March 2002 until July 2003. For a little over a year, Serena dominated the tour. But that is not enough to be considered the greatest of her generation! Some say that Henin fans are jumping to conclusions too quickly because of her great results in 2007. But Serena's fans cling to a similar period and say that it is enough to proclaim her the greatest. It doesn't make any sense. Both have dominated the tour in a similar fashion, but over the years Henin has shown more consistency, which is the only difference between the two that counts. So, Henin is the greatest.

Hmmm..interesting. Serena won 5 majors during a 18-month stretch, Justine 7 majors over 5 years.
You can make an argument for both...but it comes down to this: Serena won all four, four in a row, defended her wimbledon title...whereas Justine hasn't come close to winning four in a row, still is missing wimbledon..and prior to this year had won multiple majors in a year only once..whereas Serena has a year she won three in a row and another 2 the next year.

But there's no defenite answer.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Serena's domination is regarded as being more important, as she won all the GS in that period, which is probably true. Justine has had more periods of domination, although not to that extent:

- she held 3/4 GS titles from January - May 2004
- played all the 4 GS finals in 2006, won 1, won YEC, ended #1
- won 2/3 GS played in 2007, 8 tournaments so far, YE #1 with more than a month to spare, despite missing the Australian summer

So far, I would say that Serena has the slight edge, but as soon as Justine equals her number of GS titles, she would arguably be the best, with many more weeks at #1, Olympic gold, more titles, 3 years ended as #1, etc. That is even without Wimbledon - if she also gets that, there really would be no doubt.

I agree that none of the 3 have an era of their own so far, but Venus really shouldn't even be in this discussion, to claim that she dominated the tour, despite spending only 11 weeks at #1 (less than anyone who ever reached that position in the open era) and winning only 2 of the 4 slams is extremly far-fetched.

Thank you for this rational post. This is what I would hope for from FHV but alas.

About Venus, I can understand that argument. But again, cold statistics don't always tell the story. She lacks a YEC & FO & AO, has few weeks at #1, blah blah, but to think she didn't dominate in 2000 and 2001 (moreso than Hingis, Davenport and Capriati, definitely) is a bit odd to me. But again, I get your point. Statistically Venus does have the worst career out of the three, yes.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:23 PM
My personal feeling and my statement that both losses were equally hurtful was trying to show deference to Venus, Serena and Justine. However, Ace gets a little fanatical when it comes to Venus and Serena, so I am not surprised he went there.

Loss is loss, regardless of its origin and can affect different people differently.

:rolleyes: Oh please, giving deference??? You're the one invalidating the sisters loss by merely referring to their sister as their step sister. She was their mother's daughter. How in hell can she be a step? And, you're the one comparing.

Donny
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Why is 2005 Kim's year and 2006 Amelie's year? I could make a strong case for putting Henin's name there as well (together with Amelie or Kim), and then I'd see Henin's name appearing every year of the past 5 years. Dominance during a restricted amount of time is one thing, but I'd take consistency over a longer period of time into account as well when judging one's career.

Again, I make no case whatsoever of calling Justine the best of her generation, but you belittle her accomplishments imo (maybe for arguments sake, but still).

2005 is debateable. 2006 is not. Mauresmo won two slams that year, beating Henin en route to both. semis of the US Open, finals of the YEC. Not even close.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:30 PM
I can't believe anyone's calling this the "Henin era." Henin YEAR, yes.

I agree with Aces. Let's see if she keeps winning two or three slams a year, then that would be an "Henin era."

Until she gets Wimbledon it's no deal for me. And I'm not saying that because I dislike her, I just don't see how a woman with less grand slams and zero Wimbledon titles period than Serena be better than her or have her own era. It's ridiculous.

Let's wait. God.

Thank you :worship: :worship: :worship:

taddict
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:33 PM
:rolleyes: Oh please, giving deference??? You're the one invalidating the sisters loss by merely referring to their sister as their step sister. She was their mother's daughter. How in hell can she be a step? And, you're the one comparing.

Don't they call that a "half-sister"?

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Henin has won at least two GS titles in two different years, and at least every year between (2003-2007).

Venus Williams 2000 and 2001 *at least 2 GS titles each year
Serena Williams 2002 and 2003 *at least 2 GS titles each year
Justine Henin 2003, 2004 and 2007 *at least 2 GS titles each year, and one GS and one Olympic Gold*
But the Williams Sisters deserve to have an "era" but Henin doesn't, even though Henin has won more tournaments, more weeks at number one and more years winning consecutive GS singles titles (five years and counting). What a tough crowd! LOL

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=312835

Did you conveniently forget Venus' Olympic Gold for singles and the fact the Henin has not won Wimbledon ever?? Also that during 2005 and 2007 both Venus and Serena won a grand slam title?

The Crow
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:38 PM
2005 is debateable. 2006 is not. Mauresmo won two slams that year, beating Henin en route to both. semis of the US Open, finals of the YEC. Not even close.

Well Justine was in the final of each GS, won one, won the YEC (beating Mauresmo) and ended the year as number 1.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:39 PM
I'm not looking at it in a certain period of time but over a whole career. And Serena has won the most GS's and has won all 4 GS's as the only one of this generation. Justine (or someone else) will have to equal or do better in at least one of them.

Thank you :worship:

Maybe Forehand Volley will listen to you, since you are a Justine fan and you're not "biased".

Donny
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:42 PM
Well Justine was in the final of each GS, won one, won the YEC (beating Mauresmo) and ended the year as number 1.

Slams are the end all be all. Maybe if Mauresmo had done NOTHING outside of the AO and Wimbledon, it might be a contest, but that isn't the case.

That's the only reason we're even having this debate. But for one solitary slam, Henin would clearly be considered the greatest player of this generation.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:50 PM
Yes, Serena dominated from March 2002 until July 2003. For a little over a year, Serena dominated the tour. But that is not enough to be considered the greatest of her generation! Some say that Henin fans are jumping to conclusions too quickly because of her great results in 2007. But Serena's fans cling to a similar period and say that it is enough to proclaim her the greatest. It doesn't make any sense. Both have dominated the tour in a similar fashion, but over the years Henin has shown more consistency, which is the only difference between the two that counts. So, Henin is the greatest.

But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?

I don't say that either of them are the greatest at this point, but I know for a fact that Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has more grand slams, has held all four titles at the same time, and has beaten her in a Tier 1 this year. That wouldn't make sense.

plantman
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:55 PM
But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?

I don't say that either of them are the greatest at this point, but I know for a fact that Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has more grand slams, has held all four titles at the same time, and has beaten her in a Tier 1 this year. That wouldn't make sense.

:confused: You just did!

taddict
Oct 16th, 2007, 07:59 PM
:confused: You just did!

:tape:

taddict
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:01 PM
But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?

I don't say that either of them are the greatest at this point, but I know for a fact that Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has more grand slams, has held all four titles at the same time, and has beaten her in a Tier 1 this year. That wouldn't make sense.

Who's talking about being the greatest at this point? The title is a question "becoming the greatest"? i.e. can Henin become the greatest? :) That's all :shrug:

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:13 PM
Don't they call that a "half-sister"?

Not in our culture. In our culture, if you're children of the same mother, but different father you're whole. But technically yes she is a "half-sister", but certainly not a "step-sister".

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:18 PM
Who's talking about being the greatest at this point? The title is a question "becoming the greatest"? i.e. can Henin become the greatest? :) That's all :shrug:

LOL, not according to the thread starter and the discussion so far. No need to backpeddal now.

Can Henin become the greatest? Yes, but so can Venus, Serena, Mauresmo, Sharapova, and the rest of the top ten. :shrug:

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:19 PM
:confused: You just did!

How so? :confused:

Nicolás89
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:20 PM
first, i wont reply to every poster who claim what im going to respond

saying that justine need to win the grand slam to be greater than serena or every other player of her generation is partly wrong winning the grand slam means you win 4 grand slams technically speaking thats not different or better than winning 2 slams two years in a row or one slam for 4 years, and if justine accomplish a grand slam it will only mean she has 11 slams.

to be a great or a legendary player you dont need to win every slam sampras didnt, neither seles and even federer cant accomplish this yet.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Sampras is considered the GOAT for his quality of play and # of slams. What he did on court was earth-shatteringly good/perfect. Henin doesn't need Wimbledon PER SE to be the greatest player of this generation, but aside from Seles no other great champion on either tour has ever been considered "great" that doesn't have Wimbledon. It just doesn't happen.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:27 PM
first, i wont reply to every poster who claim what im going to respond

saying that justine need to win the grand slam to be greater than serena or every other player of her generation is partly wrong winning the grand slam means you win 4 grand slams technically speaking thats not different or better than winning 2 slams two years in a row or one slam for 4 years, and if justine accomplish a grand slam it will only mean she has 11 slams.

to be a great or a legendary player you dont need to win every slam sampras didnt, neither seles and even federer cant accomplish this yet.

Yes it is, because it's on four different surfaces and in a row, it's very hard to accomplish. Serena is only one of five women in the open era to have done it. That's not something to ignore. I'm sure that others would argue with you that Seles was not greater than Graf, simply because of what Graf accomplished during Seles' time. We are not talking about legendary status, we are talking about greatest.

plantman
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:27 PM
How so? :confused:

Originally Posted by Denise4925
But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?

I don't say that either of them are the greatest at this point, but I know for a fact that Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has more grand slams, has held all four titles at the same time, and has beaten her in a Tier 1 this year. That wouldn't make sense.

Well Denise if you consider Justine not the greatest at this point, it's obvious that you have someone in mind who is!:)

CrossCourt~Rally
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:32 PM
first, i wont reply to every poster who claim what im going to respond

saying that justine need to win the grand slam to be greater than serena is partly wrong winning the grand slam means you win 4 grand slams technically speaking thats not different or better than winning 2 slams two years in a row or one slam for 4 years, and if justine accomplish a grand slam it will only mean she has 11 slams.

to be a great or a legendary player you dont need to win every slam sampras didnt, neither seles and even federer cant accomplish this yet.

I feel that its important to cap off a successfull year by finishing the year #1 . I also feel that total weeks at #1 is very important when comparing a players careers along with the slams, W/L records, head to heads etc. Although lacking slam wise compared to the likes of Henin, Venus and Serena... Davenport has accomplished finishing seasons #1 4 different years ( her consistency has been AMAZING ) and Henin has accomplished this 3 years ( including this year ).
IMO, Henin and Serena are the top 2 players of there generation .:bounce: Time will only tell who will be regarded as the best when looking back at this time period in tennis. Right now, i would put them in a dead heat for #1 ;) :bounce:

:wavey:

ns_Henin
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:34 PM
What a stupid thread.. Let the results show the fact. And face it. Justine only 1 slam away to catch Serena and based on her consistency im sure Justine will be greater than Serena. Justine doesn't need an ERA, because she's consistent unlike the Williams.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by Denise4925
But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?

I don't say that either of them are the greatest at this point, but I know for a fact that Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has more grand slams, has held all four titles at the same time, and has beaten her in a Tier 1 this year. That wouldn't make sense.

Well Denise if you consider Justine not the greatest at this point, it's obvious that you have someone in mind who is!:)

Not necessarily. None of them have completed their careers and nothing at this point is written in stone. Justine, Serena or Venus will never accomplish what Steffi accomplished and she is in the same generation.

I know that you're trolling and trying to bait, but you're only making yourself look foolish trying to be clever. Because for one simple fact, you're taking a giant leap from me saying that because I don't consider Justine the greatest at this point, it's obvious that I have someone in mind who is. :scratch: I think that Justine is having a great year in her career. But, I can't go from that to saying that she's becoming or is the greatest if someone who's still playing has accomplished more. That's also not to say that the person who's accomplished more is the greatest either, especially when you look at Steffi Graf's record. In light of that, why is this even being discussed. Where are the Steffi fans? :lol:

Nicolás89
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Yes it is, because it's on four different surfaces and in a row, it's very hard to accomplish. Serena is only one of five women in the open era to have done it. That's not something to ignore. I'm sure that others would argue with you that Seles was not greater than Graf, simply because of what Graf accomplished during Seles' time. We are not talking about legendary status, we are talking about greatest.

so what are you saying even if justine win 4 more slams and serena none but justine still cant accomplish a grand slam or win wimbledon she would still be behind serena on the greatest terms?

btw i was talking on my previous post about justine and seles not winning wimbledon and sampras and federer not winning rg, if it wasnt clear.

plantman
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:49 PM
Not necessarily. None of them have completed their careers and nothing at this point is written in stone. Justine, Serena or Venus will never accomplish what Steffi accomplished and she is in the same generation.

I know that you're trolling and trying to bait, but you're only making yourself look foolish trying to be clever. Because for one simple fact, you're taking a giant leap from me saying that because I don't consider Justine the greatest at this point, it's obvious that I have someone in mind who is. :scratch: I think that Justine is having a great year in her career. But, I can't go from that to saying that she's becoming or is the greatest if someone who's still playing has accomplished more. That's also not to say that the person who's accomplished more is the greatest either, especially when you look at Steffi Graf's record. In light of that, why is this even being discussed. Where are the Steffi fans? :lol:

Please.........nice try!:)
Bringing Steffi into the post........grasping for help now!

Matt01
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:50 PM
2005 is debateable. 2006 is not.

Crap. Of course 2006 is debatable.


But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?


Who cares about Miami? Is that a new Slam? :confused:

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:50 PM
so what are you saying even if justine win 4 more slams and serena none but justine still cant accomplish a grand slam or win wimbledon she would still be behind serena on the greatest terms?

btw i was talking in my previous post about justine and seles not winning wimbledon and sampras and federer not winning rg, if it wasnt clear.

First, please don't put words in my mouth. I said what I'm saying. At this point and in my opinion, Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has accomplished more, and you cannot discount the fact that that player has accomplished something only four other women in the open era has accomplished.

If Justine does win another four slams and Serena none, I guess it would depend on which ones they are or which one. But, who can make that prediction? Anything can happen. Look at what happened to Monica Seles and Steffi Graf. I know one thing for sure though, even if Justine won four more slams, she's still be behind Steffi in greatest terms.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Please.........nice try!:)
Bringing Steffi into the post........grasping for help now!

Oh sorry, I didn't know that Steffi's records didn't count anymore.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:55 PM
Who cares about Miami? Is that a new Slam? :confused:

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that we were only talking about being the greatest of them all AT SLAMS and not every other aspect of the tour. I guess you need to correct Forehand Volley and have her/him discount the fact that Justine won an Olympic Gold, unless the Olympics is a new slam. :)

Matt01
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that we were only talking about being the greatest of them all AT SLAMS and not every other aspect of the tour. I guess you need to correct Forehand Volley and have her/him discount the fact that Justine won an Olympic Gold, unless the Olympics is a new slam. :)

Olympics are a bit more important than Miami. ;) And both are clearly and by far less important than any Slam.

plantman
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Oh sorry, I didn't know that Steffi's records didn't count anymore.

Look who's being foolish now! Of course they do. The problem is we were not talking about her until you brought her into the discussion.

terjw
Oct 16th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Why is 2005 Kim's year and 2006 Amelie's year? I could make a strong case for putting Henin's name there as well (together with Amelie or Kim), and then I'd see Henin's name appearing every year of the past 5 years. Dominance during a restricted amount of time is one thing, but I'd take consistency over a longer period of time into account as well when judging one's career.

Again, I make no case whatsoever of calling Justine the best of her generation, but you belittle her accomplishments imo (maybe for arguments sake, but still).

Granted there's a case for putthing Henin's name in there as well in 2006. But strong case for Justine in 2005 my ass? No way. Let's look at what really happened that year.

Kim's record that year was a staggering 9 wins including USO and back to back wins at Indian Wells and Miami - even though she missed everything up to Antwerp (her comeback tournament) with her injury and missed most of the clay court season with another injury she got while playing Patty at Berlin and had to retire. She played Justine once that year - at the Canadian open final and disposed of Justine in straight sets 7-5 6-1 at a tournament the WTA made Kim play - they hard designated the event making Kim play 4 tourmnaments in a row - and she won it. And in the 2 GS she played and didn't win she lost to Lindsay the #1 player.

Justine had a brief great clay season and won RG - but did not do much else. She lost to Danilidou in the 1st round at Wimbledon and Mary Pierce in the 4th round at USO - much lower ranked players than Lindsay. In all Justine just won the 4 clay court tournaments she played that year - and that just about sums up her year.

It does not compare to what Kim did that year - and the rankings reflected this.

Kworb
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:04 PM
First, please don't put words in my mouth. I said what I'm saying. At this point and in my opinion, Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has accomplished more, and you cannot discount the fact that that player has accomplished something only four other women in the open era has accomplished.

If Justine does win another four slams and Serena none, I guess it would depend on which ones they are or which one. But, who can make that prediction? Anything can happen. Look at what happened to Monica Seles and Steffi Graf. I know one thing for sure though, even if Justine won four more slams, she's still be behind Steffi in greatest terms.
But Serena hasn't accomplished more. She has accomplished different things. The way you compare the accomplishments decides who is greater. I personally think Justine's accomplishments are greater than Serena's, and I find it hard to grasp why anyone would think otherwise, but in the end it's still subjective.

Nicolás89
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:06 PM
First, please don't put words in my mouth. I said what I'm saying. At this point and in my opinion, Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has accomplished more, and you cannot discount the fact that that player has accomplished something only four other women in the open era has accomplished.

If Justine does win another four slams and Serena none, I guess it would depend on which ones they are or which one. But, who can make that prediction? Anything can happen. Look at what happened to Monica Seles and Steffi Graf. I know one thing for sure though, even if Justine won four more slams, she's still be behind Steffi in greatest terms.

i used my intuition to reply and i thought you meant that, you cant blame me though because everyone would had thought that and thats why i put these sign "?" on my post to ask if thats what you meant.

even if justine win 4 more french open and no other slam she would still have 11 slams and for defection a greatest player than serena.

homogenius
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:25 PM
First, please don't put words in my mouth. I said what I'm saying. At this point and in my opinion, Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has accomplished more, and you cannot discount the fact that that player has accomplished something only four other women in the open era has accomplished.

If Justine does win another four slams and Serena none, I guess it would depend on which ones they are or which one. But, who can make that prediction? Anything can happen. Look at what happened to Monica Seles and Steffi Graf. I know one thing for sure though, even if Justine won four more slams, she's still be behind Steffi in greatest terms.

If Justine win 4 slams and Serena none she'll be above her no matter the slams.Basically Justine needs one Wimbledon, or one more slam than Serena and that's it.She leads nearly all the statistics categories : more titles, moreT2 and T1, more weeks at n°1, more year ended as n°1, one gold medal at Olympics.Serena's period of domination was more impressive than Justine this year but Henin has the consistency for her.So all she needs really is leading in slams.
I hope that it'll give Serena some motivation to lose some weight and be ready to stop Henin next year.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:56 PM
Look who's being foolish now! Of course they do. The problem is we were not talking about her until you brought her into the discussion.

Well, when the topic is "the greatest of them all", Steffi Graf comes to mind. :tape: :lol:

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:58 PM
even if justine win 4 more french open and no other slam she would still have 11 slams and for defection a greatest player than serena.

I disagree, but then again, it's a very subjective subject.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:00 PM
If Justine win 4 slams and Serena none she'll be above her no matter the slams.Basically Justine needs one Wimbledon, or one more slam than Serena and that's it.She leads nearly all the statistics categories : more titles, moreT2 and T1, more weeks at n°1, more year ended as n°1, one gold medal at Olympics.Serena's period of domination was more impressive than Justine this year but Henin has the consistency for her.So all she needs really is leading in slams.
I hope that it'll give Serena some motivation to lose some weight and be ready to stop Henin next year.

That's a big IF Justine wins four more slams and Serena wins NONE. Again, Serena's career is far from being over and some of you talk as if it is. Let them finish out their careers and let's see.

karimcartoon
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:01 PM
you are kidding me ..... she CANT even BE compared to Steffi Graff or Chris Evert. come on. she needs 15 or so more majors and maybe she can try get a career grandslam. just because a person is having ONE great year doesnt prove anything. i mean serena had an amazing 2002-2003 but she didnt end up the greatest of them all but she's certainly one of the best.

rottweily
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Be afraid, be very afraid :devil:

Vlad Tepes
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Thank you for this rational post. This is what I would hope for from FHV but alas.

About Venus, I can understand that argument. But again, cold statistics don't always tell the story. She lacks a YEC & FO & AO, has few weeks at #1, blah blah, but to think she didn't dominate in 2000 and 2001 (moreso than Hingis, Davenport and Capriati, definitely) is a bit odd to me. But again, I get your point. Statistically Venus does have the worst career out of the three, yes.

Thank you, I also understand your point and it's quite odd that Venus, who was playing great in 00-01 and won 6 slams and 36 titles in her career only managed to spend 11 weeks at the top. However, Hingis was so consistent in 2000, despite not winning any slam and then came Serena, who was somewhat better and kept Venus at #2.

Vlad Tepes
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:28 PM
But, the only thing consistent is that since 2003, she's only consistent in winning one particular slam (RG). No different from Venus (Wimbledon) or Serena (AO). When was the last time Justine won Miami?

I don't say that either of them are the greatest at this point, but I know for a fact that Justine cannot be considered greater than a player who has more grand slams, has held all four titles at the same time, and has beaten her in a Tier 1 this year. That wouldn't make sense.

The first two points are valid, but the last one is clearly not, as Justine went on to beat Serena in the next 3 GS after that lost Tier I final.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Thank you, I also understand your point and it's quite odd that Venus, who was playing great in 00-01 and won 6 slams and 36 titles in her career only managed to spend 11 weeks at the top. However, Hingis was so consistent in 2000, despite not winning any slam and then came Serena, who was somewhat better and kept Venus at #2.

It wasn't that Hingis was so consistent, it's that she played every tournament available, winning or losing to keep her ranking at No. 1. I think she played like 24 tournaments a year. :shrug: Plus, JenCap won the AO a couple of time then and Davenport, so yeah they were top 3. But, Venus didn't play enough tournaments to get her ranking to No. 1 until 2002 after she won Wimby and USO twice in a row and had a good clay court season and made it to the finals of the French and Serena took over as No. 1 at Wimby that year.

Vlad Tepes
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:37 PM
Olympics are a bit more important than Miami. ;) And both are clearly and by far less important than any Slam.

I would say that the Olympics are clearly more important than any Tier I, as it's such a special tournament, that only happens once every 4 years. There is also this thrill to represent your country and get to hear your national anthem while holding that gold medal at the end, with probably billions of people watching you. Justine was also the only gold medalist for Belgium in 2004, so that makes it even more important for her and her compatriots.
I know it is not regarded as highly as a slam, and rightfully so, as it's simply too different, but on a personal note, I think many players cherish their Olympic performances very much.

Vlad Tepes
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:39 PM
It wasn't that Hingis was so consistent, it's that she played every tournament available, winning or losing to keep her ranking at No. 1. I think she played like 24 tournaments a year. :shrug: Plus, JenCap won the AO a couple of time then and Davenport, so yeah they were top 3. But, Venus didn't play enough tournaments to get her ranking to No. 1 until 2002 after she won Wimby and USO twice in a row and had a good clay court season and made it to the finals of the French and Serena took over as No. 1 at Wimby that year.

Yeah, I know and in a way that stat is deceiving, as Venus has spent a lot of time in the top 2-3, but the weeks at #1 remain written down in the history books.

Vlad Tepes
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:42 PM
That's a big IF Justine wins four more slams and Serena wins NONE. Again, Serena's career is far from being over and some of you talk as if it is. Let them finish out their careers and let's see.

Exactly, both of them have the potential to win a lot more in the next years, and although Justine is coming off a much better year, Serena still has the lead when it comes to career slams and holding all 4.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:46 PM
The first two points are valid, but the last one is clearly not, as Justine went on to beat Serena in the next 3 GS after that lost Tier I final.

The last point is valid if I'm arguing against someone saying that Justine is greater than Serena merely because she beat her in the last 3 GS.

homogenius
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:48 PM
It wasn't that Hingis was so consistent, it's that she played every tournament available, winning or losing to keep her ranking at No. 1. I think she played like 24 tournaments a year. :shrug: Plus, JenCap won the AO a couple of time then and Davenport, so yeah they were top 3. But, Venus didn't play enough tournaments to get her ranking to No. 1 until 2002 after she won Wimby and USO twice in a row and had a good clay court season and made it to the finals of the French and Serena took over as No. 1 at Wimby that year.

Hingis played 20 tournaments in 2000 and 18 in 2001.What a lot of people would call a normal schedule.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:50 PM
Hingis won 12 events in 2001 and 2002, nine in 2001. That's pretty good for 20 events.

Denise4925
Oct 16th, 2007, 11:51 PM
Hingis played 20 tournaments in 2000 and 18 in 2001.What a lot of people would call a normal schedule.

Yeah right :lol:

Melly Flew Us
Oct 17th, 2007, 12:22 AM
i wish i liked justine as much as i used to.
because next year there will be little to cheer about that doesn't involve a 'win' next to her name.

allez on unforced errrors: loving it coz she's bringing bitchy back.

sportywoman
Oct 17th, 2007, 12:44 AM
Greatness is all about subjectivety but like in any sport there is a general conscensus for historical standard collective memory to associate a physical criterion like numbers, figures to measure up geatness for historical purposes.

In track and fields, the greater is the one who run faster and whose name is related to the smallest figures in terms of minutes, seconds. The one who beat that figurebecome the greatest on that specific discipline and the new reference in terms of Greatness. After that you have the one who collected the most golden medals during his/her career.

In tennis, the one with the most slams is historically perceived by the majority has the greatest upon which the next generation will try to measure up wether they had all slams or 3/4 or 2/4. The number one criteria is first and foremost the number of slams you won, that's what history will tell to the next generation. Just like Roger has a greal shot at becoming the reference in greatness wether he succeed or not in winning the 4 of them as soon as he will pass Sampras number of slams. He will be perceived as the greatesr and the reference to beat.