PDA

View Full Version : Navratilova Shriver vs Serenus : who would win ?


LightWarrior
Sep 20th, 2012, 11:39 PM
Tough one ? Nav Shriver is the most succesful team and were probably better at the net than Serenus. But then there Serenus' huge serve and power...

Sean.
Sep 21st, 2012, 12:31 AM
Playing now, Serenus. Playing then, Pam/Martina.

Simply as that. Each was the best at the game their played.

Uranium
Sep 21st, 2012, 06:29 AM
Serenus. They have shown time and time again that they eat serve and volleying teams up for breakfast.

Maddox
Sep 21st, 2012, 10:54 AM
Serenus would slaughter them with their power and swinging volleys at net :lol:

Sam L
Sep 21st, 2012, 01:54 PM
Venus and Serena. At their best, they are the best team in history.

AcesHigh
Sep 24th, 2012, 07:16 AM
Navs and Shriver.

Venus and Serena have not faced anyone comparable in skill to that team.
It would be like Federer against Karlovic. Tough on grass definitely but there's enough skill and brains for the better team to prevail.

bandabou
Sep 24th, 2012, 08:10 AM
Navs and Shriver.

Venus and Serena have not faced anyone comparable in skill to that team.
It would be like Federer against Karlovic. Tough on grass definitely but there's enough skill and brains for the better team to prevail.

Oh the same old: 'they only win because of power'-argument. right, right..:lol:

AcesHigh
Sep 24th, 2012, 09:29 AM
Oh the same old: 'they only win because of power'-argument. right, right..:lol:

Um.. in doubles they do. And I love WS doubles but it is all shock and awe tennis. Neither of them are skilled volleyers and neither of them play doubles strategy.

The Witch-king
Sep 24th, 2012, 01:19 PM
:rolleyes: If it aint about a poll imma have to wait for another time to troll

Sammo
Sep 24th, 2012, 01:58 PM
Navratilova and Shriver, they were a team based on power, and the Williams sister don't handle well ball bashers with good technique

Olórin
Sep 24th, 2012, 02:07 PM
Um.. in doubles they do. And I love WS doubles but it is all shock and awe tennis. Neither of them are skilled volleyers and neither of them play doubles strategy.

And why precisely wouldn't this "shock and awe" work on any doubles team in history?

Shock and awe doubles isn't necessarily just power. It involves the accuracy, the length of the returns, the aggressive court positioning, the indomitable serving, the willingness to move forward to put away short balls, a rock steady smash. All these are things that peak-WS doubles bring to the court and there is no reason to think that Team Williams wouldn't stand a good chance of imposing their game.

Geisha
Sep 24th, 2012, 03:12 PM
God. These topics are so stupid.

Navratilova and Shriver played in the 80s and their serves were 40 MPH weaker than the girls today. Venus and Serena would crush returns. They're absolute beasts. Different technology, different rackets, different athletics. It's just different. Kirilenko and Makarova would also beat Navratilova and Shriver. You simply can't compare eras - especially not after 30 years! Maybe if it was ten years ago, we'd have a little more of an argument.

Long story short, stick anyone in the 80s and 90s against the legends of the 2010s (Henin, Venus, Serena, Sharapova, Clijsters) and they'd get crushed. Singles, doubles, mixed, etc.

The greats have said it. Agassi said you can't even compare people from the previous FIVE years. BJK also said something along the lines of different eras not being comparable.

Geisha
Sep 24th, 2012, 03:13 PM
Now, if Venus and Serena played the exact same style of play as they do now, but were born in the 50s and 60s, and playing against peak Navratilova and Shriver, maybe it would be different. But that's way too complicated and full of ifs.

Geisha
Sep 24th, 2012, 03:13 PM
A player ranked #100 in the world right now would still beat Chris Evert of 1970s. Like get real, people.

Sammo
Sep 24th, 2012, 03:15 PM
A player ranked #100 in the world right now would still beat Chris Evert of 1970s. Like get real, people.

Take 1970's Chris Evert to today and give her 2 months to adapt, scoreline? 6-1 6-1 to her favour. Navratilova beat Catalina Castaño at Wimbledon in 2002 aged 46 by 6-0 6-1.

AcesHigh
Sep 24th, 2012, 04:52 PM
And why precisely wouldn't this "shock and awe" work on any doubles team in history?

Shock and awe doubles isn't necessarily just power. It involves the accuracy, the length of the returns, the aggressive court positioning, the indomitable serving, the willingness to move forward to put away short balls, a rock steady smash. All these are things that peak-WS doubles bring to the court and there is no reason to think that Team Williams wouldn't stand a good chance of imposing their game.

That's glorifying the way they play. It's based on intimidating your opponent and demoralizing them. There is no touch, feel, or strategy involved. Just look at a WS doubles match and it's often frenetic, wild and based on reacting to what happens.

It works on todays doubles players because the players with the greatest doubles minds or strategy don't have the athleticism or skill to even approach the level of the WS.

Shriver and Navs wouldn't be intimidated. They were also miles ahead in terms of doubles skill. And if you have their tennis IQ and the skill to back it up, then you can figure out a team that is much less skilled.

bandabou
Sep 24th, 2012, 09:49 PM
Um.. in doubles they do. And I love WS doubles but it is all shock and awe tennis. Neither of them are skilled volleyers and neither of them play doubles strategy.

And Navratilova/Shriver were known for their touch right?! It's funny really how people talk about Navratilova...girl didn't become a factor till she took gym-training/power/etc..to the next level. Before that she was getting killed left and right by Evert.

Geisha
Sep 26th, 2012, 02:24 PM
Take 1970's Chris Evert to today and give her 2 months to adapt, scoreline? 6-1 6-1 to her favour. Navratilova beat Catalina Castaño at Wimbledon in 2002 aged 46 by 6-0 6-1.

Never disagreed with that. "Two months to adapt".

Stick Chris Evert from the 1970s and transport her to today and have her play against Serena, and she wouldn't win a single point.

QuitYerWhining
Oct 26th, 2013, 02:23 PM
I'll assume that they have to switch from modern rackets to wooden rackets and vice versa on every changeover.

Venus would destroy Shriver, even adjusting for era.

Pam was a decent player and apparently a not-very-good-but-great great doubles partner to MartinaNav, but Prime Venus was a great player with all of the chemistry with her sister and then some. So Shriver would be the wea link, with all due respect. Almost anyone in tennis history would probably be a weak link with Serena/Venus/MartinaNav.

bobito
Oct 26th, 2013, 02:51 PM
Playing now, Serenus. Playing then, Pam/Martina.

Simply as that. Each was the best at the game their played.

in a nutshell yes.

LightWarrior
Oct 27th, 2013, 12:21 AM
Never disagreed with that. "Two months to adapt".

Stick Chris Evert from the 1970s and transport her to today and have her play against Serena, and she wouldn't win a single point.

Please not this again ! Even Serena refuses to compare eras and confessed she benifitted a lot from the new technology.

MMJSL
Oct 27th, 2013, 11:30 PM
The Williams would beat Nav/Shriver.

Navratoliva and Shriver don't have enough power off the baseline to hurt Serena and Venus.

Serena and Venus KILL "classic" doubles players but don't fair well against players who can play from the baseline.

MMJSL
Oct 27th, 2013, 11:38 PM
That's glorifying the way they play. It's based on intimidating your opponent and demoralizing them. There is no touch, feel, or strategy involved. Just look at a WS doubles match and it's often frenetic, wild and based on reacting to what happens.

It works on todays doubles players because the players with the greatest doubles minds or strategy don't have the athleticism or skill to even approach the level of the WS.

Shriver and Navs wouldn't be intimidated. They were also miles ahead in terms of doubles skill. And if you have their tennis IQ and the skill to back it up, then you can figure out a team that is much less skilled.

I disagree. Doubles skills and tennis IQ goes out the window with the Williams. She WILL get to the ball and it WILL come screaming back. Like you said, they're great at reacting.

You gotta hit heavy shots at them when they're at the net and expose their volleys. Don't get me wrong their volleys are not bad but they're not that good either. You do that enough and you can beat them.

Shriver and Navs backhands aren't good enough to employ any heavy shots from the baseline and Serena and Venus can exploit that easily.

PLP
Oct 29th, 2013, 08:09 AM
POll?

Martina and Pam 3 out of 4 times. They were almost unbeatable. Serena and Venus are a great team but there positioning would be exposed and they haven't played quite enough together to have the same rhythm as a team.

JRena
Oct 29th, 2013, 09:06 AM
Nav is the greatest double's player in history, but Shriver is her weak link. Venus and Serena are on par with each other and are all time greats on their own, so I would give them the edge.

Orbis
Oct 29th, 2013, 02:50 PM
Take 1970's Chris Evert to today and give her 2 months to adapt, scoreline? 6-1 6-1 to her favour. Navratilova beat Catalina Castaño at Wimbledon in 2002 aged 46 by 6-0 6-1.

Wimbledon 2004. She destroyed Castano who was ranked 101, but then proceeded to lose to a 19 year old Gisela Dulko in 3 sets in the next round...so it's hard to say how well the older players would fare today. They definitely wouldn't be pushing the boundaries of the top 10 or anything but they might be able to clean up the lower ends of the top 100.

histery
Oct 29th, 2013, 10:42 PM
POll?

Martina and Pam 3 out of 4 times. They were almost unbeatable. Serena and Venus are a great team but there positioning would be exposed and they haven't played quite enough together to have the same rhythm as a team.

The WS are also almost unbeatable, your point? If they played the amount Martina and Pam played, they would also have over 100 titles, but you cannot do this with today's tennis, it's way to physically demanding to play 150-200 matches a year like Martina did.

Bad Blood
Oct 29th, 2013, 10:53 PM
I would say out of 4 times, they would split meetings. Out of 10 times, Nav/Shriver 6 times. I would give them the slight edge because I think that they would find a way to breakthrough. It also depends on the surface. At Wimbledon, Serena/Venus 8 out of 10 times (especially on real grass) and it would be split evenly, maybe slightly favoring the Williams @ the US Open and Nav/Shriver @ Australia. As for the French, Nav/Shriver 7 out of 10 times

ZetaKizzy
Oct 30th, 2013, 06:22 AM
Navs-Shriver dominated in a totally different era. It was a different game back then. These two teams are separated by 30 or so years. You can't compare them. No team today plays doubles as it was played in the 80s.

And Venus' volleys aren't that good? Since when? She's far more natural at it than Serena and it's hard to get the ball past that wingspan. Venus at net is a beautiful sight to behold; especially if she's on her game.

But even so, it would be a very interesting match with their contrasting styles.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

darrinbaker00
Oct 30th, 2013, 06:43 AM
Venus and Serena are my favorite players of all time, but if I had to bet everything I own on a women's doubles match, I would want Martina Navratilova playing for me. She really was that good.

Shonami Slam
Oct 31st, 2013, 12:19 PM
it's a bit hard to say, since venus and serena aren't always taking doubles that seriously, and Martina&pam did.
either that, or V&S are losing legitematly to awkward opponents they shouldn't be.

also, the past 2-3 season are the worst in doubles tennis since the modern era begun. the lower end of the top20 in doubles is plainly pathetic against most players of the past - this is not singles, folks.

considering V&S should have won every slam they entered easily or at least reach all SF+ regardless of surface, i'd say they are under performing

they "only" dominated the slams between 08-10
one would think that the beggining of the 2000s should have been racked with way more titles.

nav\pam won 10 slams (and a final) during 83-85
as for longevity and non slam events... there is no comparsion at all. 11 straight YEC is enough to clarify it.
between 2004FO - 2006USO she lost *twice* before the QF.

venus and serena might be one of the all time greatest *teams* but they are definatly not one, individually, two of the best ever *doubles* players.
i'm not sure, for example, Serena could reach a doubles final with, say, Kuznetsova, the way Nav did past her fourties, in *today*s technology, raquets, athleticism.

the truth is, Nav is the greatest doubles player ever, and Pam was one of the better players in a very tough era.
Serenus are two powerhouses in a considerably weak doubles era.
they should have won more than 20 slam titles to be comparable. had they played more often, it would be much easier to see that they simply lose to more teams.
Errani and Vinci, the czechs, the russians - they all have a chance against serenus. they even lost prior QF in Wimbledon when they were dominating it in singles.


give nav and pam a raquet today and they wouldn't be too competetive. ten years ago? a serious comeback from pam as well as nav would have seen them reaching slam SFs, IMO.
15 years ago, and they would have denied serenus thier first slam victories in doubles, IMO.

ZetaKizzy
Oct 31st, 2013, 02:13 PM
it's a bit hard to say, since venus and serena aren't always taking doubles that seriously, and Martina&pam did.
either that, or V&S are losing legitematly to awkward opponents they shouldn't be.

also, the past 2-3 season are the worst in doubles tennis since the modern era begun. the lower end of the top20 in doubles is plainly pathetic against most players of the past - this is not singles, folks.

considering V&S should have won every slam they entered easily or at least reach all SF+ regardless of surface, i'd say they are under performing

they "only" dominated the slams between 08-10
one would think that the beggining of the 2000s should have been racked with way more titles.

nav\pam won 10 slams (and a final) during 83-85
as for longevity and non slam events... there is no comparsion at all. 11 straight YEC is enough to clarify it.
between 2004FO - 2006USO she lost *twice* before the QF.

venus and serena might be one of the all time greatest *teams* but they are definatly not one, individually, two of the best ever *doubles* players.
i'm not sure, for example, Serena could reach a doubles final with, say, Kuznetsova, the way Nav did past her fourties, in *today*s technology, raquets, athleticism.

the truth is, Nav is the greatest doubles player ever, and Pam was one of the better players in a very tough era.
Serenus are two powerhouses in a considerably weak doubles era.
they should have won more than 20 slam titles to be comparable. had they played more often, it would be much easier to see that they simply lose to more teams.
Errani and Vinci, the czechs, the russians - they all have a chance against serenus. they even lost prior QF in Wimbledon when they were dominating it in singles.


give nav and pam a raquet today and they wouldn't be too competetive. ten years ago? a serious comeback from pam as well as nav would have seen them reaching slam SFs, IMO.
15 years ago, and they would have denied serenus thier first slam victories in doubles, IMO.

When the sisters play doubles, they play to win the tournament. If they didn't take it seriously, they wouldn't have those 13 slams and 3 gold medals.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2013, 02:49 PM
Navs-Shriver dominated in a totally different era. It was a different game back then. These two teams are separated by 30 or so years. You can't compare them. No team today plays doubles as it was played in the 80s.

And Venus' volleys aren't that good? Since when? She's far more natural at it than Serena and it's hard to get the ball past that wingspan. Venus at net is a beautiful sight to behold; especially if she's on her game.

But even so, it would be a very interesting match with their contrasting styles.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)
People who have seen doubles of other eras easily realize which style is better.

In my book Zvereva-Fernandez would be more on par with Navratilova-Shriver, than Venus and Serena.

The doubles that is played today is a non sense joke really, even the Bondarenko sisters won a slam not too long ago, and they now play from the back of the court.

Venus and Serena are dangerous because of their power and atheticism, and not because of their actual doubles strategy or ability to construct points IMO.

lloyders76
Nov 1st, 2013, 12:49 AM
it's a bit hard to say, since venus and serena aren't always taking doubles that seriously, and Martina&pam did.
either that, or V&S are losing legitematly to awkward opponents they shouldn't be.

also, the past 2-3 season are the worst in doubles tennis since the modern era begun. the lower end of the top20 in doubles is plainly pathetic against most players of the past - this is not singles, folks.

considering V&S should have won every slam they entered easily or at least reach all SF+ regardless of surface, i'd say they are under performing

they "only" dominated the slams between 08-10
one would think that the beggining of the 2000s should have been racked with way more titles.

nav\pam won 10 slams (and a final) during 83-85
as for longevity and non slam events... there is no comparsion at all. 11 straight YEC is enough to clarify it.
between 2004FO - 2006USO she lost *twice* before the QF.

venus and serena might be one of the all time greatest *teams* but they are definatly not one, individually, two of the best ever *doubles* players.
i'm not sure, for example, Serena could reach a doubles final with, say, Kuznetsova, the way Nav did past her fourties, in *today*s technology, raquets, athleticism.

the truth is, Nav is the greatest doubles player ever, and Pam was one of the better players in a very tough era.
Serenus are two powerhouses in a considerably weak doubles era.
they should have won more than 20 slam titles to be comparable. had they played more often, it would be much easier to see that they simply lose to more teams.
Errani and Vinci, the czechs, the russians - they all have a chance against serenus. they even lost prior QF in Wimbledon when they were dominating it in singles.


give nav and pam a raquet today and they wouldn't be too competetive. ten years ago? a serious comeback from pam as well as nav would have seen them reaching slam SFs, IMO.
15 years ago, and they would have denied serenus thier first slam victories in doubles, IMO.

navratilova won her last women's doubles slam in '90, shriver '91. i think it's a stretch to say they would've been winning slams as a team in 1998 (their last slam together was '87 i think)

lloyders76
Nov 1st, 2013, 12:51 AM
People who have seen doubles of other eras easily realize which style is better.

In my book Zvereva-Fernandez would be more on par with Navratilova-Shriver, than Venus and Serena.

The doubles that is played today is a non sense joke really, even the Bondarenko sisters won a slam not too long ago, and they now play from the back of the court.

Venus and Serena are dangerous because of their power and atheticism, and not because of their actual doubles strategy or ability to construct points IMO.

i agree, stopped following doubles when the 90s generation retired, doubles teams like ruano/suarez and zheng/yan killed it for me with their constant crosscourt baseline play

Sam L
Nov 2nd, 2013, 02:28 AM
I'm surprised no one's talked about the advances in string technology at all.

The doubles that Fernandez/Zvereva played is closer to Navratilova/Shriver. It's true.

But the modern doubles game has had to adjust to advances in technology so they do play different and more from the back of the court. I don't think one is better than the other though, it's just different.

I'm not a doubles player (at least not a good one :lol: ) and I would like to hear people who do play it to have input on the changes the sport has gone through.

rollingraces
Nov 23rd, 2013, 08:41 PM
I prefer the teamwork and playing patterns of Martina and Pam but I think Serena and Venus would win. They are simply a huge level over Pam, even in doubles (although Pam is obviously a great doubles player in her own right, and much better than she was in singles). Their power would be too much. The Williams are also good at the net, although Martina and Pam would have the edge there, but the Williams would put away enough volleys combined with their huge serve and return of serve advantage to win.

Sombrerero loco
Nov 24th, 2013, 09:00 PM
pam and martina of course

rollingraces
Nov 25th, 2013, 08:42 PM
People who have seen doubles of other eras easily realize which style is better.

In my book Zvereva-Fernandez would be more on par with Navratilova-Shriver, than Venus and Serena.

The doubles that is played today is a non sense joke really, even the Bondarenko sisters won a slam not too long ago, and they now play from the back of the court.

Venus and Serena are dangerous because of their power and atheticism, and not because of their actual doubles strategy or ability to construct points IMO.

Zvereva and Fernandez are a great example of the distinctive skills that were different in singles from doubles in the old days. Both were mediocre singles players but great doubles players.

Shonami Slam
Dec 6th, 2013, 08:30 PM
[/B]
navratilova won her last women's doubles slam in '90, shriver '91. i think it's a stretch to say they would've been winning slams as a team in 1998 (their last slam together was '87 i think)

perhaps, but then again - she skipped the aussie and many of the french opens (and still won so many titles)
also, she stopped playing alot on tour but still reached tournament finals, the semis at the YEC and slam semis.

by 94 she was plkaying with a different partner (bollegraf)

she actually took the WS to three sets at Wimbledon partnering a classic case of WTF in Mariann De Swardt.

i'm quite positive she could have won more doubles slams had she played, for example, with Kim Clijsters, or a powerhorse like Petrova/lindsay,
Nav/Davenport would be my safest bet to beat the Williams sisters all the way up to mid 2000s.

sweetpeas
Dec 7th, 2013, 12:35 PM
Your just will not let Serena and Venus rest!BASHING....Next they're will be a thread about if Serena Venus play's God!!:sad::sad::sad::mad::o:devil: