PDA

View Full Version : Why did Serena lose 3 times in a row in GS against Henin in 2007 ?


LightWarrior
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:40 PM
I know that the Wimbledon match doesn't count because Serena was injured. But in RG and USO Serena looked very subdued. After that 3rd ecounter at the USO I started to feel that Serena had developped a Henin psychological complex. Or was Serena's level of play not as high back then as it was in 2008/09, and even now. What do you think ?

young_gunner913
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:42 PM
if she had an henin complex she wouldn't have delivered a 6-2, 6-0 beatdown in their last match.

flyingmachine
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:42 PM
I think we will have to wait and see.

AcesHigh
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:42 PM
B/c in 2007, Henin was better than Serena. Is that hard to accept?
And the Wimbledon match counts whether you want it to or not.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:43 PM
Henin was simply a better player that year, at a level which I'm not sure Serena has ever reached. End.

SAEKeithSerena
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:43 PM
Serena didn't eat a banana before her match.

grow up.

volta
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:45 PM
this must be the "i'm desperate for a hit thread" month

DOUBLEFIST
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:45 PM
I know that the Wimbledon match doesn't count because Serena was injured. But in RG and USO Serena looked very subdued. After that 3rd ecounter at the USO I started to feel that Serena had developped a Henin psychological complex. Or was Serena's level of play not as high back then as it was in 2008/09, and even now. What do you think ?

French - Clay (always a difficult proposition)

Wimby - Injured

USO - Head case.

The Dawntreader
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:47 PM
I wasn't convinced at all of Serena's level physically firstly in '07. It was obvious also, that her standard of play started to decrease steadily throughout the year since Miami.

Justine's game was on a total ascent in 2007. That USO match was a ruthless display, totally out-playing Serena quite comprehensively in that second set. The Wimbledon match was a laboured performance from Serena due to the discomfort in her thumb, yet it was still the most contested QF between them. The surface was giving Serena a reprieve and enable her to play half-decent 1-2 tennis. Henin played a better all-round match that day though, no question. Injury or no injury.

The RG match was always going to play into Henin's hands.

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:47 PM
Henin was simply a better player that year, at a level which I'm not sure Serena has ever reached. End.

Yes, okay then.

Arnian
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:49 PM
Justine just got the better of her.

Two great champions and one played better, it's not that hard to understand. All three of them also count and it's bogus to say that one doesn't.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:49 PM
Yes, okay then.

Glad we agree.

Stamp Paid
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:49 PM
She couldnt be bothered to even make it a match at Roland Garros. Poor effort. Justine just routed her in routine fashion.
Injured at Wimbledon, she was hitting 1 handed backhands the entire match.
And she didnt play at all between Wimbledon and the USO because of her thumb and thigh injury, so she did well to even make it to Justine in the QFs at the US Open. I was actually scared Bartoli would take her out in the 4R

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:51 PM
Glad we agree.

:)

LightWarrior
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:52 PM
Justine just got the better of her.

Two great champions and one played better, it's not that hard to understand. All three of them also count and it's bogus to say that one doesn't.

You're always so politically-correct...

LightWarrior
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:53 PM
if she had an henin complex she wouldn't have delivered a 6-2, 6-0 beatdown in their last match.

Irrelevant, that wasn't a GS.

young_gunner913
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:54 PM
Henin was simply a better player that year, at a level which I'm not sure Serena has ever reached. End.

Um Serena's won 4 straight grand slams, Justine best streak has been 2.

So take that weak shit to the park, cause it aint flying around here.

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:55 PM
Henin was simply a better player that year, at a level which I'm not sure Serena has ever reached. End.

I don't recall Serena losing to a perennial top 20 player in the semifinals of Wimbledon in 02 or 03. Or is 07 Wimbledon just a blank spot in your memory?

young_gunner913
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:55 PM
Irrelevant, that wasn't a GS.

:spit: Okay, but when Serena loses to some scrub outside a slam, WTAWorld goes CRAZY. And now only grand slam matches matter?

Gotta love the hypocrisy of the Forum. :bowdown:

AcesHigh
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:55 PM
French - Clay (always a difficult proposition)

Wimby - Injured

USO - Head case.

She couldnt be bothered to even make it a match at Roland Garros. Poor effort. Justine just routed her in routine fashion.
Injured at Wimbledon, she was hitting 1 handed backhands the entire match.
And she didnt play at all between Wimbledon and the USO because of her thumb and thigh injury, so she did well to even make it to Justine in the QFs at the US Open. I was actually scared Bartoli would take her out in the 4R

And Henin was the better player that year.. as she was from 2003 up until her retirement just as Serena was clearly the better player before her surgery in 2003

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:58 PM
I don't recall Serena losing to a perennial top 20 player in the semifinals of Wimbledon in 02 or 03. Or is 07 Wimbledon just a blank spot in your memory?

I'm talking actual quality of play, which we all know doesn't necessarily correlate with achievements. You must surely agree with that, if you believe Serena to be the best player of all-time when at her best, despite the fact many players have achieved more than her. My point is that, the way Henin played at her best in 07, I don't think Serena has ever played quite that well.

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:01 PM
I'm talking actual quality of play, which we all know doesn't necessarily correlate with achievements. You must surely agree with that, if you believe Serena to be the best player of all-time when at her best, despite the fact many players have achieved more than her. My point is that, the way Henin played at her best in 07, I don't think Serena has ever played quite that well.

What players have achieved significantly more than Serena from Spring of 02 to Winter of 03?

And I still don't see your point. Serena at her best NEVER lost to clearly inferior players at majors.

frenchie
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:03 PM
Injured in Wimbledon (winning a set is actually a good accomplishment)

Outplayed in RG and USO

next

DOUBLEFIST
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:03 PM
...Henin played at her best in 07, I don't think Serena has ever played quite that well.
Seriously? Really?

The "Serena Slam" took place during the toughest period of the decade and she dominated.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:04 PM
What players have achieved significantly more than Serena from Spring of 02 to Winter of 03?

And I still don't see your point. Serena at her best NEVER lost to clearly inferior players at majors.

Graf never lost to clearly inferior players at majors EVER until she hit her late 20s. Serena did. So, if you believe Serena's best level trumps Graf's best level, you can't possibly argue that achievements are definitive proof of one's ability.

KBdoubleu
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:05 PM
Henin was at her peak. Serena was obviously injured at Wimbledon, which is the surface that you would expect Serena to win on hands down. The injury kept her out until the US Open, where she was again drawn to play Henin in the quarters. Serena did not play well through out the entire tournament, and it was probably one of Henin's best tournaments in her career.

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:05 PM
Serena 2002/2003 >> Justine 2007.

It's fairly east to see if you watch matches.

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:06 PM
Graf never lost to clearly inferior players at majors EVER until she hit her late 20s. Serena did. So, if you believe Serena's best level trumps Graf's best level, you can't possibly argue that achievements are definitive proof of one's ability.


If I was arguing that Serena's peak was longer than a year, you'd have a point...

AcesHigh
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:08 PM
I'm talking actual quality of play, which we all know doesn't necessarily correlate with achievements. You must surely agree with that, if you believe Serena to be the best player of all-time when at her best, despite the fact many players have achieved more than her. My point is that, the way Henin played at her best in 07, I don't think Serena has ever played quite that well.

Everyone has different opinions and hopefully others can respect that.

I think it's a matter of preference. What was accomplished is irrelevant as you are talking about quality of play.
However, Serena and Justine had very different games at their peaks. Justine had the more all-court game, while Serena dominated through power and athleticism possibly unrivaled in the history of women's tennis.

Who was better at their peak is up to debate. Often the opinion will be affected by which player you like more or which style of play you like more.

LightWarrior
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:09 PM
Henin was at her peak. Serena was obviously injured at Wimbledon, which is the surface that you would expect Serena to win on hands down. The injury kept her out until the US Open, where she was again drawn to play Henin in the quarters. Serena did not play well through out the entire tournament, and it was probably one of Henin's best tournaments in her career.

No, I remember her playing very well against Bartoli (a finalist at Wilmbledon that year, oh and who had beaten Henin too.) a round earlier. Hence the Henin complex I'm talking about.

vml
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:10 PM
Henin was simply a better player that year, at a level which I'm not sure Serena has ever reached. End.

yeah right:rolleyes: 2002, anyone ?

vml
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:12 PM
:spit: Okay, but when Serena loses to some scrub outside a slam, WTAWorld goes CRAZY. And now only grand slam matches matter?

Gotta love the hypocrisy of the Forum. :bowdown:

This. But what can we do young-gunner ? Nothing, I fear

Thkmra
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:14 PM
Henin was simply a better player that year, at a level which I'm not sure Serena has ever reached. End.

Get off it!! NO woman has EVER reached Serena's top level:rolleyes:

Break down: French Legitimate. Henin is a superior clay court player to Serena, was throughly outplayed in all categories.

Wimby..injured, no back-hand, no movement, and based on sheer will alone almost took the match irregardless.

USO..Though she was not injured, did have a lingering injury that halted her USO preparation in the series to nada. Did manage to 'play herslf into some form', but it still wasn't enough. Henin was on top of her from beginning to end, allowed no chance for another emotional comeback. Just wasn't properly conditioned. Both were toe-to-toe throughout the first set, and had Serena won, things might have been diffrent, but as results she knew that playing her best for a 3hr, grueling-exhausting level was required to win and she just didn't have it to give.Realizing this she tanked the remainder of the way.:wavey:

frenchie
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:15 PM
Serena 2002/2003 >> Justine 2007.

It's fairly east to see if you watch matches.

best tennis ever played by a woman:worship:

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:17 PM
LOL at people trying to apply the "injury" tag to the USO match. In that case, we definitely have to disqualify Serena's 6-2 6-0 win, because Henin had a knee injury (one which she actually had to have surgery on, unlike Serena's thumb injury which apparently caused her so much grief for months after Wimbledon, yet magically healed just as the US Open began).

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:18 PM
best tennis ever played by a woman:worship:

Obviously ! It was mind-blowing. To compare that to Justine in 2007 is ridiculous

choi15
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:19 PM
Everyone has different opinions and hopefully others can respect that.

I think it's a matter of preference. What was accomplished is irrelevant as you are talking about quality of play.
However, Serena and Justine had very different games at their peaks. Justine had the more all-court game, while Serena dominated through power and athleticism possibly unrivaled in the history of women's tennis.

Who was better at their peak is up to debate. Often the opinion will be affected by which player you like more or which style of play you like more.

+1

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:19 PM
She couldnt be bothered to even make it a match at Roland Garros. Poor effort. Justine just routed her in routine fashion.
Injured at Wimbledon, she was hitting 1 handed backhands the entire match.
And she didnt play at all between Wimbledon and the USO because of her thumb and thigh injury, so she did well to even make it to Justine in the QFs at the US Open. I was actually scared Bartoli would take her out in the 4R
This.

except, I was afraid that she would lose to Zvonareva too....:scared:

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:19 PM
Williams sisters > the world

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:20 PM
Williams sisters > the world

Yes...Well only Serena really.

Arnian
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:20 PM
Get off it!! NO woman has EVER reached Serena's top level:rolleyes:

Break down: French Legitimate. Henin is a superior clay court player to Serena, was throughly outplayed in all categories.

Wimby..injured, no back-hand, no movement, and based on sheer will alone almost took the match irregardless.

USO..Though she was not injured, did have a lingering injury that halted her USO preparation in the series to nada. Did manage to 'play herslf into some form', but it still wasn't enough. Henin was on top of her from beginning to end, allowed no chance for another emotional comeback. Just wasn't properly conditioned. Both were toe-to-toe throughout the first set, and had Serena won, things might have been diffrent, but as results she knew that playing her best for a 3hr, grueling-exhausting level was required to win and she just didn't have it to give.Realizing this she tanked the remainder of the way.:wavey:

:haha: no insult to Serena's 02 run but things need to be put into perspective.

It is no where near the top performance by a female tennis player, it's one of them but not the top. Martina was a AO win away from the grand slam in 84, and Graf had the golden slam in 88, learn some tennis history before you insult the greats again.

I won't even go into the rest of this post :bs:

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:23 PM
:haha: no insult to Serena's 02 run but things need to be put into perspective.

It is no where near the top performance by a female tennis player, it's one of them but not the top. Martina was a AO win away from the grand slam in 84, and Graf had the golden slam in 88, learn some tennis history before you insult the greats again.

I won't even go into the rest of this post :bs:

But apparently we're talking about actual level, not results. In which case, it is true.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:23 PM
:haha: no insult to Serena's 02 run but things need to be put into perspective.

It is no where the top performance by a female tennis player, it's one of them but not the top. Martina was a AO win away from the grand slam in 84, and Graf had the golden slam in 88, learn some tennis history before you insult the greats again.

I won't even go into the rest of this post :bs:

Exactly. I'm obviously not saying that everyone has to agree that Henin's level of play was better, but it's ridiculous to claim Serena's best is better than Henin's because she achieved more in her best season, and then say Serena's best is the best ever when there's been a fair number of players who achieved more in their best seasons than Serena did in hers. I mean, Graf alone had about 5 seasons that were better than Serena's 2002 in terms of achievements...

Stamp Paid
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:24 PM
This.

except, I was afraid that she would lose to Zvonareva too....:scared:She willed herself to the QF. She actually did well, considering.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:24 PM
:haha: no insult to Serena's 02 run but things need to be put into perspective.

It is no where near the top performance by a female tennis player, it's one of them but not the top. Martina was a AO win away from the grand slam in 84, and Graf had the golden slam in 88, learn some tennis history before you insult the greats again.

I won't even go into the rest of this post :bs:

Well even peak Serena wouldn't have won the golden slam in 2002 :sobbing:

And she had a really poor match at the Aussie Ope....wait....she didn't play that year, but she did manage to win 32 straight sets over 3 majors (and 3 surfaces) that she did play :shrug: not too bad.

Has Justine ever done anything like that?

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:24 PM
But apparently we're talking about actual level, not results. In which case, it is true.

In that case, just crying "Henin never won Wimbledon!!! SERENA SLAM FTW!!!!1" isn't going to cut it.

Arnian
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:25 PM
But apparently we're talking about actual level, not results. In which case, it is true.

...how can you even argue that? Graf 88 > Serena 02 tennis level wise.
It's hard to even argue this, since it's almost a matter of opinion but come on!

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:26 PM
Has Justine ever done anything like that?

Nope. And similarly, Serena has never had as good a season as Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert or even Hingis had when they were at their best. So, in that case, all of them at their best are definitely better than Serena at her best. Right?

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:27 PM
Nope. And similarly, Serena has never had as good a season as Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Evert or even Hingis had when they were at their best. So, in that case, all of them at their best are definitely better than Serena at her best. Right?

Why does whether it occurred in a single season matter? Why not go by any year long span, like the rankings do?

Mina Vagante
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:28 PM
...how can you even argue that? Graf 88 > Serena 02 tennis level wise.
It's hard to even argue this, since it's almost a matter of opinion but come on!

Sure it's opinion, but i think many will agree that Serena 02 level is the highest level tennis they've seen.

AcesHigh
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:29 PM
Why does whether it occurred in a single season matter? Why not go by any year long span, like the rankings do?

A single season is the only arbitrary consistent measuring stick we have to go by.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:29 PM
Why does whether it occurred in a single season matter? Why not go by any year long span, like the rankings do?

Good point. I can't believe I forgot that, in any debate, the circumstances and criteria should always automatically bend to what is favourable for Serena.

Arnian
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:30 PM
Sure it's opinion, but i think many will agree that Serena 02 level is the highest level tennis they've seen.

I'm not sure.... Plus a lot of them probably weren't even old enough to see Graf's or Martina's :haha:

AcesHigh
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:32 PM
Sure it's opinion, but i think many will agree that Serena 02 level is the highest level tennis they've seen.

If you're under 25....

Of those who have watched Evert, Graf, Navratilova, and Seles many will probably say otherwise. But this is all based on opinion.

Thkmra
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:32 PM
:haha: no insult to Serena's 02 run but things need to be put into perspective.

It is no where near the top performance by a female tennis player, it's one of them but not the top. Martina was a AO win away from the grand slam in 84, and Graf had the golden slam in 88, learn some tennis history before you insult the greats again.

I won't even go into the rest of this post :bs:

I said level..Get it LEVEL. Not accomplishments, or even Dominance over the field. It's so easy to look at past performances from all-time greats with immense admiration and awe, as well they should however, if Serena had 2 slams and Martina and Graf had 40...they still would likely not be able to beat Serena with her serve, athleticism, sheer power, explosive movement..firing on all angles:lol: you name it, NO!!! Come to think about, no matter how indiffrent they may be toward the WS, ironically this very idea is something they've always said w/o saying!!

And please do the honor and dissect my post from top to bottom. That was the most fair, comprehensive assesment of what happend. Justine actually came out on top:tape:..but of course you wouldn't interpret that as such, being as biased as you are!!

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:32 PM
A single season is the only arbitrary consistent measuring stick we have to go by.

It actually isn't consistent at all. The AO has changed from the end to the beginning of the season, if I'm not mistaken. And the season was just shortened by about a month or so last year. I'd say a year is much more uniform.

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:34 PM
Good point. I can't believe I forgot that, in any debate, the circumstances and criteria should always automatically bend to what is favourable for Serena.

What rationale is there to go by individual seasons but not individual years?

AcesHigh
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:35 PM
It actually isn't consistent at all. The AO has changed from the end to the beginning of the season, if I'm not mistaken. And the season was just shortened by about a month or so last year. I'd say a year is much more uniform.

It's still consistent. It's what we all use in talking about records. Otherwise, people could just choose and pick where their start and end point is to suit their favorite.

If we're talking about a calendar year, it's the same measuring stick for everyone. No matter where the AO was or how long the year was, they were all contained within a calendar year and a calendar year always has the same start and end.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:35 PM
It actually isn't consistent at all. The AO has changed from the end to the beginning of the season, if I'm not mistaken. And the season was just shortened by about a month or so last year. I'd say a year is much more uniform.

Well, even if we do base it on any 12-month period (which is inherently flawed), that would still put both Graf and Navratilova and I think maybe Evert ahead of Serena.

darrinbaker00
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:36 PM
French - Justine was better that day

Wimby - Justine was better that day

USO - Justine was better that day.
There. I fixed it for you. :yeah:

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:39 PM
If you're under 25....

Of those who have watched Evert, Graf, Navratilova, and Seles many will probably say otherwise. But this is all based on opinion.

Unless you're old enough to have watched the very first tennis players (which would make you near 200 by now) then this argument applies to everyone, not just under 25 year olds. As it were, no one alive has seen even the MAJORITY of tennis history in their lifetimes.

homogenius
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Justine was just too good that year, even for Serena.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Unless you're old enough to have watched the very first tennis players (which would make you near 200 by now) then this argument applies to everyone, not just under 25 year olds. As it were, no one alive has seen even the MAJORITY of tennis history in their lifetimes.

It's reasonable to only judge from the start of the open era, considering the talent pool was so much more inherently weak before then.

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:42 PM
It's still consistent. It's what we all use in talking about records. Otherwise, people could just choose and pick where their start and end point is to suit their favorite.

If we're talking about a calendar year, it's the same measuring stick for everyone. No matter where the AO was or how long the year was, they were all contained within a calendar year and a calendar year always has the same start and end.

That's not true at all.

If Serena had won Sydney, would you not count the YEC in her winning streak? If someone wins all four slams consecutively in different years, does the ITF still not consider it a Grand Slam?

darrinbaker00
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:42 PM
It's reasonable to only judge from the start of the open era, considering the talent pool was so much more inherently weak before then.
You know that to be true because.....?

danieln1
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:43 PM
The only match Serena lost because she was simply outplayed was the Roland Garros match, because she had no apparent injury and Henin was playing the best tennis of her life on her favourite surface (and this time the crowd didnīt even help her...)

Wimbledon match CANīT be considered, Serena had a serious leg injury and also a left hand injury, so she was hitting one handed backhands and moving just a little bit better than Davenport

US Open... hmm this one itīs the most intriguing, but Serena didnīt play all summer, and came pretty flat out for this tournament

Another thing, Serena lost all those matches because Henin was playing the best tennis of her life, and Serena was just 100000000 miles away from her best tennis, as you can see in 2008 Serena recovered some of her form and we all know the beatdown she gave

And some lunatics are trying to say Henin 2007 is better than Serena 2002/2003???? Thatīs just pure nonsense! Serena in 2002/2003 gave the best performance an athlete can give, because she defeat a lot of quality players, people were actually afraid to play her, hence the intimadation factor!

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:44 PM
It's reasonable to only judge from the start of the open era, considering the talent pool was so much more inherently weak before then.

Two points:

There are a LOT of people who'd disagree with you on that. This argument would take Court and Laver out of discussion for GOAT.

And secondly, I agree with this thinking, but I also agree that it can apply somewhat to different periods in the Open Era.

darrinbaker00
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:46 PM
That's not true at all.

If Serena had won Sydney, would you not count the YEC in her winning streak? If someone wins all four slams consecutively in different years, does the ITF still not consider it a Grand Slam?
You must win all four majors in the same calendar year, so the answer to your question is yes.

Donny
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:48 PM
You must win all four majors in the same calendar year, so the answer to your question is yes.

Nope. The ITF considers holding all four slams consecutively to be a Grand Slam.

darrinbaker00
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:51 PM
Two points:

There are a LOT of people who'd disagree with you on that. This argument would take Court and Laver out of discussion for GOAT.

And secondly, I agree with this thinking, but I also agree that it can apply somewhat to different periods in the Open Era.
I disagree with that thinking altogether, for one very significant reason. There was no barnstorming professional tour for women before 1968, so the best women players always played at the four majors. The advent of Open tennis affected the men a whole lot more than the women.

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:54 PM
You know that to be true because.....?

Because once a player broke through, they typically would turn professional and so not be eligible for the Slams. Atleast that's how it was for the men... I can't claim to be an expert on pre-open era women's tennis though.


Two points:

There are a LOT of people who'd disagree with you on that. This argument would take Court and Laver out of discussion for GOAT.

And secondly, I agree with this thinking, but I also agree that it can apply somewhat to different periods in the Open Era.

Most people DON'T really consider Court and Laver serious contenders to be a GOAT, most just give them honourable mentions due to their records demanding it. Although, for both of them, their success stretched into the open era (in fact, had the Slams gone open about 5 years earlier than they did, Laver probably would still have the all-time Slams record, but most of his prime years were 'lost years' because he turned pro).

And I don't think we can objectively judge periods of the Open Era to be stronger than another. It's more reasonable to do that with pre-open era tennis, because of the fact the BEST players in the world weren't allowed to compete there. In contrast, ever since then, anyone (theoretically) can compete, so it's not the same.

darrinbaker00
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:55 PM
Nope. The ITF considers holding all four slams consecutively to be a Grand Slam.
Link, please?

dsanders06
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:55 PM
I disagree with that thinking altogether, for one very significant reason. There was no barnstorming professional tour for women before 1968, so the best women players always played at the four majors. The advent of Open tennis affected the men a whole lot more than the women.

Oh really? I didn't know that.

(Although Court's case is still weakened by the fact most of the top players didn't play the AO.)

Volcana
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:58 PM
There isnt always more of a 'why' than one player was better for a while. After Serena won her first slam, she lost four straight times to Jennifer Capriati. Then beat Capriati eight straight times. Venus and Serena have an almost even h2h. But in the slams it's lopsided.

Even when Arthur Ashe was #1 in the world, he couldn't seem to beat Rod Laver. Even when Ashe was better against the whole rest of the world, against Laver, his best season was 2-2. And that was at te end of Laver's career. Asked about this, Ashe said, "All of my strengths got to his strengths, and all of his strengths go to my weaknesses."

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:01 AM
Urgh... what's with the obession with Serena and Justine in the recent days?

First there was a thread Serena won her Slams without Justine around. Then this.

What's next? "Should both of them play Doubles?" :tape:

KBdoubleu
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:06 AM
Urgh... what's with the obession with Serena and Justine in the recent days?

First there was a thread Serena won her Slams without Justine around. Then this.

What's next? "Should both of them play Doubles?" :tape:

Perhaps because they're about to face off in a grand slam final for the first time? Just a guess..

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:06 AM
She willed herself to the QF. She actually did well, considering.

True story....then quarterena reared her UGLY head :sobbing:

darrinbaker00
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:09 AM
Oh really? I didn't know that.

(Although Court's case is still weakened by the fact most of the top players didn't play the AO.)
She beat the players who were on the other side of the net, which is all any player can do. It wasn't her fault that her national tennis federation made it virtually impossible for foreigners to enter the tournament by switching the locations and dates as much as they did.

darrinbaker00
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Urgh... what's with the obession with Serena and Justine in the recent days?

First there was a thread Serena won her Slams without Justine around. Then this.

What's next? "Should both of them play Doubles?" :tape:
Yes, both of them should play doubles. Together. ;)

RenaSlam.
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:13 AM
Well, that's all in the past. The final is what currently matters.

Wilson_07
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:13 AM
it's still surprising how underestimated serena is out here. just because she doesn't hit a one handed slice all the time, doesn't mean that she hasn't got a high quality style of play.
and her ability to push herself mentally is even better than henin's imo, even if henin got tougher in that part of her game too, i still think that she gets more easily intimidated by certain situations and just relies on her coach to help her out, whereas serena does it more naturally.
both are amazing players and it's just logical that they're not always equally good at every tournament. there always has to be someone who plays better that day,that's just the way it is.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:16 AM
Yes, both of them should play doubles. Together. ;)

:scared: That would be worse than the Bondarenko sisters :bolt:

Young 8
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:24 AM
Get off it!! NO woman has EVER reached Serena's top level:rolleyes:




woman ?

dsanders06
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:31 AM
woman ?

Peak Serena def. Peak Federer 6-0 6-1

Arnian
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:37 AM
Peak Serena def. Peak Federer 6-0 6-1

:haha:
I don't think peak anyone can beat peak Federer

darrinbaker00
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:41 AM
:haha:
I don't think peak anyone can beat peak Federer
Anyone not named Rafael Nadal, that is.

edificio
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:51 AM
It's sport. She had a mixed year. The other played better. Whatever.

Arnian
Jan 30th, 2010, 12:51 AM
Anyone not named Rafael Nadal, that is.

Good point Darrin, would depend upon the surface obviously.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 30th, 2010, 01:08 AM
It's sport. She had a mixed year. The other played better. Whatever.

This.

Of all of the years when she's been "healthy" enough to play all 4 majors (2001, 2007, 2008, 2009) her worst year.

2001 - 3 titles (IW, Toronto, YEC) 1 other final (USO) Year-End Ranking: 6
2007 - 2 titles (AO, Miami) 1 other final (Moscow) Year-End Ranking: 7
2008 - 3 titles (Bangalore, Miami, Charleston, USO) 1 other final (Wimbledon) Year-End Ranking: 2
2009 - 3 titles (AO, Wimbledon, YEC) 1 other final (Miami) Year-End Ranking: 1

Justine had arguably the 2nd best season of any player Post-Graf. :shrug:

RVD
Jan 30th, 2010, 01:53 AM
There's no great mystery here.
The better player in those particular matches won. :shrug:

Whether it was due to conditioning, injury, psychological, or an off-day, doesn't really matter. And tbh sports speculation is an asinine attempt at intellectual discourse.
Simply stated... the better player won.

Thkmra
Jan 30th, 2010, 01:58 AM
The only match Serena lost because she was simply outplayed was the Roland Garros match, because she had no apparent injury and Henin was playing the best tennis of her life on her favourite surface (and this time the crowd didnīt even help her...)

Wimbledon match CANīT be considered, Serena had a serious leg injury and also a left hand injury, so she was hitting one handed backhands and moving just a little bit better than Davenport

US Open... hmm this one itīs the most intriguing, but Serena didnīt play all summer, and came pretty flat out for this tournamentAnother thing, Serena lost all those matches because Henin was playing the best tennis of her life, and Serena was just 100000000 miles away from her best tennis, as you can see in 2008 Serena recovered some of her form and we all know the beatdown she gave

And some lunatics are trying to say Henin 2007 is better than Serena 2002/2003???? Thatīs just pure nonsense! Serena in 2002/2003 gave the best performance an athlete can give, because she defeat a lot of quality players, people were actually afraid to play her, hence the intimadation factor!

And this was a hard concept to graps because:shrug:

Conor
Jan 30th, 2010, 02:13 AM
And so your whiny, idiotic, attention-seeking threads continue...

Thats like asking 'why does anyone win a match?' :weirdo: she played better in the 3 matches and deserved to win them. Whats so difficult to understand?

LightWarrior
Jan 30th, 2010, 02:21 AM
And so your whiny, idiotic, attention-seeking threads continue...

Thats like asking 'why does anyone win a match?' :weirdo: she played better in the 3 matches and deserved to win them. Whats so difficult to understand?

Oh because that's the way it is maybe ? So don't waste your time on this forum.

Conor
Jan 30th, 2010, 02:34 AM
Thats the way it is maybe? What, that you can't understand when someone plays better they win? Yes it would appear that way, unfortunately. Good luck :wavey:

thegreendestiny
Jan 30th, 2010, 02:49 AM
She would have also lost to her in the YEC but decided to be injured and withdrew instead. :angel:

LightWarrior
Jan 30th, 2010, 02:59 AM
Thats the way it is maybe? What, that you can't understand when someone plays better they win? Yes it would appear that way, unfortunately. Good luck :wavey:

Well someone will play better in a few hours' time. That will shut you up.:)