PDA

View Full Version : Serena Williams, I think if she weren't injured at OZ...


Dawn Marie
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:04 AM
that she would have won the GRANDSLAM,

WOW, you go girl. Fearless Serena rulez:):bounce:

Deira
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:06 AM
I agree, Dawn Marie. Serena surely would have taken that Aussie title and there wouldn't have been so much sweat doing it ;)

Dawn Marie
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:21 AM
Hell I think she can retire with at least 10 slams.:):) Maybe even more. She is still very young, and nowhere near being burned out.

Gonzo Hates Me!
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:23 AM
Go girl!

the cat
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:30 AM
Hello Dawn! :wavey: You can't live with would have, should have and could have! :eek: Serena may or may not have won Oz. But what she has done by winning the final 3 slams of the year is create one of the best years any tennis player ever has had!

And with the devastating way she won the 2002 women's U.S. Open, the case could be made that Serena's performance during the 2002 U.S. Open was the best ever in a grand slam in women's tennis. The championship was never in doubt. It was Serena's all the way. Poor Venus! :(

And DM, I think ten slam titles these days would be like 15 or 20 from 10 years ago. Women's tennis is much deeper now. And with Venus, Jennifer, Amelie and Lindsay lurking in the deep, Serena does have some possible challengers out there.

moby
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:42 AM
now now...
we cant have anyone completing the slam before martina, can we? :o

franny
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:48 AM
ok, serena is juss amazing, even i have to admit it, the way she has dominated everyone, its scary. Today, i actaully thought venus played well and hit more winners then usual, but serena played consistent power tennis. The only problem with the williams and australia is that they are always either injured or sluggish there, so i am not sure if serena will be able to win the australian next year, but if she does, should we consider that a grand slam of tennis even though the record books wont?

SM
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:54 AM
winning 4 slams in a row over a two year period is just as good as winning all four in the same year DAWN...looks like Serena will do it IMO and join the ranks of the best ever !! as John Newcombe said, Serena did have room for improvement a year ago but now shes ironed out all her minor weaknesses , and its only gonna do more for the game....the girls coming up are gonna have to increase their work intensity and learn to not just hit like a Williams fromt he back court, but to also have sound net skills so its gonna take a lot!!!!!!!!

Grice
Sep 8th, 2002, 05:01 AM
well, ever since she declared last year that she wanted to be No.1, it was quite evident that she meant serious business...

the scary thing is Serena's probably not even at her full potential and peak?? and she's beating the hell out of top players like Davenport and Hantuchova and Venus!

Williams Rulez
Sep 8th, 2002, 06:16 AM
Yeah, I think she might have done it...

Well, right now, Serena is only 20, if she plays tennis for 5 more years, and averages 2 a year, she will have 14 at the end of her career. Not bad at all...

SM
Sep 8th, 2002, 06:26 AM
what if serena averages 3.5 a year? i think its possible, even likely if she avoids injury ;)

Sam L
Sep 8th, 2002, 07:00 AM
Funnily enough, I was courtside watching the match between Serena and Meghann in Sydney, when the ankle-roll happened. Who would've thought that was probably what stopped her completing the slam this year :eek:

Freaky!

SM
Sep 8th, 2002, 07:56 AM
well shell completeit next year by winning the aus open..in fairness if she does do it it'd just be as valuable as winning them all in the one calendar year seeing she didnt play aus last year....

irma
Sep 8th, 2002, 08:39 AM
yep, I think she had won too! :sad:

TheBoiledEgg
Sep 8th, 2002, 09:02 AM
I wish she wasn't injured either but for entirely diff reasons :sad:

way
Sep 8th, 2002, 09:04 AM
yes, maybe, but.........back to the what ifs we are!!!

Graf did the same in 95 (no OZ+all 3 slams)
If Monica hadn't been assaulted in 93......
If Steffi hadn't been (made?) sick in RG89?
If Navratilova hadn't found the anomalous situation of the OZ in 85-86?

She can win the Oz in January and it's a NonCalendar Slam (not a Grand Slam) as Navra and Graf (twice) did.
And then, who knows?
Think if she's winning next year GRAND SLAM, it'll get her to seven in a row.
That would REALLY reopen alltime greatest debate!!!
:)

Sam L
Sep 8th, 2002, 09:41 AM
way, Navratilova only got the non-calender slam too.

3 in 83, 3 in 84

Right?

So Serena would be on par with Navra at least.

Monica_Rules
Sep 8th, 2002, 10:53 AM
in 1991 if Monica wasn't injured at wimbledon! she would have won!

Its easy to say but we will never know!

Venus lost to Monica maybe serena would have lost to someone else!

Kart
Sep 8th, 2002, 11:18 AM
She can always do it next year.

SM
Sep 8th, 2002, 01:02 PM
who cares if Navs slam was calender year or not? im sure she doesnt, iut means the same thing to win all four in a row ...the year it fell in is just technical babble and has no bearing on the type of achievement it is IMO :)! GO SERENA!!!!!

Bright Red
Sep 8th, 2002, 01:13 PM
Dawn, you are so right about this, and I think 2003 will prove you right (yep, you heard it first right here).

I thought this exact thing when she won last night.

Serena is head and shoulders above the rest!

way
Sep 8th, 2002, 03:43 PM
Yes, Sam L, that's what i said.
Non calendar Slam.

But to be on par to Navratilova, mmmmm, she got SIX in a row!!!
To be on par with that, Serena must win OZ+French+Wimb 03 and lose usopen (03)
That's "exactly" what Navratilova achieved.

If she wins "only" next OZ, she's on par with Graf 93-94 (French, Wimbl, Usopoen93+OZ94)
Exactly like that.

way
Sep 8th, 2002, 04:00 PM
SM,
of course you're entitled to think that a NonCalendar Slam and a Grand Slam are the same achievement.
Still they are not!!!

The definition of Grand Slam dates back to the fourties (right?) when, on the eve of UsOpen, an American Journalist said that if Crawford, a player who had won OZ, French and Wimbledon, would won UsOpen too, he'd have achieved something so great to be compared to the Grand Slam of Bridge, the card game.
From then on, the definiton of Grand Slam, winning all Slams in a year.
If it's not in a year, it's not a Grand Slam, it's called a noncalendar Slam.
All tennis books, when listing Grand Slam winners, have Budge, Connolly, Laver, Laver, Court and Graf.

The rest are opinions.
It's as considering a better result winning more points in a match than winning the match itself.
(it happened to Capriati vs. Mauresmo, i think)
There's a logic behind it (more points, better match, sure), but still you have to win 6 games to win a set and 2/3 sets to win a match, not scoring more points.

Rules, not babbles.

GogoGirl
Sep 8th, 2002, 08:36 PM
DM - Serena is wondering the same thing now.

Venus says she'll prepare earlier next year for the OZ. IMO - her groundstrokes are just as penetrating and punishing as Serena's. When that child is on - it will be Serena running around like a rag doll in one of their future matches.


http://sport.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5059185%255E9754,00.html


Serena's sights set on us
By PAUL MALONE in New York
September 09, 2002

A REGRETFUL Serena Williams yesterday laid claim to the Australian Open as the last domino to fall in her takeover of the tennis world after leaving her older sister as tired and sore as her other opponents.

Vanquished Venus Williams was picked on by her younger sister for a fourth successive straight-sets loss, this time 6-4, 6-3 in a landslide US Open final.

A third successive major title, tying her sister on a career tally of four, meant the 20-year-old could have won the calendar-year Grand Slam if not for an ankle injury that forced her withdrawal from the Australian Open.

"I never thought about it until you just said it," said Serena Williams with a quiet groan.

"Maybe it wasn't meant to happen this year. I'll just start over. I'm still young.

"My goal is now to go Down Under, at least for me or Venus to win. That's the only one eluding us. I'm going to have some fun next year, that's for sure."

With her penetration and her athleticism, Serena has relocated the gap in quality in women's tennis not so much between the top two players and a discouraged chasing pack, but between the No. 1 and the rest.

But neither of the Williams sisters has made the final of the Australian Open and Venus, having lost the chance to regain the No. 1 ranking yesterday, said she would also go to Australia better prepared.

"I'm going to start with preparing a lot earlier, instead of like one week before. That would probably give me the upper hand," Venus said.

For the eighth time in 10 completed matches, the Williams show did not venture to a third set and the lack of emotion from both players was again extended to a capacity crowd lacking reasons to barrack for one player over the other.

Crowd support of Venus's French semi-final opponent Amelie Mauresmo prompted newspaper scrutiny of whether the attitude towards the first family of tennis stemmed from racial resentment.

"I've never had anyone who's walked up to me and said: 'I don't want to see a Williams-Williams final'," Venus Williams said.

Serena, the world's biggest kid sister, joins Helen Wills Moody (twice), Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova (twice), Steffi Graf (four times) and Martina Hingis as women to have lifted three or more major titles in the same year.

Despite the distraction of having a long-time stalker arrested and then deported from the US last week, Serena swept through the event without losing a set, conceding an average of 4.1 games a match and 58 minutes.

"I won without losing a set last year so I know what it feels like," said Venus, who held off the first eight break points before Serena converted a chance in the seventh game.

Beaten semi-finalist Lindsay Davenport named teenagers, Slovakia's Daniela Hantuchova, ranked 11th, and Russian Elena Bovina, ranked No 62, as two with the power game to test "It's very special for all of us almost a year from September 11. What Pete (Sampras) and Andre (Agassi) have accomplished in their careers is expected and so is what we have accomplished," said Serena, who pocketed a winner's cheque for $A1.64 million.

"Venus kind of dominated me for a long time and I just got tired of losing."

The Courier-Mail

Joseosu19
Sep 8th, 2002, 09:04 PM
Go Serena:)

Hingiswinsthis
Sep 8th, 2002, 11:39 PM
yea, i think Serena would've had the grandslam right now. I still say Jennifer is a lucky clown for winning that major down under, that might be her last.

However, I really believe Serena will win the Australian 2003 and become the 9th woman to win all majors.

This question is similar to Martina Hingis in 1997. Except that Martina was closer AS SHE ACTUALLY PLAYED the French as a wounded animal and still got to the finals. Injury, injury, injuries- someone make them stop!:)

I feel bad for Venus, it's strange not seeing her lift a major trophy this year. All credit to Serena:)

"Topaz"
Sep 8th, 2002, 11:58 PM
I understand there is something called Serena Slam. So, let Serena define it for us at Aussie-03. :angel:

Sam L
Sep 9th, 2002, 12:19 AM
way, I read your original post again. LOL sorry my mistake. I thought you meant Navra and Graf completed the "calender grand slams". I got confused.

Hehe

Lisbeth
Sep 9th, 2002, 12:34 AM
Well, I'm not sure. I saw her playing in Sydney and she wasn't that hot, including in the game she got injured v Meghann. But then maybe she already had an underlying problem with her ankle, and she does rise to the occasion many times after average preparation.

It's still a great achievement! I just hope it inspires her to come to Aus next year ready!! I'd love to see in-form Williams sisters and we haven't had that treat very often in Australia (the Olympics was the exception).

Congrats Serena.

Hingiswinsthis
Sep 9th, 2002, 12:48 AM
I want to see a Serena Williams vs. Martina Hingis Australian Open Final:D:D:D 2003

the cat
Sep 9th, 2002, 01:26 AM
The last player Martina Hingis needs to see in a grand slam final is the overpowering Serena Williams. Martina is completey overmatched against Serena. Do you remember their semifinal match at the 2001 U.S. Open? I've never seen Hingis so overmatched!

Hingiswinsthis
Sep 9th, 2002, 01:38 AM
way to put down another fan the cat:rolleyes:

We all know what Martina is capable of on a tennis court. True she cannot beat 3 big hitters in a row, but can cause atleast an upset. She'll be fine come Australia time and will play much sharper than her horrible game she displayed this year in the Us Open(which totally disgusted me and pitied her).

Serena is the best player now and it will be interesting how she prepares for Australia 2003. I believe she is going to win.

evadafan
Sep 9th, 2002, 04:27 AM
Tennis writers are so incredibly stupid and/or lazy. Yet another example.....

"Serena, the world's biggest kid sister, joins Helen Wills Moody (twice), Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova (twice), Steffi Graf (four times) and Martina Hingis as women to have lifted three or more major titles in the same year."

Is someone obvious missing??? I think someone won three in '91 and in '92???

way
Sep 9th, 2002, 08:40 AM
No problem, SamL!
:)