PDA

View Full Version : Is Williams/Williams the Best Doubles Team of All-Time?


MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:33 PM
I know Martina/Pam have more majors, but their W/L record is unparalleled and I don't think they've lost an ITF match ever (Fed Cup/Olympics).

Are they the GOATs?

Sammo
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:39 PM
No I would still go with Martina and Pam. And Gigi and Natasha too.

MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:41 PM
Won 24 straight sets in finals :eek:

18 straight finals :bowdown:

102-8 w/l in majors :worship:

mdterp01
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:44 PM
No. Let's end this right now. They don't play enough and don't have the numbers. If they did from the start of their careers than yes, but I'm sorry...u r not gonna put part time doubles players against players like Navratilova and Shriver who year in and out played doubles.

Bijoux0021
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:48 PM
Let's just say they are the best part time Doubles players ever.

starin
Aug 5th, 2012, 09:53 PM
YES :hearts:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Aug 5th, 2012, 10:01 PM
No but they are definitely the Golden Girls when it comes to the Olympics

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Aug 5th, 2012, 10:02 PM
Yes, the are one of the best of all time.

Représailles
Aug 5th, 2012, 10:15 PM
Question was "the best" not "the most accomplished"! So a big YESSS! :)

Shonami Slam
Aug 5th, 2012, 10:17 PM
we held the discussion prior the OG - we are in probably the weakest doubles field ever.
the gold medal match was very entertaining, and there are quite alot of good teams, but not enough brilliant single players (e.g, top10 players) are consistently playing the tour, thus allowing the "top" teams to be rather weak in comparsion to the 80s and 90s.

i would say that my beloved Graf is one of the trend setters of this sad decline in doubles history.

mykarma
Aug 5th, 2012, 11:02 PM
No. Let's end this right now. They don't play enough and don't have the numbers. If they did from the start of their careers than yes, but I'm sorry...u r not gonna put part time doubles players against players like Navratilova and Shriver who year in and out played doubles.
The question wasn't about who played the most it was were they the best doubles players and I say yes. Because they led a life and also played tennis and won whenever they played shows how great they are.

SerenaSlam
Aug 5th, 2012, 11:11 PM
I think it's hard to say because what Nav did was play singles and doubles. What both of the sisters do well also. They still have an active career. It's so hard to answer these questions when a career is still fully active. The sisters want to play rio. That's 16 more slams till then. With that expectation I say every hang up the "greatest" comments till then and then let's have a discussion!

Knizzle
Aug 5th, 2012, 11:17 PM
Yes...doubles is a team sport. The sisters don't lose often, but they are challenged pretty regularly by teams who don't necessarily have star power in singles. To carry the win percentage and number of majors they have without playing regularly is insane. No other doubles team in history could do that.

kwilliams
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:05 AM
I'm not sure if the lack of top ten singles players regularly playing doubles necessarily makes today's field a weak field. The women who play today are often dubbed doubles "specialists," which is telling in a way. Think about Stosur. She improved quite a lot in singles once she started to focus less on doubles. That was a deliberate move on her part and it worked well for her. Looking at how the Czech team played in the Wimbledon and Olympic finals, I really think that if they focused/had focused more on singles they could have possibly reached the top 20...though it's hard to say for sure and given their inconsistency in singles, maybe they wouldn't have been solid top 20 players.

Anyway, I don't want that comment to detract from some of the sisters big wins. They beaten doubles specialist teams, they've beaten teams made up of one doubles specialist and one top 10 singles player and teams of top singles players too.

I think the perceived "weakness" in today's doubles game is part of the overall decline tennis players who put in performances consistent enough to keep them at the top of the game week in, week out. There may be some truth to the argument but it's not a black and white issue.

Potato
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:18 AM
Best, not greatest.

Alejandrawrrr
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:18 PM
I'm not sure if the lack of top ten singles players regularly playing doubles necessarily makes today's field a weak field. The women who play today are often dubbed doubles "specialists," which is telling in a way. Think about Stosur. She improved quite a lot in singles once she started to focus less on doubles. That was a deliberate move on her part and it worked well for her. Looking at how the Czech team played in the Wimbledon and Olympic finals, I really think that if they focused/had focused more on singles they could have possibly reached the top 20...though it's hard to say for sure and given their inconsistency in singles, maybe they wouldn't have been solid top 20 players.

Anyway, I don't want that comment to detract from some of the sisters big wins. They beaten doubles specialist teams, they've beaten teams made up of one doubles specialist and one top 10 singles player and teams of top singles players too.

I think the perceived "weakness" in today's doubles game is part of the overall decline tennis players who put in performances consistent enough to keep them at the top of the game week in, week out. There may be some truth to the argument but it's not a black and white issue.

I also think it's worth mentioning that your singles record means shit in doubles in this era. Do you really think certain top tenners(Sharapova, Wozniacki for example) would be notable scalps to collect in doubles? No shade to them by the way, but with their net games(or lack thereof) I think it's safe to say probably not. Maybe decades ago it would have made a difference, when top singles players did tend to have more all around games that could translate to doubles, but not today when you only NEED to be good from the baseline to be a top 20 or even 10 player.

At the end of the day Williams x2 are clearly above their contemporaries, much like Nav/Pam. Currently V&S still have to win a handful of extra slam titles till I can comfortably and with good conscience say that they're the best, though it's certainly possible considering the added shelf life doubles players tend to have compared to in singles. One thing's for certain, it'll definitely be a story to tell how the Williamses with their serves, all around solid games and unrivaled synergy, could just stroll into the slams/olympics and come through all the best teams in the world with little or no match play.

Shvedbarilescu
Aug 6th, 2012, 02:48 PM
No. Let's end this right now. They don't play enough and don't have the numbers. If they did from the start of their careers than yes, but I'm sorry...u r not gonna put part time doubles players against players like Navratilova and Shriver who year in and out played doubles.

Exactly. If Serena and Venus played doubles throughout their careers then I think they probably would have been a case to be made for them being the alltime greatest. But they haven't. And as you say, they don't have the numbers.

That said both are still only in their early 30s which for doubles isn't that old and potentially they could if they chose to have another 10 years of strong play in doubles. Of course, whether they chose to devote that much effort/attention to doubles in the future only time will tell.

As of now, the Williams sisters would go down as the 3rd best team of the open era, after Navratilova/Shriver and Fernandez/Zvereva. And considering that for much of their careers they have treated doubles as an afterthought that itself is pretty amazing.

spencercarlos
Aug 6th, 2012, 03:21 PM
They are away in numbers but also tecnically wise compared to Navratilova/Pam, and i think even Natasha/Gigi were better than them.

Back in the days where the doubles were played with smarts, tecnique, angles, slices, lobs, etc. Today very few players know how to play doubles, since the ballbashing is too huge these days.

That being said from this generation they have no peers, just name the tournament they want to enter and they will win.

Now that i think about it, even Hingis is a better player in doubles than either Williams, apart from that serve Hingis would move the ball around at will and make her partner win. She even got a win over the Williamses with a poor doubles player like Seles, no less.

Olórin
Aug 6th, 2012, 05:42 PM
They are away in numbers but also 1. tecnically wise compared to Navratilova/Pam, and i think even Natasha/Gigi were better than them.

Back in the days where the doubles were played with smarts, tecnique, angles, slices, lobs, etc. Today very few players know how to play doubles, since the ballbashing is too huge these days.

That being said from this generation they have no peers, just name the tournament they want to enter and they will win.

Now that i think about it, 2. even Hingis is a better player in doubles than either Williams, apart from that serve Hingis would move the ball around at will and make her partner win. She even got a win over the Williamses with a poor doubles player like Seles, no less.

1. How, precisely?
2. Umm, no. Apart from the serve? That's just ridiculous because the serve is precisely what made Navratilova and Shriver, the best team as you say, so dominant. They both had technically sound and versatile serves that made them unbreakable on all surfaces much like, yes that's right, the Williamses. The serve is even more important in doubles than singles because matches can change so quickly and one weak link on the court can decide a match.

Sorry but this post is all opinion, the only objective thing is the numbers, where they trail. But if you get into subjective areas like skill-sets and what it's better to be good at, it's quite easy to argue Team Williams as the best doubles team of all time.

vwfan
Aug 6th, 2012, 11:43 PM
Go team Williams. Add some more slams and shut up the usual suspects. Only seven slams off tie with Shriver/Martina and only two from moving past Fernandez/Zvereva.

bandabou
Aug 7th, 2012, 09:47 AM
One of the best all-time...just as in singles: lack of numbers hurt them. But they'd hold their own against any of the past great duos for sure.

And :lol: at people still going on with the: oh all strength, oh only due the serve...:lol: now it goes like that even in doubles too?! :o

SerenaSlam
Aug 7th, 2012, 01:06 PM
Is tennis suppose to evolve? So if Venus and Serena present a new level or game of tennis we are supposed to look back in the past as to how things use to be and downplay what they have done and changed? Oh so we aren't looking for anything new we are looking for people to emulate greats of the past and not change the face/game of tennis? Ohhh ok. This sport just seems confusing at times. When I take into consideration other sports and where athletes are in comparison to their last greats tennis seems To be the only sport where you take away the effort and change that is made and say that's nice but no one plays like so and so anymore....

tennnisfannn
Aug 7th, 2012, 02:28 PM
I'm not sure if the lack of top ten singles players regularly playing doubles necessarily makes today's field a weak field. The women who play today are often dubbed doubles "specialists," which is telling in a way. Think about Stosur. She improved quite a lot in singles once she started to focus less on doubles. That was a deliberate move on her part and it worked well for her. Looking at how the Czech team played in the Wimbledon and Olympic finals, I really think that if they focused/had focused more on singles they could have possibly reached the top 20...though it's hard to say for sure and given their inconsistency in singles, maybe they wouldn't have been solid top 20 players.

Anyway, I don't want that comment to detract from some of the sisters big wins. They beaten doubles specialist teams, they've beaten teams made up of one doubles specialist and one top 10 singles player and teams of top singles players too.

I think the perceived "weakness" in today's doubles game is part of the overall decline tennis players who put in performances consistent enough to keep them at the top of the game week in, week out. There may be some truth to the argument but it's not a black and white issue.

I also think there maybe a point to be made about the lack of top players playing doubles. I have often wondered about the men's team as well. Would the Woodys have been as successful had the Agassis' etc played more doubles? How about with the Bryan brothers, what if Federer/Nadal/Djokovic played more, where would their success rate? At the Beijing Olympics, were they not beaten by Federer/Wawrinka, a team that only played in fed cup or so.
That owuld probably explain why Hingis and Kim were also very good doubles players. They were very solid singles players to begin with. Stosur has worked in reverse, she went from double to singles whilst the Williams/Hingi/Kim were first singles players before doubles players.
Venus and serena are also unique players in that even in singles, they have shown they could show up after extended periods and still perform amazingly. Hence winning doubles without too much preparation comes easy to them. You could also say the very same thing of Kim too.

dencod16
Aug 7th, 2012, 04:35 PM
I dont think you can compare them to Navri/Shriver and Fernandez/Zvereva because they don't play as often as the other teams. The fact that they come in after not playing as a team for months and still win.

The Dawntreader
Aug 7th, 2012, 04:43 PM
People forget Margaret Osbourne Dupont and Louise Brough who dominated women's doubles in the 40's. Shriver and Navratilova's consistency and W/L records (and titles) speak for themselves too.

If Venus and Serena had played more in the period of 2004-2007, they probably would now be the greatest doubles team of all time. But 'if' and 'probably' don't cut it.

That said, they are in an elite circle of doubles teams now. Their Olympic record alone is phenomenal.

Alarmed
Aug 7th, 2012, 07:09 PM
They still have more time. It's almost certain they will pass Fernandez/Zvereva in slam count already. They only need two more to pass them. Hell, if they play into their late thirties maybe they can match Shriver/Nav. They've shown a dedication to doubles since 2009, winning 5 out of 6 and 4 straight in the time span from the Aussie Open in '09 to the French in 2010, then injuries and what not have plauged them ever since and they haven't been able to play together.

MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 7th, 2012, 07:26 PM
They just might go on another 4 major streak if they decide to play more.

They should keep playing at all 4 majors.

Alarmed
Aug 7th, 2012, 07:49 PM
I wonder if they're going to play at the US Open. Serena might play mixed in Australia and Paris next year :shrug: I think playing doubles has done well for Venus' game as well. Plus, they seem to have a lot of fun.

Volcana
Aug 7th, 2012, 08:27 PM
They're in the proverbial 'discussion'. But Margaret Osbourne Dupont and Louise Brough probably salted that title away for all time.

Top five definitely, for V&S, and I'd I'd put Williams2X ahead of Gigi-Z.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 7th, 2012, 09:21 PM
They are away in numbers but also tecnically wise compared to Navratilova/Pam, and i think even Natasha/Gigi were better than them.

Back in the days where the doubles were played with smarts, tecnique, angles, slices, lobs, etc. Today very few players know how to play doubles, since the ballbashing is too huge these days.

That being said from this generation they have no peers, just name the tournament they want to enter and they will win.

Now that i think about it, even Hingis is a better player in doubles than either Williams, apart from that serve Hingis would move the ball around at will and make her partner win. She even got a win over the Williamses with a poor doubles player like Seles, no less.
I think you're wrong here, but especially in the bolded part.

Players attempt to play in the way that garners the BEST RESULT. This is true of all sports but certainly doubles (and singles) tennis.

If WINNING demanded the regular basis use of many of the tactics you cited than, believe me, you would see the WS and others using them regularly. ...but it doesn't. And the object of any competitive sport is to WIN. If you're employing unnecessary tactics in pursuit of that object your wasting effort.

...So, "knowing how to play doubles," or any sport for that matter, is determined by tactic that brings winning RESULTS, not tactic for tactic sake or tactics someone else happened to use in the past that they won with.

kiwifan
Aug 7th, 2012, 11:42 PM
I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't beat anyone from anytime anywhere and on any surface best 2 of 3 sets...too much serve and too much reach...team chemistry only sisters could possess.

Gigi and Zvereva & Nav and Pam are the only ones who even belong in a conversation with the Sister Act. :shrug:

edificio
Aug 8th, 2012, 01:25 AM
Stiff competition against Martina/Pam and Gigi/Natasha.

They are incredibly good, though, as well as accomplished.

mdterp01
Aug 8th, 2012, 01:35 AM
The question wasn't about who played the most it was were they the best doubles players and I say yes. Because they led a life and also played tennis and won whenever they played shows how great they are.

Well I was answering the OP who asked "are they the GOATs??! The word "best" is very subjective so I still say no. Are they the most talented doubles team ever? Talented in that no team I'm aware of could play as little as they do and then just show up and kick ass the way they do. GOATS..no. Best team in terms of chemistry and talent ability? Yes.

darrinbaker00
Aug 8th, 2012, 03:18 AM
In my opinion, the five best/greatest (no difference between the two as far as I'm concerned) women's doubles teams of all time are:

1. Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver
2. Martina Navratilova and anyone else (yes, Martina really was that good)
3. Louise Brough and Margaret Osbourne duPont
4. Serena and Venus Williams
5. Gigi Fernandez and Natalia Zvereva

AcesHigh
Aug 8th, 2012, 03:55 AM
They are top 10. It's hard to judge since 2003 or so though with the sorry state of women's doubles the last decade though.

Marty-Dom
Aug 8th, 2012, 03:56 AM
Do a round-robin playoff between the best pairs of all generations and the Sisters dominate every match. Just watch the film from the 80's and 90's. While entertaining, those players would not fare any better than Lisa Raymond, Renae Stubbs, Liesel Huber and all other current doubles specialists that lost every major final in the last 13 or 14 years to the Sisters. Those traditional style players simply get overpowered, and any modern "power" duo such as Hlavackova/Hradecka or Petrova/Kirilenko get beaten at their own game.

Are they the greatest of all time? Most definitely yes. They won every match that mattered for over a decade against very diverse competition. 3 gold Olympic medals and 13 major titles with barely any sets lost. They had no competition to speak of whenever they decided to step on the court. No other duo can claim the same. The few times they went out before finals, it was either in a tournaments that were not very important or they were coming out of long layoffs or injuries. They have the Double Career Gold Slam which is unmatched by anyone, and if they win one more FO and one more USO together, they will have a Triple Career Gold Slam on their resume. Who will ever match that?

AcesHigh
Aug 8th, 2012, 04:10 AM
Do a round-robin playoff between the best pairs of all generations and the Sisters dominate every match. Just watch the film from the 80's and 90's. While entertaining, those players would not fare any better than Lisa Raymond, Renae Stubbs, Liesel Huber and all other current doubles specialists that lost every major final in the last 13 or 14 years to the Sisters. Those traditional style players simply get overpowered, and any modern "power" duo such as Hlavackova/Hradecka or Petrova/Kirilenko get beaten at their own game.

Are they the greatest of all time? Most definitely yes. They won every match that mattered for over a decade against very diverse competition. 3 gold Olympic medals and 13 major titles with barely any sets lost. They had no competition to speak of whenever they decided to step on the court. No other duo can claim the same. The few times they went out before finals, it was either in a tournaments that were not very important or they were coming out of long layoffs or injuries. They have the Double Career Gold Slam which is unmatched by anyone, and if they win one more FO and one more USO together, they will have a Triple Career Gold Slam on their resume. Who will ever match that?

I love that you ignore that the Olympics
1. Have not been held for most of the Open Era
2. Most best doubles teams do not come from the same country :lol:

And :spit: at comparing doubles greats to Lisa Raymond and Renae Stubbs

Marty-Dom
Aug 8th, 2012, 04:42 AM
I love that you ignore that the Olympics
1. Have not been held for most of the Open Era
2. Most best doubles teams do not come from the same country :lol:

And :spit: at comparing doubles greats to Lisa Raymond and Renae Stubbs

1. Olympics IS a big tournament and it has to count toward lifetime achievement.
2. The ONLY other team in the running against the sisters IS from the same country- namely Navratilova-Shriver.
3. Raymond and Stubbs merely represent the "old school" in the whole picture. No matter which "old school" team you would put in front of them, the outcome would be the same. The margin of victory would vary by maybe a couple of games, but the outcome would with no doubt be the same.

ranfurly
Aug 8th, 2012, 05:49 AM
One of the most accomplished in comparison to how much they play, certainly one of the most formidable/explosive.

Best of our generation in my opinion, barring accomplishments of other prospective doubles players/pairings Suarez/VRP Raymond/Stubbs etc, I think especially in the light of how much they play.

In terms of doubles as a whole, no not the best team of all time, I don't think they warrant that title due to how much they play.

But it doesn't take away that they are are up there as one of the greatest double pairings.

bandabou
Aug 8th, 2012, 08:52 AM
They are top 10. It's hard to judge since 2003 or so though with the sorry state of women's doubles the last decade though.

Just top 10?! :eek:. someone is bitter. :lol:

basset
Aug 8th, 2012, 02:02 PM
best maybe yes but certainly not the greatest. for that they don't play enough. even if they win another gold medal in rio they will never reach the greatness of martina and pam...

Dave.
Aug 8th, 2012, 02:11 PM
They cannot truly be the GOATs as they simply do not have the numbers, but they're up there for sure.

Personally I don't think what Gigi/Nat achieved between 1992-1997 will ever be matched again.

Fernandez/Zvereva and Navratilova/Shriver couldn't even compete in the Olympics so it's irrelevant in this discussion.

Dave.
Aug 8th, 2012, 02:24 PM
In my opinion, the five best/greatest (no difference between the two as far as I'm concerned) women's doubles teams of all time are:

1. Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver
2. Martina Navratilova and anyone else (yes, Martina really was that good)
3. Louise Brough and Margaret Osbourne duPont
4. Serena and Venus Williams
5. Gigi Fernandez and Natalia Zvereva

I can't think of one area in which the Williams sisters have surpassed Fernandez/Zvereva.


1. Olympics IS a big tournament and it has to count toward lifetime achievement.
2. The ONLY other team in the running against the sisters IS from the same country- namely Navratilova-Shriver.
3. Raymond and Stubbs merely represent the "old school" in the whole picture. No matter which "old school" team you would put in front of them, the outcome would be the same. The margin of victory would vary by maybe a couple of games, but the outcome would with no doubt be the same.


Raymond and to a lesser extent Stubbs are both great players and have earned their place in history, but they do not compare with the likes of Navratilova or Zvereva. It's false to use them as a representation of how a match against Navratilova or Zvereva would go.

Never mind the fact that Raymond and Stubbs do actually have a win over the Williams sisters.

And never mind that it's irrelevant, as this is about how much each team could achieve/dominate in their respective eras. Of course the Williams sisters would beat the older teams, they're playing with the latest technology.

Geisha
Aug 8th, 2012, 03:48 PM
65-3 in their last 68 matches. Errrrm.

Olórin
Aug 8th, 2012, 05:21 PM
They cannot truly be the GOATs as they simply do not have the numbers, but they're up there for sure.

Personally I don't think what Gigi/Nat achieved between 1992-1997 will ever be matched again.

Fernandez/Zvereva and Navratilova/Shriver couldn't even compete in the Olympics so it's irrelevant in this discussion.

They are one slam away from equalling their slam haul as a team. :lol:

Drake1980
Aug 8th, 2012, 05:24 PM
Navratilova/Shriver

Olórin
Aug 8th, 2012, 05:32 PM
I can't think of one area in which the Williams sisters have surpassed Fernandez/Zvereva.


Overall winning percentage, success rate in winning Grand Slams and tournaments, more Olympic Golds.

kwilliams
Aug 8th, 2012, 05:53 PM
I just realised that from the time the WS won their first doubles slam at Roland Garros in '99, it took them less than two years to achieve a golden slam!!!!!

bandabou
Aug 8th, 2012, 06:46 PM
They're just MONEY. 13-0 in finals, unbeaten at 3 olympics... but just as in singles: just not played enough to put up the numbers so the blind people can see. :lol:

Dave.
Aug 8th, 2012, 09:16 PM
They are one slam away from equalling their slam haul as a team. :lol:

I mean achieving so much in such a concentrated period of time. I don't see a team ever being as dominant as they were in a 5 year period.


Overall winning percentage, success rate in winning Grand Slams and tournaments, more Olympic Golds.

Success rate in winning tournaments surely is secondary to number of tournaments won.

I think the Williams sisters' case will need to be made without the Olympic golds as the two other GOAT teams couldn't even play (and as far as doubles is concerned, it's a tournament that is usually missing some of the main would-be contenders).

Alarmed
Aug 8th, 2012, 11:59 PM
If we’re using that logic then I guess we should take away Azarenka's slam because it was at the Australian Open, because some of the greats of the past never played there. Or anyone who's won the Australian Open for that matter. I feel that using the Olympics are valid in this debate, because it speaks to their overall success as a team and the fact no one is able to beat them, when they've played.

darrinbaker00
Aug 9th, 2012, 04:20 PM
Overall winning percentage, success rate in winning Grand Slams and tournaments, more Olympic Golds.

Fernandez and Zvereva couldn't play together in the Olympics (for that matter, neither could Brough and Osbourne duPont), so that's not a valid criterion.

bandabou
Aug 9th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Success rate in winning tournaments surely is secondary to number of tournaments won.

I think the Williams sisters' case will need to be made without the Olympic golds as the two other GOAT teams couldn't even play (and as far as doubles is concerned, it's a tournament that is usually missing some of the main would-be contenders).

That last point is it really relevant for the sisters? They have beaten ALL the other top teams MULTIPLE times at the majors, so how would it be any different at the Olympics?! :shrug:

lloyders76
Aug 9th, 2012, 07:32 PM
They are one slam away from equalling their slam haul as a team. :lol:

the point being made is that they achieved it in 5 years, as opposed to the williams 12

lloyders76
Aug 9th, 2012, 07:35 PM
Overall winning percentage, success rate in winning Grand Slams and tournaments, more Olympic Golds.



actually, the williams GS win loss record is 102-8, fernandez/zvereva is 121-8

bandabou
Aug 9th, 2012, 08:02 PM
the point being made is that they achieved it in 5 years, as opposed to the williams 12

:secret: much much easier when you don't have to worry about singles.

In The Zone
Aug 9th, 2012, 08:26 PM
the point being made is that they achieved it in 5 years, as opposed to the williams 12

The Sisters didn't play doubles from 2003 Wimbledon to 2008 Australian (played 07 Wim but withdrew after Serena's match with Hantuchova). Injuries, etc. So really, 7 years. 12 just makes you sound cute.

And the fact they are much older than their counterparts says more good than bad.

moby
Aug 9th, 2012, 09:25 PM
Legend partnering random doubles nobodies essentially split matches with the Williamses, so I imagine Nav/Shriver would do better.

miffedmax
Aug 9th, 2012, 09:57 PM
I still don't go for this all-time stuff.

They are for sure the best of their era. Mostly due to Venus, of course. ;)

bandabou
Aug 9th, 2012, 09:58 PM
Legend partnering random doubles nobodies essentially split matches with the Williamses, so I imagine Nav/Shriver would do better.

which nobody? Seles?! :eek:

Dave.
Aug 9th, 2012, 11:08 PM
That last point is it really relevant for the sisters? They have beaten ALL the other top teams MULTIPLE times at the majors, so how would it be any different at the Olympics?! :shrug:

It doesn't make a difference in that sense. All I'm saying is that a tournament's prestige takes a knock when it doesn't feature the number 1 ranked team (2012 is the first one actually), and when most great teams were not even able to compete.


actually, the williams GS win loss record is 102-8, fernandez/zvereva is 121-8

:eek:


:secret: much much easier when you don't have to worry about singles.

That's irrelevant. Obviously they are better singles players and have shared their priorities, which means they are likely to come off second best to a team that put all their efforts into doubles. There's no shame in that. :shrug:



And the fact they are much older than their counterparts says more good than bad.

Older than who? Most of Gigi Fernandez's success came in her 30s.

lloyders76
Aug 9th, 2012, 11:41 PM
The Sisters didn't play doubles from 2003 Wimbledon to 2008 Australian (played 07 Wim but withdrew after Serena's match with Hantuchova). Injuries, etc. So really, 7 years. 12 just makes you sound cute.

And the fact they are much older than their counterparts says more good than bad.

i'm not being 'cute', i'm stating facts. i'm well aware, like most on this board, that S&V didn't play doubles for a considerable period of the last decade, the fact remains the same tho, 12 years to amass 13 slams, 5 years for fernandez and zvereva to amass 14.

it's you who's being subjective, not me

Queenpova
Aug 9th, 2012, 11:50 PM
http://imagenes.hola.com/noticias-de-actualidad/2010/06/30/anna-kournikova-martina-hin.jpg

Slammer7
Aug 10th, 2012, 12:15 AM
i'm not being 'cute', i'm stating facts. i'm well aware, like most on this board, that S&V didn't play doubles for a considerable period of the last decade, the fact remains the same tho, 12 years to amass 13 slams, 5 years for fernandez and zvereva to amass 14.

it's you who's being subjective, not me

Can you tell me how many slams played it took for Gigi and Natasha to win their 14 slams and how many slams played it's taken the Williams' to win their 13? That might be a better indicator than simply years. Thank you. :)

Dave.
Aug 10th, 2012, 12:23 AM
Can you tell me how many slams played it took for Gigi and Natasha to win their 14 slams and how many slams played it's taken the Williams' to win their 13? That might be a better indicator than simply years. Thank you. :)

Fernandez/Zvereva: 14/22
Williams/Williams: 13/25

Slammer7
Aug 10th, 2012, 01:05 AM
Fernandez/Zvereva: 14/22
Williams/Williams: 13/25

I went and looked it up and the 25 are all the slams they've played ever, even before they started winning them. Zvereva and Fernandez from what my research shows (please correct me if I have this wrong) won their first slam played as a team right? Since the statistic starts with first won (ie their slam run) then I think it should be the same for both teams. So the Williams slams run is 13/21. To state it a little differently the Williams have won 13 or their last 21 slams played starting with their first win the 1999 French Open. That is right on par with Zvereva and Fernandez slam run. :shrug:

But I will say looking at the statistics what Gigi and Natasha accomplished was amazing and should not be diminished because of our comparisons. It was a magnificent run over the course of a few years. :eek:

Dave.
Aug 10th, 2012, 01:31 AM
I went and looked it up and the 25 are all the slams they've played ever, even before they started winning them. Zvereva and Fernandez from what my research shows (please correct me if I have this wrong) won their first slam played as a team right? Since the statistic starts with first won (ie their slam run) then I think it should be the same for both teams. So the Williams slams run is 13/21. To state it a little differently the Williams have won 13 or their last 21 slams played starting with their first win the 1999 French Open. That is right on par with Zvereva and Fernandez slam run. :shrug:

But I will say looking at the statistics what Gigi and Natasha accomplished was amazing and should not be diminished because of our comparisons. It was a magnificent run over the course of a few years. :eek:

The stat I was providing is overall slam winning percentage. Fernandez/Zvereva just happen to have won their first (six) slam(s) together, and the Williams sisters didn't. I don't see why the stat should be changed. :confused:

It was a magnificent run, and one that only Navratilova/Shriver can compete with (and Fernandez/Zvereva can at least say their's was after the AO changed from grass). But yes, the Williams sisters still have an incredible record and neither should be diminished because of these comparisons.

Slammer7
Aug 10th, 2012, 02:15 AM
The stat I was providing is overall slam winning percentage. Fernandez/Zvereva just happen to have won their first (six) slam(s) together, and the Williams sisters didn't. I don't see why the stat should be changed. :confused:

It was a magnificent run, and one that only Navratilova/Shriver can compete with (and Fernandez/Zvereva can at least say their's was after the AO changed from grass). But yes, the Williams sisters still have an incredible record and neither should be diminished because of these comparisons.

I think I may not have been specific enough in my initial question. When I said slams played I was thinking from the first won till the last won (ie slam run), not the first ever played till the last. I think that's where we have a bit of a misunderstanding.

I didn't change the statistic I sited one more specific to what I meant in my initial query. Your statistic counts events like the 1997 U.S Open when Serena was 15, unranked and had yet to play a WTA main draw match. :o Their first 4 slams played were at the start of their careers unlike Zvereva and Fernandez who were both in their twenties when they partnered up. Of course the Williams weren't going to win their first couple of slams played under those circumstances. It's a more fair and accurate comparison to compare slam runs between the two teams which is what I did. The Williams are in a unique situation having played together from the start of their careers so I thought a bit of context was necessarily from the stat you cited. :shrug:

It really will be interesting to see what the comparison arguments will be in a couple of years if V&S win a couple more slams and pass Zvereva/Fernandez in Slam wins. :eek:

PowerWilliams
Aug 10th, 2012, 05:02 AM
Yes they are. They played RARELY and managed to be top 5 ever. If they were doubles specialists and had less singles career, they would have been the doubles GOAT.

chingching
Aug 10th, 2012, 05:46 AM
Yes. Poll would have been good. but didn't Zvereva and someone do really well ages ago :lol:

bandabou
Aug 10th, 2012, 08:34 AM
Fernandez/Zvereva obviously put up impressive numbers as doubles team during that 5-year run, but hey: either you're a doubles specialist or you ain't.

h2h Williams/Williams would hold their own against all the oldies for sure.

Dave.
Aug 10th, 2012, 12:19 PM
I think I may not have been specific enough in my initial question. When I said slams played I was thinking from the first won till the last won (ie slam run), not the first ever played till the last. I think that's where we have a bit of a misunderstanding.

I didn't change the statistic I sited one more specific to what I meant in my initial query. Your statistic counts events like the 1997 U.S Open when Serena was 15, unranked and had yet to play a WTA main draw match. :o Their first 4 slams played were at the start of their careers unlike Zvereva and Fernandez who were both in their twenties when they partnered up. Of course the Williams weren't going to win their first couple of slams played under those circumstances. It's a more fair and accurate comparison to compare slam runs between the two teams which is what I did. The Williams are in a unique situation having played together from the start of their careers so I thought a bit of context was necessarily from the stat you cited. :shrug:

It really will be interesting to see what the comparison arguments will be in a couple of years if V&S win a couple more slams and pass Zvereva/Fernandez in Slam wins. :eek:

But I would argue that them having played together for their entire careers (and entire lives) has given them a significant edge and helped them win so many slams, so it all balances out in the end.

Cutting tournaments out of statistics to provide context is all purely subjective. It's still an extremely impressive stat seeing as it goes back right to the beginning of their careers.

It will be interesting if the Williams sisters can pass Fernandez/Zvereva by a few slams in the future as then it would be a discussion. As of now, we still can't find one area where the Williams sisters lead.

Slammer7
Aug 10th, 2012, 02:22 PM
But I would argue that them having played together for their entire careers (and entire lives) has given them a significant edge and helped them win so many slams, so it all balances out in the end.

Cutting tournaments out of statistics to provide context is all purely subjective. It's still an extremely impressive stat seeing as it goes back right to the beginning of their careers.

It will be interesting if the Williams sisters can pass Fernandez/Zvereva by a few slams in the future as then it would be a discussion. As of now, we still can't find one area where the Williams sisters lead.

The same could be said about any sibling pairing. It's not cutting anything out. Like I said before I am comparing Slam runs NOT entire career/winning percentage. :shrug: The statistic actually looks even better for Gigi/Natasha because it would be 14/21 if we are detailing the period in which they won their 14 slams, since they lost their last GS Final before Gigi retired. :shrug: I just don't think comparing a team of already established players in their 20's to a team that had a still growing 15/16 year old who had barely played professional matches apt, obviously you see it differently which is fine. You can count overall career winning percentage while I will compare the period in which they won their slams.

True, but since their careers are still ongoing there is a good chance that with continued health for V&S that could be a different story by this time next year.

Geisha
Aug 10th, 2012, 02:28 PM
The same could be said about any sibling pairing. It's not cutting anything out. Like I said before I am comparing Slam runs NOT entire career/winning percentage. :shrug: The statistic actually looks even better for Gigi/Natasha because it would be 14/21 if we are detailing the period in which they won their 14 slams, since they lost their last GS Final before Gigi retired. :shrug: I just don't think comparing a team of already established players in their 20's to a team that had a still growing 15/16 year old who had barely played professional matches apt, obviously you see it differently which is fine. You can count overall career winning percentage while I will compare the period in which they won their slams.

True, but since their careers are still ongoing there is a good chance that with continued health for V&S that could be a different story by this time next year.

I'm a Williams fan thick and thin, but since the thread title is about all-time doubles teams, why would we start the Williamses statistics a little later just because they were young at the time?

Slammer7
Aug 10th, 2012, 03:08 PM
I'm a Williams fan thick and thin, but since the thread title is about all-time doubles teams, why would we start the Williamses statistics a little later just because they were young at the time?

OK seriously I'm not cutting out statistics, I'm citing a different statistic. I asked how many slams did it take Fernandez and Zvereva to win their Slams and Dave gave me entire team career numbers when my question (obviously not clarified enough) was about from first won till last won, which I explained. I have clarified that I'm NOT citing the same thing he is. If you are going by the period from first to last won you Can't count the first ones they played because they didn't win those. :shrug: Just like I didn't count the last one Fernandez and Zvereva played because they didn't win that one. If I was talking about entire winning percentage in slams as a team that would be different and hence the numbers would be different. The WS and Gigi and Natasha's careers stand on their own. I was comparing the time between the first and the last Slam. Counting the ones they didn't win before they started wining them would be like comparing Serena's 5 slams out of 6 played between the 2002 FO to 2003 Wimbledon to Navratilova's 6 in a row in the 83/84 and asking why I didn't count the 2001 U.S Open for Serena or the 1983 FO for Martina. :shrug: If Zvereva and Fernandez had continued playing for 3 more years and didn't win another major it would be perfectly fine to not count the 3 years they didn't win if I was comparing their Slam winning time period. If I was comparing career winning percentage that would be different. There are many statistic for many similar yet different circumstances, what Dave was citing wasn't what I was citing.

Gallofa
Aug 23rd, 2012, 11:02 PM
I was actually just thinking about this after reading the piece they did on the New York Times Magazine about them. I have to say yes. I cannot think of any team in history that could beat the sisters consistently in the big stage. Heh. If I had to choose a team to play for my life, I would choose them, hands down.

Of course, they don't play enough to have the record, so there are more accomplished, statistically better, teams out there, but not one that would beat them on the court.

PowerWilliams
Aug 23rd, 2012, 11:12 PM
Ask someone in the street "Name TWO female tennis players". Williams.

serenafann
Aug 25th, 2012, 08:07 AM
Answer-Pretty much.

In The Zone
Aug 25th, 2012, 04:39 PM
I was actually just thinking about this after reading the piece they did on the New York Times Magazine about them. I have to say yes. I cannot think of any team in history that could beat the sisters consistently in the big stage. Heh. If I had to choose a team to play for my life, I would choose them, hands down.

Of course, they don't play enough to have the record, so there are more accomplished, statistically better, teams out there, but not one that would beat them on the court.

I think this sums up how everyone feels in this thread. Good job. And since there are 16 slams now until Rio, they may pass Navratilova/Shriver if they want to and their bodies hold up.

nealcaffrey
Aug 25th, 2012, 05:37 PM
If I had to choose a team to play for my life, I would choose them, hands down.

this. pretty much says it all

KBdoubleu
Aug 26th, 2012, 05:53 PM
Fernandez/Zvereva: 14/22
Williams/Williams: 13/25

I think it's important to note that the Williams sisters were forced to withdraw from four of those slams. So they have won 13 of 21 Grand Slams that they have completed.

I agree that when comparing their statistics to some of the other great teams you have to consider the fact that Venus and Serena began playing tournaments together professionally when they were just 16 and 14. Fernandez and Zvereva, for example, both already had three Grand Slam doubles titles to their names before they teamed up. Though I also agree that the Williams sisters' results are also strengthened by the fact that they have played together all their lives and know one another's games so well.