PDA

View Full Version : If Serena ended her career with 18slams.....


Pages : [1] 2

renstar
Dec 22nd, 2012, 12:37 AM
Just thinking of an interesting scenario if Serena ended her career tied with Navratilova and Evert with 18 slams would people put her ahead of Evert and Navratilova in the GOAT list or not? I also think some will start claiming shes better than Steffi and number 1 GOAT.

I think Evert and Navratilova were much more consistent in the non GS tournaments and displayed more court craft rather than just trying to crush opponents with muscle power and aces.

Just my two cents worth.

Israel
Dec 22nd, 2012, 12:40 AM
Even if she doesn't win 18 slams she will be the all time great, well for me at least. I mean she has the complete game - and her serve is incredibly good.

Mynarco
Dec 22nd, 2012, 12:45 AM
They are all goats to me. Kinda pointless to compare among the four of them

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:00 AM
She doesn't really have the stats and career achievements to deserve to be called the absolute GOAT imho.

You could argue that she has the highest level of play, but career achievements is what it really boils down to in any sport.

Vincey!
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:01 AM
I think Serena has the best game you could ever expect a tennis player to have, at least that we've seen so far. Navratilova and Evert were great players but they both had areas where they could strongly get better. That being said, Serena hasn't had as much success outside GS as Nav and Chris did so I don't know. If we're talking about best PLAYER I'd go with Serena, but if we're talking about best results/achievement Navratilova and Evert could have an edge, I think Graf would still be consdiered better....if we NEED to rank them I'd go Graf, Serena, Evert/Navratilova. Serena as all the time to surpass Graf tho, she's really close to her in my opinion.

binky-GOAT
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:10 AM
I think Serena has the best game you could ever expect a tennis player to have

:lol: No.

Ball bashing isn't tennis.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:28 AM
Yeah, don't even mention the woman who won more grand slams (24) AND overall titles (194) than anyone. :rolleyes: Or Helen Wills Moody, who has the third most slams (19). :rolleyes:

If Serena were to win 18, she'd still be where she is now in the order, IMO:

1. Court.
2. Graf.
3. Wills Moody.
4. Evert/Navratilova (interchangeable really).
6. Williams.

KeysisGOAT
Dec 22nd, 2012, 02:02 AM
Yeah, don't even mention the woman who won more grand slams (24) AND overall titles (194) than anyone. :rolleyes: Or Helen Wills Moody, who has the third most slams (19). :rolleyes:

If Serena were to win 18, she'd still be where she is now in the order, IMO:

1. Court.
2. Graf.
3. Wills Moody.
4. Evert/Navratilova (interchangeable really).
6. Williams.

I'd argue that Graf should be at least joint first with Court. While she does have fewer WTA titles and slams than Court, the fact that she win her titles on a wider variety of court types indicates that her game was more versatile than Court who won her slams on grass and clay alone (whereas Steffi did so on grass, clay and two different types of hard court) and could therefore be argued as a better player, or at least a player shown to be effective in situations where Court has not.

Kooyong
Dec 22nd, 2012, 02:12 AM
Good question!

I think Serena deserves to be recongised as one of the sport's greatest but not necessarily the greatest for one reason only and it isn't an issue for Serena hasn't needed to develop it but Serena is not known for being great at the net.

Serena is clearly the greatest player of her generation

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:27 AM
I'd argue that Graf should be at least joint first with Court. While she does have fewer WTA titles and slams than Court, the fact that she win her titles on a wider variety of court types indicates that her game was more versatile than Court who won her slams on grass and clay alone (whereas Steffi did so on grass, clay and two different types of hard court) and could therefore be argued as a better player, or at least a player shown to be effective in situations where Court has not.

When did Margaret ever even have the chance to play on hard, though? :confused:

tommyk75
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:42 AM
Sorry, the whole Slam-counting thing for choosing Court as the greatest doesn't reflect how poor the draws were for the Australian for many years. If Court was indeed the greatest ever, she would've had greater success in the other 3 majors than Graf, Navratilova, or Evert, and she simply didn't. Court was a great player, don't get me wrong, but better than the other 3 (or Serena in my opinion)? Don't think so.

jameshazza
Dec 22nd, 2012, 05:12 AM
IDK, while I personally already rate Serena among them I think it's pointless to compare between them.
It's just hard to look past all the other GS Finals, titles, weeks at #1, years of dominance Navrat and Evert have.

I would still place Steffi on a tier above those 3 though.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:45 AM
Sorry, the whole Slam-counting thing for choosing Court as the greatest doesn't reflect how poor the draws were for the Australian for many years. If Court was indeed the greatest ever, she would've had greater success in the other 3 majors than Graf, Navratilova, or Evert, and she simply didn't. Court was a great player, don't get me wrong, but better than the other 3 (or Serena in my opinion)? Don't think so.

A few misconceptions need to be cleared here:

1. Take away ALL of Court's AOs, and she still has 13 slams.

2. She won 5/10 of the FOs that she played.

3. She actually did beat players like Bueno, King, Richey and Goolagong in some of her wins there.

4. Sure, some draws were easy, but are you telling me that none of the others ever had easy draws? Please, just look at Serena's latest wins. She beat none of Venus, Kim or Justine. Why do the tough draws only seem to be a problem for Margaret? Graf's biggest rival was taken out of the game ffs, and look at some of the pitiful draws that Evert and Navratilova had.

5. Margaret was considered an all-rounder, a rarity who played just as well at the net as at the back. The AO suited her game to a tee, just as other players have been more successful at one slam than the others (often winning more at 1 than all of the others combined, like Venus winning 5/7 at W, Justine 4/7 at the FO, Hingis 3/5 at the AO, and Navratilova dead even with 9/18 at W).

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:46 AM
IDK, while I personally already rate Serena among them I think it's pointless to compare between them.
It's just hard to look past all the other GS Finals, titles, weeks at #1, years of dominance Navrat and Court have.

I would still place Steffi on a tier above those 3 though.

Why exactly?

Dominic
Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:21 AM
Even if she doesn't win 18 slams she will be the all time great, well for me at least. I mean she has the complete game - and her serve is incredibly good.

Are you the incarnation of bias? :eek:

Royals.
Dec 22nd, 2012, 08:30 AM
:lol: No.

Ball bashing isn't tennis.

Really? really? wanna go there?

http://i54.tinypic.com/2wlvc0i.gif

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 22nd, 2012, 09:19 AM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. 18 looked downright inevitable after she won her 13th without dropping a set, even prompting Mcenroe to declare her the best ever at that point, or Seles to claim she could top Court's slam count. Needless to say things took a turn for the worst quickly, and then it became doubtful she would ever win one. So yeah, 18 is still long ways off. And of course the obligatory "no point in ranking players of different eras" btw.

Yeah, don't even mention the woman who won more grand slams (24) AND overall titles (194) than anyone. :rolleyes: Or Helen Wills Moody, who has the third most slams (19). :rolleyes:

If Serena were to win 18, she'd still be where she is now in the order, IMO:

1. Court.
2. Graf.
3. Wills Moody.
4. Evert/Navratilova (interchangeable really).
6. Williams.

Welcome back Rimon :hug:

LightWarrior
Dec 22nd, 2012, 09:26 AM
Yeah, don't even mention the woman who won more grand slams (24) AND overall titles (194) than anyone. :rolleyes: Or Helen Wills Moody, who has the third most slams (19). :rolleyes:

If Serena were to win 18, she'd still be where she is now in the order, IMO:

1. Court.
2. Graf.
3. Wills Moody.
4. Evert/Navratilova (interchangeable really).
6. Williams.

Court and Wills Moody are out of the picture because they're both non open era. When will people realize that once and for all ? It's really getting old. Do tennis experts mention Wills Moody as one of the goats ? No. :rolleyes:

SerenaSlam
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:07 PM
I think the difference between Serena and the accomplished above her is that right now she is apart of a conversation that includes them. Her career isn't over but one thing i consider is WHO is going to be the "Serena" that eventually takes her out? Steffi, Chrissy and Martina eventually had Superiors in their career. Otherwise IMO they could or would have continued on. Right now Serena is still that Major force. She still has the step on the court and she decides the match. 17 years into a career. That in itself makes her apart of the conversation. I'm interested in wondering who will if ever finally tump her? Or will she leave in retirement as a force not taken out but simply walking away?

renstar
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:30 PM
I think the difference between Serena and the accomplished above her is that right now she is apart of a conversation that includes them. Her career isn't over but one thing i consider is WHO is going to be the "Serena" that eventually takes her out? Steffi, Chrissy and Martina eventually had Superiors in their career. Otherwise IMO they could or would have continued on. Right now Serena is still that Major force. She still has the step on the court and she decides the match. 17 years into a career. That in itself makes her apart of the conversation. I'm interested in wondering who will if ever finally tump her? Or will she leave in retirement as a force not taken out but simply walking away?

Chrissy was 34yo when she retired in 89 and what was Martina when she retired in 94,late 30s? They would have continued on?? What on wheel chairs and zimmer frames? lol. I also think injury was a contributing factor to Steffi wanting to retire as well as feeling she had accomplished all she needed to.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:50 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. 18 looked downright inevitable after she won her 13th without dropping a set, even prompting Mcenroe to declare her the best ever at that point, or Seles to claim she could top Court's slam count. Needless to say things took a turn for the worst quickly, and then it became doubtful she would ever win one. So yeah, 18 is still long ways off. And of course the obligatory "no point in ranking players of different eras" btw.



Welcome back Rimon :hug:

Sorry? :confused:

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:51 PM
Court and Wills Moody are out of the picture because they're both non open era. When will people realize that once and for all ? It's really getting old. Do tennis experts mention Wills Moody as one of the goats ? No. :rolleyes:

What difference does being in the open era have? There is really no firm distinction in the women's game, unlike in the men's.

The reason that Wills Moody is never mentioned is sheer ignorance. The woman lost about 2 matches in her entire career.

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 01:57 PM
I think the difference between Serena and the accomplished above her is that right now she is apart of a conversation that includes them. Her career isn't over but one thing i consider is WHO is going to be the "Serena" that eventually takes her out? Steffi, Chrissy and Martina eventually had Superiors in their career. Otherwise IMO they could or would have continued on. Right now Serena is still that Major force. She still has the step on the court and she decides the match. 17 years into a career. That in itself makes her apart of the conversation. I'm interested in wondering who will if ever finally tump her? Or will she leave in retirement as a force not taken out but simply walking away?

Well she retires in 2016, surely baby-GOAT will come along by then...

SerenaSlam
Dec 22nd, 2012, 02:38 PM
Chrissy was 34yo when she retired in 89 and what was Martina when she retired in 94,late 30s? They would have continued on?? What on wheel chairs and zimmer frames? lol. I also think injury was a contributing factor to Steffi wanting to retire as well as feeling she had accomplished all she needed to.

You missed my entire point. One statement coincides with the other. Hence why I stated they had superiors. Had they not I'm sure they would or could have kept things going. No big deal its understandable coming from this forum. Thanks and you're welcome.

Chrissie-fan
Dec 22nd, 2012, 02:49 PM
What difference does being in the open era have? There is really no firm distinction in the women's game, unlike in the men's.

The reason that Wills Moody is never mentioned is sheer ignorance. The woman lost about 2 matches in her entire career.
....and she is mentionned as one of the greats all the time anyway. Besides, how can you have a GOAT discussion when you ignore half or more of the game's history? Not that there is a point to ranking the greats from different eras to begin with - different equipment, different opponents, different nutrition, different training methods, different everything. The only objective thing we can do is say that both Wills and Serena are all time greats, and that's it.

heavyhorse
Dec 22nd, 2012, 02:52 PM
I think Serena has the best game you could ever expect a tennis player to have, at least that we've seen so far.

:lol:

Serena tards are too much.

KeysisGOAT
Dec 22nd, 2012, 03:06 PM
When did Margaret ever even have the chance to play on hard, though? :confused:

Very rarely, if at all. None of the slams were hard court events when she played them, and I doubt that many, if any tour events were at that time either. However, that's the exact reason why I'd argue for Graf over Court. Court's ability to play on hard courts is completely unknown, whereas Graf won 9 slams and Olympic gold on that surface. We know exactly how good she was on hard courts, I don't have the information to comment on Court.

If the Australian or US Open had been played on hard courts when Court played, would she have won 16 slams at the events? Possibly, possibly not I can't say. On the other hand, if the Australian and US Opens were still played on grass Graf's slam total wouldn't have been too different because she's got seven Wimbledons, indicating that winning on grass isn't a problem for her.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 03:34 PM
....and she is mentionned as one of the greats all the time anyway. Besides, how can you have a GOAT discussion when you ignore half or more of the game's history? Not that there is a point to ranking the greats from different eras to begin with - different equipment, different opponents, different nutrition, different training methods, different everything. The only objective thing we can do is say that both Wills and Serena are all time greats, and that's it.

She's hardly ever mentioned at all, actually, despite having a winning record of something like 99%, and going through many tournaments barely losing games.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 03:38 PM
Very rarely, if at all. None of the slams were hard court events when she played them, and I doubt that many, if any tour events were at that time either. However, that's the exact reason why I'd argue for Graf over Court. Court's ability to play on hard courts is completely unknown, whereas Graf won 9 slams and Olympic gold on that surface. We know exactly how good she was on hard courts, I don't have the information to comment on Court.

If the Australian or US Open had been played on hard courts when Court played, would she have won 16 slams at the events? Possibly, possibly not I can't say. On the other hand, if the Australian and US Opens were still played on grass Graf's slam total wouldn't have been too different because she's got seven Wimbledons, indicating that winning on grass isn't a problem for her.

Well I find that feeble, pathetic and unfair, because Margaret never had the chance to prove herself on hard court. It's not like Venus, who could never win the FO, or Justine, who could never win W.

Also, grass and clay are extreme surfaces, the former the fastest and the latter the slowest. Hard courts are moderate, and tell me one player in history who (those that played when all three were available) succeeded very much on clay and grass, but not hard?

sdkslayer
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:03 PM
Selena needs 5 more GS titles to beat Evert/Navratilova.
19 is still argueable but #20 sounds totally different from 18.

Since serena is admitting she'll play Rio OG, 4years are a lot of time.
pretty possible for serena to reach 20GS titiles. :(

Chrissie-fan
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:22 PM
She's hardly ever mentioned at all, actually, despite having a winning record of something like 99%, and going through many tournaments barely losing games.
That's news to me. Wills, Lenglen, Connolly and Court are mentionned in all GOAT debates, unless when there is an artificial "of the open era" barrier.

KeysisGOAT
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:31 PM
Well I find that feeble, pathetic and unfair, because Margaret never had the chance to prove herself on hard court. It's not like Venus, who could never win the FO, or Justine, who could never win W.

Yes, it is unfair to criticise Court because she played in an era where 3/4 slams were played on grass. However, it's entirely justified when you consider that we don't know how she'd do in her prime in the conditions of the WTA today, where the conditions Court won 18 slams on is only used for three events, and the remaining 5 are used on 4-6 (depending if you count blue and green clay) top level events. Making assumptions that someone would play as well on a surface they'd never encountered is just as unfair from where I'm sitting.

Also, grass and clay are extreme surfaces, the former the fastest and the latter the slowest. Hard courts are moderate, and tell me one player in history who (those that played when all three were available) succeeded very much on clay and grass, but not hard?

Bjorn Borg never won a slam at the US Open which was played on hard courts, despite 4 finals on Rebound Ace. For comparison he won the French 6 times and Wimbledon 5 times.

Pureracket
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:53 PM
Were the draws for womens tennis always the same? From my understanding, the draws didn't get to their current size for Slams until some time during the Evert/Navratilova era. I think that that makes a world of difference in depth of the game and levels of competition.

Pureracket
Dec 22nd, 2012, 04:54 PM
:lol:

Serena tards are too much.Who have you seen with a better all around game?

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 05:06 PM
That's news to me. Wills, Lenglen, Connolly and Court are mentionned in all GOAT debates, unless when there is an artificial "of the open era" barrier.

Those girls are great and definitely have to be remembered for what they brought to the game but Open Era always takes priority.

Israel
Dec 22nd, 2012, 05:48 PM
Are you the incarnation of bias? :eek:
What do you mean? I'm not even a fan. I just appreciate her game :confused:

SkylerBlue
Dec 22nd, 2012, 05:54 PM
I can't even imagine that.It's so horrible for me!:help:

Volcana
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:00 PM
She doesn't really have the stats and career achievements to deserve to be called the absolute GOAT imho.

You could argue that she has the highest level of play, but career achievements is what it really boils down to in any sport.That's not entirely true.

In baseball, there's general agreement Ted Williams was one of the greatest of all time. He never won a championship. Some people, a LOT of people, say Barry Bonds was the most dominant hitter to ever play baseball. He never won a title. A lot of people think Dan Marino in American football, was the greatest quarterback ever. He never won a championship. Sometimes, it's just how well you play. That's why 'greatest' and 'most accomplished' are two different things.

It would have been nice to see Serena vs Steffi at the top of their respective games.

bobito
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:08 PM
Welcome back Rimon :hug:

What difference does being in the open era have? There is really no firm distinction in the women's game, unlike in the men's.

:yeah: Definitely Rimon

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:08 PM
That's not entirely true.

In baseball, there's general agreement Ted Williams was one of the greatest of all time. He never won a championship. Some people, a LOT of people, say Barry Bonds was the most dominant hitter to ever play baseball. He never won a title. A lot of people think Dan Marino in American football, was the greatest quarterback ever. He never won a championship. Sometimes, it's just how well you play. That's why 'greatest' and 'most accomplished' are two different things.

It would have been nice to see Serena vs Steffi at the top of their respective games.Okay, but team sports are different. You can be an amazing player but if the team around you isn't at that level than yeah you'll maybe never win an important title.

In an individual sport you don't have anyone to blame but yourself.

oneshot
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:17 PM
Just behind Graf and even that is debatable; traditionalism is the only thing keeping Graf as the all-time-great.

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:24 PM
Just behind Graf and even that is debatable; traditionalism is the only thing keeping Graf as the all-time-great.

How so? Graf has better stats and achievements than Serena in just about every regard, in some they're not even close. :shrug:

oneshot
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:47 PM
How so? Graf has better stats and achievements than Serena in just about every regard, in some they're not even close. :shrug:

I think Serena's peak level of play is pretty much untouchable and she dominated a golden generation of tennis, which Graf didn't. Plus she never had a Seles, nor did she dominate for 3 years with her biggest rival being a Sanchez-Vicario type player.

I think the level of competition from the Hingis years up to the Povarenka age is outstanding and she ended up dominating every single one of them.

Graf had Sabatini, Martinez, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario... Not really the same level of powerhouseness

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:50 PM
I think Serena's peak level of play is pretty much untouchable and she dominated a golden generation of tennis, which Graf didn't. Plus she never had a Seles, nor did she dominate for 3 years with her biggest rival being a Sanchez-Vicario type player.

I think the level of competition from the Hingis years up to the Povarenka age is outstanding and she ended up dominating every single one of them.

Graf had Sabatini, Martinez, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario... Not really the same level of powerhouseness

What a lie. I mean we're talking about an era where Ivanovic, Jankovic, Safina and Wozniacki all achieved Number 1 status. So outstanding. :lol:

Half of Serena's career is spent in an era considered one of the weakest of all time by analysts, despite this she was never able to win more than 2 slams a year in that time period. :shrug:

oneshot
Dec 22nd, 2012, 06:54 PM
What a lie. I mean we're talking about an era where Ivanovic, Jankovic, Safina and Wozniacki all achieved Number 1 status. Half of Serena's career is spent in an era considered one of the weakest ever, fact.

All that happened between 2009 and 2011, the most embarrassing years in WTA history. Serena wasn't even playing from Wimbledon onwards in 2010 and was still recovering in 2011. 2009 she collected some slams effortlessly due to the dire level of competition (not that she's doing it seemingly effortlessly now, but she's playing even better now than she was back then).

Serena's several eras are some of the strongest ever. Especially the 1999-2007 period.

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:03 PM
All that happened between 2009 and 2011, the most embarrassing years in WTA history. Serena wasn't even playing from Wimbledon onwards in 2010 and was still recovering in 2011. 2009 she collected some slams effortlessly due to the dire level of competition (not that she's doing it seemingly effortlessly now, but she's playing even better now than she was back then).You mean between 08 and '11, and Serena racked up 5 slams in this period.

Serena's several eras are some of the strongest ever. Especially the 1999-2007 period.Serena didn't really dominate throughout the entire period though, did she?

oneshot
Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:05 PM
It's not really about stats. It's about tennis, ultimately. Never have I seen a player look as invincible as Serena does at times, particularly in the 2nd half of 2012.

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:11 PM
It's not really about stats. It's about tennis, ultimately. Never have I seen a player look as invincible as Serena does at times, particularly in the 2nd half of 2012.

Stats and achievements are objective measures though, without them we're just talking poppycock.

Pump-it-UP
Dec 22nd, 2012, 07:18 PM
:lol:

Serena tards are too much.

Yeah, he's clearly a Serena fan. :weirdo: Regardless, you have nerve even mentioning Serena tards considering that you were posing as one just a month ago in her subforum. :rolls:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/6bf76d5997670f5273f369b0baae710f/tumblr_meukoa1Qhi1ql5yr7o1_250.gif http://25.media.tumblr.com/5d40b868ffdf4a0fd4ccf19014191f49/tumblr_meukoa1Qhi1ql5yr7o2_250.gif

SerenaSlam
Dec 22nd, 2012, 08:26 PM
I think if anything everyone should be I'm some form of agreement that we are even able to have such a discussion on Serena's behalf. It's amazing to me. Fan or not. I enjoy all of the tennis and the players but I don't see 10 years from now or even twenty us being able to add someone else in the discussion.

GAGAlady
Dec 22nd, 2012, 08:34 PM
Serena has the best serve a woman has ever possessed . Arguably the serve is the most important single shot in tennis that alone makes her great not to mention her I proved hpground game. She's a balanced player she can defend and has stellar offense as usual but her game is much more than ball bashing as some idiots have claimed. Jealousy is not fact people. Serena possesses the best game any woman has ever had. Fact.

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 08:35 PM
I think if anything everyone should be I'm some form of agreement that we are even able to have such a discussion on Serena's behalf. It's amazing to me. Fan or not. I enjoy all of the tennis and the players but I don't see 10 years from now or even twenty us being able to add someone else in the discussion.I think someone will come around eventually. :shrug:

I doubt it'll be anyone in the top 100 right now though that's for sure.

GAGAlady
Dec 22nd, 2012, 08:36 PM
Some claim Serena won her slams due to poor competition.

First if all that's not her problem? Is it? Why is it Serena's fault her conpetition is notable to hang with her? That's there problem. The players need to improve, not the other way around.

GAGAlady
Dec 22nd, 2012, 08:39 PM
I emember a time when players like CAPRIATI hung in the and made Serena work fr her money, I'm not saying women's tennis isn't good in the last 2 years I've seen it get better and better. It's improving a lot, but it's nice to see Serena winning at her age and kicking girls a decade you get around like ice buckets. It's fun to watch

Thirty All
Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:14 PM
She will always remain the little sister of Legend Venus :worship:
Hopefully Azarenka saves tennis and beats Serena in all her tournaments. Or Razzano and Makarova :kiss:
JCap, Hingis, Davenport, would put Serenka in her rightful place in the lower half of the top 10. Serena is the powerful version of Radwanksa (mindless, one-dimensional, and mentally weak).

:drive:

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:19 PM
Yes, it is unfair to criticise Court because she played in an era where 3/4 slams were played on grass. However, it's entirely justified when you consider that we don't know how she'd do in her prime in the conditions of the WTA today, where the conditions Court won 18 slams on is only used for three events, and the remaining 5 are used on 4-6 (depending if you count blue and green clay) top level events. Making assumptions that someone would play as well on a surface they'd never encountered is just as unfair from where I'm sitting.



Bjorn Borg never won a slam at the US Open which was played on hard courts, despite 4 finals on Rebound Ace. For comparison he won the French 6 times and Wimbledon 5 times.

But by default, you are making the assumption that she wouldn't have. Margaret dominated all of her rivals. Her nearest rival was King, and Margaret had a 21-13 record against her, including 4-1 in slam finals. I don't see how that would have differed on hard court.

The Borg example is a good one, but it's an outlier. I can't think of any others at all.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:21 PM
That's news to me. Wills, Lenglen, Connolly and Court are mentionned in all GOAT debates, unless when there is an artificial "of the open era" barrier.

Exactly my point. Sometimes there IS an artificial open era barrier.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:22 PM
Who have you seen with a better all around game?

Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova, for two.

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:22 PM
Those girls are great and definitely have to be remembered for what they brought to the game but Open Era always takes priority.

Explain why.

JarkaFish
Dec 22nd, 2012, 10:23 PM
She will always remain the little sister of Legend Venus :worship:
Hopefully Azarenka saves tennis and beats Serena in all her tournaments. Or Razzano and Makarova :kiss:
JCap, Hingis, Davenport, would put Serenka in her rightful place in the lower half of the top 10. Serena is the powerful version of Radwanksa (mindless, one-dimensional, and mentally weak).

:drive:

:scratch:

Pureracket
Dec 22nd, 2012, 11:14 PM
Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova, for two.What aspects of their games, besides volleys, could they match with Serena?

monri
Dec 22nd, 2012, 11:34 PM
What aspects of their games, besides volleys, could they match with Serena?

Great power, and they could play well at both the net and back (especially Margaret).

The Dawntreader
Dec 22nd, 2012, 11:36 PM
Serena really needs another RG title to start to really be in the Evert/Navratilova discussion.

Diesel
Dec 23rd, 2012, 12:18 AM
I'd be happy to be in on the ride to 18. Serena is already great.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 12:19 AM
Just thinking of an interesting scenario if Serena ended her career tied with Navratilova and Evert with 18 slams would people put her ahead of Evert and Navratilova in the GOAT list or not? I also think some will start claiming shes better than Steffi and number 1 GOAT.

I think Evert and Navratilova were much more consistent in the non GS tournaments and displayed more court craft rather than just trying to crush opponents with muscle power and aces.

Just my two cents worth.


I think She is the GOAT now and each event She wins more and

more experts, former great players, current players,sports

pundits and others who know Tennis declare her the greatest.

The list is getting longer and is distinguished.

Those players were consistant and were great players in their

time and against the competition of their time.

And just because Serena doesn't prefer to play the " soft game "

does not mean she can't. She can lob, dropshot, serve and volley

if she wanted to. And She is good at those as with everything else.

And whats wrong with crushing opponets with power and aces. It works

and She is better at it that anyone else is or ever was.



" Evert and Navratilova were much more consistent in the non GS tournaments "

This is irrelevant although Serena wins non-slams too.

I can't remember any post where players were compared for GOAT status

according to how many non-slams they have won. The measuring stick has

always been slams or ability.


ps Serena doesn't just " try " to crush opponets. She does, quite often.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 12:36 AM
How so? Graf has better stats and achievements than Serena in just about every regard, in some they're not even close. :shrug:


Because you can also say:

Martina has better stats and achievements than Graf in just about every regard, in some they're not even close.


So, sometimes it not always about numbers.

tommyk75
Dec 23rd, 2012, 01:14 AM
A couple of comments. The whole notion of Slam Count = Level of Greatness didn't really start coming into play until well into the Martina-Chris era. Martina's talked about it before, saying that players thought the No. 1 ranking was much more important than certain Slams (certainly the Australian and even the French during the World Team Tennis days). As a result, Martina and Chris both skipped those two Slams a bunch of times (not because of injuries like Steffi or Serena).

No one said back then, "Well, that's what your greatness will be measured by ultimately," so it's not fair just to look at the Slam Count and the overall picture, which is more complex than that.

Personally, I think a valid argument can be made for Steffi, Martina, Chris, Serena, and Margaret being the greatest. And Martina would have my ultimate vote, followed closely by Steffi.

monri
Dec 23rd, 2012, 01:25 AM
A couple of comments. The whole notion of Slam Count = Level of Greatness didn't really start coming into play until well into the Martina-Chris era. Martina's talked about it before, saying that players thought the No. 1 ranking was much more important than certain Slams (certainly the Australian and even the French during the World Team Tennis days). As a result, Martina and Chris both skipped those two Slams a bunch of times (not because of injuries like Steffi or Serena).

No one said back then, "Well, that's what your greatness will be measured by ultimately," so it's not fair just to look at the Slam Count and the overall picture, which is more complex than that.

Personally, I think a valid argument can be made for Steffi, Martina, Chris, Serena, and Margaret being the greatest. And Martina would have my ultimate vote, followed closely by Steffi.

I do agree that overall slam count doesn't mean everything, but I don't see how you can argue against the woman who won the most slams out of everyone (24), the most titles (194) and the third highest winning percentage of all time. And no, the two who lead her in the latter category are none of Martina, Chris, Steffi or Serena, they are Lenglen and Wills Moody.

And just for good measure, she's the only player to ever win two boxed sets of slams (ie, every single, double and mixed title at every slam at least twice!). She has 62 overall slam titles. Martina came out of retirement, with the aim of beating her, but still couldn't get there.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:08 AM
She will always remain the little sister of Legend Venus :worship:
Hopefully Azarenka saves tennis and beats Serena in all her tournaments. Or Razzano and Makarova :kiss:
JCap, Hingis, Davenport, would put Serenka in her rightful place in the lower half of the top 10. Serena is the powerful version of Radwanksa (mindless, one-dimensional, and mentally weak).

:drive:

" JCap, Hingis, Davenport, would put Serena in her rightful place in the lower half of the top 10. "


I always thought Serena held all 4 GS titles at the same time and No 1 while

those ladies were still playing. And doesn't Serena have a winning h2h vs all 3

And I seem to remember haters have been calling for someone to save tennis

from Serena and Venus well over a decade now, and so far its been an

..........." Epic Fail"

Vincey!
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:36 AM
:lol: No.

Ball bashing isn't tennis.

congrats on forgetting the part that is said "that we've seen so far" which is the key word. Of course Serena could improve her game, adding more net approaches, but she has had the most effective game that we've seen in women tennis.

Vincey!
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:38 AM
:lol:

Serena tards are too much.
are you HONESTLY calling ME a Serena tard? God you must be new :tape: Please don't ever post again if you consider ME a Serena tard.

JarkaFish
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:20 AM
congrats on forgetting the part that is said "that we've seen so far" which is the key word. Of course Serena could improve her game, adding more net approaches, but she has had the most effective game that we've seen in women tennis.

Actually she's had the 5th most effective game in women's tennis:

All surface single winning percentage

Rank Player Wins Losses Win %

1 Margaret Court 593 56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1309 146 89.97
3 Steffi Graf 902 115 88.69
4 Martina Navratilova 1442 219 86.82
5 Serena Williams*[1] 554 108 83.68
6 Monica Seles 595 122 82.98
7 Justine Henin* 503 109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695 155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704 165 81.01

Vincey!
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:27 AM
Actually she's had the 5th most effective game in women's tennis:

All surface single winning percentage

Rank Player Wins Losses Win %

1 Margaret Court 593 56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1309 146 89.97
3 Steffi Graf 902 115 88.69
4 Martina Navratilova 1442 219 86.82
5 Serena Williams*[1] 554 108 83.68
6 Monica Seles 595 122 82.98
7 Justine Henin* 503 109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695 155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704 165 81.01

Number are really useful in terms of achievements and I respect the stats BUT sometimes you need to realize that numbers are not everything. I was talking about her GAME which is way better and way more effective than those past great champions. It's like saying because Errani has more Title this season than Sharapova that Errani has a better game.

Stonerpova
Dec 23rd, 2012, 06:35 AM
I thought Evert had the best ever winning percentage (.900) :confused:

monri
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:32 AM
I thought Evert had the best ever winning percentage (.900) :confused:

No, that would be Lenglen and Wills, by a country mile. Lenglen lost about 2 matches in her entire career, and Wills about 3. :worship:

Court is also higher than Evert, but they are 3rd and 4th by a long, long, long way.

Gaby Gasparyan
Dec 23rd, 2012, 01:38 PM
I think Serena's one of the most underrated All-Time-Greats ever. Many undervalue her talent. I always find it laughable when people are still trying to work an angle to put the boot into her

DemWilliamsGulls
Dec 23rd, 2012, 02:21 PM
To me Serena is already the greatest of all time...I've said it once and i'll say it again..I don't care how you measure grand slam titles, but if you could compare the statistics of Graff, Navitorlova and Everet with Serena in power, forehand, backhand, volley, speed, mental strength, serve, consistency...Serena has all of them beat in ALMOST every category. The other legends have NEVER displayed the athleticism that Serena Williams has shown us on a tennis court. They were good back in their days and how they played worked for them for the level of the playing field back then (which was no where NEAR as high as it is now and the early 2000's) but Serena Williams imo...is ALREADY the Greatest of the Greats ;)

Kooyong
Dec 23rd, 2012, 02:37 PM
To me Serena is already the greatest of all time...I've said it once and i'll say it again..I don't care how you measure grand slam titles, but if you could compare the statistics of Graff, Navitorlova and Everet with Serena in power, forehand, backhand, volley, speed, mental strength, serve, consistency...Serena has all of them beat in ALMOST every category. The other legends have NEVER displayed the athleticism that Serena Williams has shown us on a tennis court. They were good back in their days and how they played worked for them for the level of the playing field back then (which was no where NEAR as high as it is now and the early 2000's) but Serena Williams imo...is ALREADY the Greatest of the Greats ;)

Serena has more than earn her place at the top of the WTA and is a clear great but athleticism is not something I think we can contribute to Serena.

Serena has admitted this and has more than made up for it though her shot making.

Serena has never really needed to play a great deal at the net for as you rightly point out Serena has great power from the serve and from both forehand and backhand.

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:19 PM
Number are really useful in terms of achievements and I respect the stats BUT sometimes you need to realize that numbers are not everything. I was talking about her GAME which is way better and way more effective than those past great champions. It's like saying because Errani has more Title this season than Sharapova that Errani has a better game.

That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.

young_gunner913
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:23 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career.

Serena has never won a lower tier title in her career. If you go back to the old tier system, Serena's never won a title below a tier 2 (today's Premier level) which generally have a higher level of competition.

In The Zone
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:24 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.

The tour has changed. Even Evert and Navratilova have admitted that. They'd never be able to be physical with Serena, Sharapova, etc. and play the number of matches, events, as they did. If they can accept that, why can't you?

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:24 PM
Serena has never won a lower tier title in her career. If you go back to the old tier system, Serena's never won a title below a tier 2 (today's Premier level) which generally have a higher level of competition.

:confused: Never said she did

young_gunner913
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:27 PM
:confused: Never said she did

I know you didn't but you said Graf and Nav never played many lower tier events, so they played against the toughest competition that was out there. Well, the same is said for Serena.

Nicolás89
Dec 23rd, 2012, 03:49 PM
If Serena ended her career with 18slams.....she would Bye Bitch Evert.

Vincey!
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:00 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.

The game has changed alot since Evert and Navratilova and even since Graf. If you compare them with the player of their era, yes of course Navratilova and Evert were the best player with the best game...but overall if you look at all the players abilities Serena is, in my opinion, the one with the stronger game.

bandabou
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:07 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.

:lol: Ah the bitterness. no.5 ain't all too bad.
We all know MashaPasha can't even begin to DREAM of ever reaching no.5..but if she somehow managed to get Serena's numbers..we all know how the (over)hype machine would push to make her the greatest thing since sliced bread. :lol:

Cosmic Voices
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:12 PM
:lol: Ah the bitterness. no.5 ain't all too bad.
We all know MashaPasha can't even begin to DREAM of ever reaching no.5..but if she somehow managed to get Serena's numbers..we all know how the (over)hype machine would push to make her the greatest thing since sliced bread. :lol:

a bandabou post without a mention of masha wouldn't be a bandabou post :lol:

moby
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:18 PM
What aspects of their games, besides volleys, could they match with Serena?

They could play aggressive tennis with wood rackets half the size of the composite stiff rackets, with strings that are not high-powered, high-spin potential, and still keep the ball in a lot.

This discussion of comparing tennis abilities when the technology to execute those abilities have wildly changed in the last 30-40 years is obviously unfair to those who had to work with a lot less.

Chrissie-fan
Dec 23rd, 2012, 04:35 PM
The game has changed alot since Evert and Navratilova and even since Graf. If you compare them with the player of their era, yes of course Navratilova and Evert were the best player with the best game...but overall if you look at all the players abilities Serena is, in my opinion, the one with the stronger game.
Well, she's the one with the most powerful game and she has a lot of skills to compliment that. But would she have been as effective in the standard sized frame/wooden racquet era where most of the power she can produce would be taken away from her? Perhaps, but we can't be sure about that. All we know for sure is that each champion was ideally suited for the type of tennis that was required at the time. How they would do in another era is a combination of guesswork and wishful thinking. And it works both ways of course. If Navratilova played today she wouldn't have been able to play serve and volley on a consistent basis, which was her main strenght. If Sharapova, Li and Kvitova went for broke on each shot 35 years ago with a racquet with a tiny sweetspot, and MUCH heavier than todays racquets, their tennis would look more like Baseball than tennis. Some from the past would probably have been able to adapt to todays tennis and vice versa, but nobody can know for sure who would make it and who wouldn't.

Royals.
Dec 23rd, 2012, 05:03 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.

DAMN GURL. :eek: :eek:

I can feel your BITTERNESS through my computer screen. Serena has you pressed, it's crazy. :lol::lol:

In The Zone
Dec 23rd, 2012, 05:04 PM
DAMN GURL. :eek: :eek:

I can feel your BITTERNESS through my computer screen. Serena has you pressed, it's crazy. :lol::lol:

:lol: TOO GOOD.

moby
Dec 23rd, 2012, 05:15 PM
Well, she's the one with the most powerful game and she has a lot of skills to compliment that. But would she have been as effective in the standard sized frame/wooden racquet era where most of the power she can produce would be taken away from her? Perhaps, but we can't be sure about that. All we know for sure is that each champion was ideally suited for the type of tennis that was required at the time. How they would do in another era is a combination of guesswork and wishful thinking. And it works both ways of course. If Navratilova played today she wouldn't have been able to play serve and volley on a consistent basis, which was her main strenght. If Sharapova, Li and Kvitova went for broke on each shot 35 years ago with a racquet with a tiny sweetspot, and MUCH heavier than todays racquets, their tennis would look more like Baseball than tennis. Some from the past would probably have been able to adapt to todays tennis and vice versa, but nobody can know for sure who would make it and who wouldn't.I'm fairly certain Graf would have been at least one of the top 2 or 3 singles players in any era. That's sort of one of the claims to her GOAT-ness, on top of her winning every slam at least 4 times.

Chrissie-fan
Dec 23rd, 2012, 05:18 PM
I'm fairly certain Graf would have been at least one of the top 2 or 3 singles players in any era.
Probably, yes.

kjsulliv
Dec 23rd, 2012, 06:22 PM
DAMN GURL. :eek: :eek:

I can feel your BITTERNESS through my computer screen. Serena has you pressed, it's crazy. :lol::lol:

Dominic does the most in every Serena thread. It's like some sort of sick obsession for him. :lol: Pretty pathetic, really.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:22 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.


I have heard many times about this being a weak era.

I don't think so. For the last 12 years I think this

has been the strongest era of tennis ever. There has

been more great players in that span than ever. The present

top players are no exception. The main reason for the

weak era idea is.............Serena. If she wasn't in

the picture there would be no talk of weak era. It is

more a testament to her greatness that she crushes the

top players than to any idea of a weak era. Look at the

matches the other players have vs each other. Close, very

competitive matches are more the norm. Serena is the only

one who sometimes makes them look bad. I know you can cite

a few bad matches as in any era, but the majority of them

indicate a great era.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:31 PM
To me Serena is already the greatest of all time...I've said it once and i'll say it again..I don't care how you measure grand slam titles, but if you could compare the statistics of Graff, Navitorlova and Everet with Serena in power, forehand, backhand, volley, speed, mental strength, serve, consistency...Serena has all of them beat in ALMOST every category. The other legends have NEVER displayed the athleticism that Serena Williams has shown us on a tennis court. They were good back in their days and how they played worked for them for the level of the playing field back then (which was no where NEAR as high as it is now and the early 2000's) but Serena Williams imo...is ALREADY the Greatest of the Greats ;)

Very Good post

Sammo
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:44 PM
She would still have around 100 titles less than Navratilova.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:45 PM
They could play aggressive tennis with wood rackets half the size of the composite stiff rackets, with strings that are not high-powered, high-spin potential, and still keep the ball in a lot.

This discussion of comparing tennis abilities when the technology to execute those abilities have wildly changed in the last 30-40 years is obviously unfair to those who had to work with a lot less.

Thats the nature of the game. equipment progresses, athletes progress,

the game progresses.

I don't get why anyone would contend that with her abilities and

superior athleticism Serena could not adjust to older equipment

so what if with a wooden stick her fastest serve would only be

120 mph instead of 128. It would still be better than those back

then who rarely, if ever, hit 100. Serena could clock the ball with

a frying pan.



ps For the majority of their careers neither Evert, Nav, or Graf
used wooden raquets.

rjd1111
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:48 PM
She would still have around 100 titles less than Navratilova.

And if Nav played today instead of when she did, She would

have 100s of titles less.

Sammo
Dec 23rd, 2012, 07:52 PM
And if Nav played today instead of when she did, She would

have 100s of titles less.

And if Serena played when Navratilova did she would be lucky to have a single Slam.

Vincey!
Dec 23rd, 2012, 08:31 PM
Well, she's the one with the most powerful game and she has a lot of skills to compliment that. But would she have been as effective in the standard sized frame/wooden racquet era where most of the power she can produce would be taken away from her? Perhaps, but we can't be sure about that. All we know for sure is that each champion was ideally suited for the type of tennis that was required at the time. How they would do in another era is a combination of guesswork and wishful thinking. And it works both ways of course. If Navratilova played today she wouldn't have been able to play serve and volley on a consistent basis, which was her main strenght. If Sharapova, Li and Kvitova went for broke on each shot 35 years ago with a racquet with a tiny sweetspot, and MUCH heavier than todays racquets, their tennis would look more like Baseball than tennis. Some from the past would probably have been able to adapt to todays tennis and vice versa, but nobody can know for sure who would make it and who wouldn't.

Oh this is true for sure. I agree with you on that. It's all speculations and we're all entitled to our own view and interpretation of what might have happened. Nobody can say for sure who it would be.

bandabou
Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:10 PM
a bandabou post without a mention of masha wouldn't be a bandabou post :lol:

And a Dominic post without bashing Serena wouldn't be a Dominic-post, right?! :shrug:

LightWarrior
Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:35 PM
I like the idea that all-time greats would adapt to any era/racquet technology they play in out of sheer inner talent. Just watch Evert/Nav matches in the late '70s and watch them play 10 years later. It's amazing how they have both improved with graphite racquets.
A good song is a good song...

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:46 PM
And a Dominic post without bashing Serena wouldn't be a Dominic-post, right?! :shrug:

That's not true :eek: I've said she has a good serve before :)

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:49 PM
I have heard many times about this being a weak era.

I don't think so. For the last 12 years I think this

has been the strongest era of tennis ever.

PLEASE tell me you're not serious. The only reason why Serena is doing this well is cause the level has dropped so much. Not the other way around.

monri
Dec 23rd, 2012, 10:59 PM
That stat is VERY telling about the effectiveness of their games, win/loss percentage throughout their career, how could it be misleading!? It's not like Graf, Navratilova, played many low tier events, all these players have played against the elite throughout their respective career. In fact, a lot of Serena's career has been during the weakest era ever.. Serena is 5th and that's where she belongs.

6th.

monri
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:05 PM
I like the idea that all-time greats would adapt to any era/racquet technology they play in out of sheer inner talent. Just watch Evert/Nav matches in the late '70s and watch them play 10 years later. It's amazing how they have both improved with graphite racquets.
A good song is a good song...

Please explain your artificial barrier between pre and post open era?

bandabou
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:07 PM
PLEASE tell me you're not serious. The only reason why Serena is doing this well is cause the level has dropped so much. Not the other way around.

Whatever...still SOMEBODY has to win the majors and so far it's been Serena. If it had been so weak, certainly your beloved favorite player would've managed a couple of more majors, no?! :lol:

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:13 PM
Whatever...still SOMEBODY has to win the majors and so far it's been Serena. If it had been so weak, certainly your beloved favorite player would've managed a couple of more majors, no?! :lol:

If she was more consistent, never had a big surgery and remained close to her peak yes. And btw my favourite player is not my favourite because I think she's the GOAT or anything but because I like her game, personality, looks etc.

bandabou
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:27 PM
If she was more consistent, never had a big surgery and remained close to her peak yes. And btw my favourite player is not my favourite because I think she's the GOAT or anything but because I like her game, personality, looks etc.

But this discussion ain't about looks/personality...you can't go belittle Serena claiming she won in weak-era, when it's the same era your favorite is playing in and she didn't acomplish anything.

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:37 PM
But this discussion ain't about looks/personality...you can't go belittle Serena claiming she won in weak-era, when it's the same era your favorite is playing in and she didn't acomplish anything.

Sure why couldn't I do that!? :confused: All I said was that the stat showed Serena as fifth and she's been playing in the weakest era ever, My liking for Sharapova has absolutely nothing to do with that

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:39 PM
I can feel your BITTERNESS through my computer screen. Serena has you pressed, it's crazy. :lol::lol:

Yes, all I did was read a damn stat that compared players respective success rate :lol: now that is pressed :weirdo:

bandabou
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:46 PM
Sure why couldn't I do that!? :confused: All I said was that the stat showed Serena as fifth and she's been playing in the weakest era ever, My liking for Sharapova has absolutely nothing to do with that

Okay..let's play along. Serena doesn't compare to the Everts/Navratilovas/..even if she were to win 18 majors. Because of the weak-era argument.

So if somebody would ask you how Sharapova stacks up against Henins/Goolagongs/ of this world..what would your answer be?!

Dominic
Dec 23rd, 2012, 11:53 PM
Okay..let's play along. Serena doesn't compare to the Everts/Navratilovas/..even if she were to win 18 majors. Because of the weak-era argument.

So if somebody would ask you how Sharapova stacks up against Henins/Goolagongs/ of this world..what would your answer be?!

I'm not biased like you, both those players have more grandslams than Maria and are more accomplished than Maria for the moment.

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:07 AM
I'm not biased like you, both those players have more grandslams than Maria and are more accomplished than Maria for the moment.

:lol: Biased moi? I didn't say Serena is greater than anybody, now did I?! :shrug:

They're more accomplished than Maria at the moment, huh?! Interesting..

Of course..the question was if Serena were too reach 18 majors. So I guess Masha can't just TIE the Goolagongs/Henins..she's to surpass them, right?

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:13 AM
The tour has changed. Even Evert and Navratilova have admitted that. They'd never be able to be physical with Serena, Sharapova, etc. and play the number of matches, events, as they did. If they can accept that, why can't you?

Source for Navratilova saying that? I've heard her expressing sentiments the exact opposite of what you're claiming actually.

The game has changed alot since Evert and Navratilova and even since Graf. If you compare them with the player of their era, yes of course Navratilova and Evert were the best player with the best game...but overall if you look at all the players abilities Serena is, in my opinion, the one with the stronger game.

I usually enjoy your posts, but have you ever actually seen Graf play or looked up the full scorelines of her matches in her heyday? :shrug: This idea that she wasn't as dominant as Peak Serena is a nonsense; Graf obliterated players like Seles and Sanchez Vicario in Slam finals, dropped less games than Serena did in her best ever tournaments, and had four (FOUR!) seasons that were better than Serena's best ever season. Also, it's simply not true to say the game has changed a lot since the days of Graf -- racquet technology hasn't really made many significant advances at all (I mean, Venus and Serena themselves were able to serve almost as fast when they first came onto the scene in the early 90s as they can now, how would that be possible if the technology was so much worse?), and it was JUST as physically-taxing -- Graf had MORE serious injuries in her career than Serena did, it's just Steffi was so good and so disciplined and had so many layers to her game that she was often able to win even while fighting serious injuries.

As for the Steffi-Serena match-up specifically -- again, the fact that Steffi in 1999 was able to play two incredibly competitive 3-setters with Serena (losing one, winning one), even though Serena was obviously closer to a peak level of play that year than Steffi was, shows that it's not true to claim Steffi would've matched up badly.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:18 AM
Source for Navratilova saying that? I've heard her expressing sentiments the exact opposite of what you're claiming actually.



I usually enjoy your posts, but have you ever actually seen Graf play or looked up the full scorelines of her matches in her heyday? :shrug: This idea that she wasn't as dominant as Peak Serena is a nonsense; Graf obliterated players like Seles and Sanchez Vicario in Slam finals, dropped less games than Serena did in her best ever tournaments, and had four (FOUR!) seasons that were better than Serena's best ever season. Also, it's simply not true to say the game has changed a lot since the days of Graf -- racquet technology hasn't really made many significant advances at all (I mean, Venus and Serena themselves were able to serve almost as fast when they first came onto the scene in the early 90s as they can now, how would that be possible if the technology was so much worse?), and it was JUST as physically-taxing -- Graf had MORE serious injuries in her career than Serena did, it's just Steffi was so good and so disciplined and had so many layers to her game that she was often able to win even while fighting serious injuries.

As for the Steffi-Serena match-up specifically -- again, the fact that Steffi in 1999 was able to play two incredibly competitive 3-setters with Serena (losing one, winning one), even though Serena was obviously closer to a peak level of play that year than Steffi was, shows that it's not true to claim Steffi would've matched up badly.They also played another time in Hong Kong where Graf won 6-2 7-6 .

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:18 AM
Anyway, it's too hard to say who the greatest of ALL-TIME is, because in the Evertilova era the technology was so different, the metric for measuring greatness was so different, and because I personally just don't know enough about that era to comment -- but certainly, of just the past 25 years, Serena is "only" the second-best player and very distantly behind Steffi, and will only have a case of being greater than her once she hits 23 Slams with atleast 3 RG titles in total (in fact, even in that scenario, Serena's superior greatness would come with the pretty huge asterisk that Steffi chose to stop playing at the age of 29 when she was still playing well enough to go on winning Slams).

rjd1111
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:19 AM
PLEASE tell me you're not serious. The only reason why Serena is doing this well is cause the level has dropped so much. Not the other way around.


Tally up the number of different GS winners and multi GS winners

from '97, when the Sisters first started getting attention, to

now and you'll see that the Serena era is the strongest era in tennis

history.

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:23 AM
Tally up the number of different GS winners and multi GS winners

from '97, when the Sisters first started getting attention, to

now and you'll see that the Serena era is the strongest era in tennis

history.

Debateable whether having lots of Slam winners is the measurement for a strong era -- I could argue that the fact this era has had so many Slam winners is because this era hasn't had such a brilliant and ultra-dominant player as Graf hoovering them all up. Certainly in the men's game, the fact there's been so FEW Slam winners from 2003 onwards is taken as a sign of this being a golden era (and the fact there were so many in 2000-02 is taken as a sign it was a very poor era).

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:24 AM
Tally up the number of different GS winners and multi GS winners

from '97, when the Sisters first started getting attention, to

now and you'll see that the Serena era is the strongest era in tennis


What you're pointing out showa exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. The level of play is generally much lower now than in the early 2000's, It's much easier to get to the top.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:25 AM
Tally up the number of different GS winners and multi GS winners

from '97, when the Sisters first started getting attention, to

now and you'll see that the Serena era is the strongest era in tennis

history.

Yeah just look at the number 1's like Jankovic, Ivanovic, Safina, and Wozniacki. Clearly a golden age of WTA.

binky-GOAT
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:28 AM
Nobody from this era can compare to the legends that played before. WTA is a pile of shit now. All power and no talent.

renstar
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:38 AM
I have heard many times about this being a weak era.

I don't think so. For the last 12 years I think this

has been the strongest era of tennis ever. There has

been more great players in that span than ever. The present

top players are no exception. The main reason for the

weak era idea is.............Serena. If she wasn't in

the picture there would be no talk of weak era. It is

more a testament to her greatness that she crushes the

top players than to any idea of a weak era. Look at the

matches the other players have vs each other. Close, very

competitive matches are more the norm. Serena is the only

one who sometimes makes them look bad. I know you can cite

a few bad matches as in any era, but the majority of them

indicate a great era.

Oh puhlease greatness is not defined by how many bicep curls and how many aces you can do though by some of Serenas fans thats all you would think it takes. Yes a very strong female can over power more girly females which was proven when the doped up German and Chinese women pulverised world records in the past. The point is greatness is more than over powering someone with strength, which is mainly what Serena does.

Legend has it Mr Evert made Chrissy aim for a single spot on the court with her bachand drills and she had to hit it hundreds of times. Her pin point accuracy and concentration in my mind are the best theres ever been. Sure the serena power would have bothered her but she was so gifted ih her tennis brain and accuracy she would have adapted. A champion is a champion. Martina too is way underated in her backcourt game, she would have merely tempered her serve volley game and picked her moment to come in more carefully like a Federer.

Some Serena fans are in delusion to think Serenas skills are so much better than past champions. Believe me I lived through 80s and 90stennis and the quality was much better than some of the error ridden drivel u get today.

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 24th, 2012, 12:58 AM
What you're pointing out shows exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say. The level of play is generally much lower now than in the early 2000's, It's much easier to get to the top.

I usually don't pay attention to these types of threads(don't have the patience for the exact same arguments constantly.) That being said, do you really not see how pointless the game you're playing is? It's also easier to get to the top when your only real rival is stabbed, allowing you to promptly go back to routinely winning three slams a year.

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:05 AM
I usually don't pay attention to these types of threads(don't have the patience for the exact same arguments constantly.) That being said, do you really not see how pointless the game you're playing is? It's also easier to get to the top when your only real rival is stabbed, allowing you to promptly go back to routinely winning three slams a year.

This is the most hilarious of all the Willytards' arguments because they don't even realise it's self-defeating :spit: Ok, so Graf is penalised atleast 8 Slams so that she has less Slams than Serena; logically, that must mean Seles gains those 8 Slams, giving her a total of 17 and thus more than Serena. :lol: Either way, even if we are going to play the "Graf's count was inflated by Monica's stabbing", Serena is certainly behind atleast one of Graf and Seles no matter how you twist the numbers.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:14 AM
This is the most hilarious of all the Willytards' arguments because they don't even realise it's self-defeating :spit: Ok, so Graf is penalised atleast 8 Slams so that she has less Slams than Serena; logically, that must mean Seles gains those 8 Slams, giving her a total of 17 and thus more than Serena. :lol: Either way, even if we are going to play the "Graf's count was inflated by Monica's stabbing", Serena is certainly behind atleast one of Graf and Seles no matter how you twist the numbers.

:lol: I know :worship:

kjsulliv
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:15 AM
PLEASE tell me you're not serious. The only reason why Serena is doing this well is cause the level has dropped so much. Not the other way around.

:lol::lol::lol:

Yes, that's the ONLY reason she's doing well. You are really fucking pressed by Serena and her success, and you must enjoy completely embarrassing yourself in the process. :o

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:16 AM
:lol::lol::lol:

Yes, that's the ONLY reason she's doing well. You are really fucking pressed by Serena and her success, and you must enjoy completely embarrassing yourself in the process. :o

Why she is doing THIS well dumbo :o :o :o

kjsulliv
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:20 AM
Why she is doing THIS well dumbo

No need for (hilariously weak...I mean I would hear something like this from a 5 year old) personal insults...that only discredits your desperate tactics. You desperately perch yourself in every Serena thread, posting more than every other poster. Arguing or debating with you is pointless because when someone does you 1) call names 2) say they're biased 3) change the subject or 4) make some other humiliating comment which makes no sense.

But keep it up, it's pretty funny to watch someone continuously have meltdowns over a player. :lol:

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:36 AM
Arguing or debating with you is pointless

Then why are you talking to me? :lol: go talk to the other delusional Serena fans who are only interested in hearing she's the GOAT of everything, you have plenty of choice on this forum sweety :)

If you don't wanna be called dumb, READ the freakin' post before replying, something you obviously failed to do in your first reply. :lol:

kjsulliv
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:47 AM
Then why are you talking to me? :lol: go talk to the other delusional Serena fans who are only interested in hearing she's the GOAT of everything, you have plenty of choice on this forum sweety :)

If you don't wanna be called dumb, READ the freakin' post before replying, something you obviously failed to do in your first reply. :lol:

I don't think Serena is the GOAT of everything :lol: but you saying the only reason she's doing well is because the tour is weak is laughable and symbolic of all your tacky, desperate posts about Serena on this forum. So again, try to refrain from childish, weak personal attacks because someone thinks you're wrong. It's not a good look buddy. Bye :wavey:

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:49 AM
This is the most hilarious of all the Willytards' arguments because they don't even realise it's self-defeating :spit: Ok, so Graf is penalised atleast 8 Slams so that she has less Slams than Serena; logically, that must mean Seles gains those 8 Slams, giving her a total of 17 and thus more than Serena. :lol: Either way, even if we are going to play the "Graf's count was inflated by Monica's stabbing", Serena is certainly behind atleast one of Graf and Seles no matter how you twist the numbers.

But having a shot at surpassing BOTH..as it is, she only'd have needed 1 or 2 more majors ( according to your now soon to become infamous-thread, Serena has 1 more major in her, so...voila. )

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:51 AM
This is the most hilarious of all the Willytards' arguments because they don't even realise it's self-defeating :spit: Ok, so Graf is penalised atleast 8 Slams so that she has less Slams than Serena; logically, that must mean Seles gains those 8 Slams, giving her a total of 17 and thus more than Serena. :lol: Either way, even if we are going to play the "Graf's count was inflated by Monica's stabbing", Serena is certainly behind atleast one of Graf and Seles no matter how you twist the numbers.

:lol: Unlike you I don't simply present arguments regardless of validity to try and elevate my faves or denigrate my non-faves. Hell, you can put them both at 16+ slams and just ahead of Serena for all I care. The facts are facts, Graf directly benefited from Seles being taken out of the game, when Graf was struggling to win slams for quite a few years, only to promptly go back to mopping up the mess left behind as soon as Seles was removed. If you want to award Monica those slams sure, that's just one more name that Serena would have to surpass which is growing ever more likely considering she plans on playing until Rio. If you weren't busy getting ahead of yourself you would understand that my point wasn't to say "GRAF'S SLAM COUNT IS OVERRATED< SHE SUCKS AND SERENA IS BETTER!!1" it's to say that that bullshit Dominic was spewing about a perceived 'weak era' is not only entirely subjective, but it just leads to asterisks being thrown on everyone. You can say Serena picked up a few slams in a weak era, I can say Steffi's only equal was completely removed from the game allowing her to go back to winning slams without having to directly overcome her, and the next guy can say Margaret's Aussie titles were won with weak competition, someone else can come up with bullshit for Chrissie or Martina, and so on. Got it?

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:53 AM
Then why are you talking to me? :lol: go talk to the other delusional Serena fans who are only interested in hearing she's the GOAT of everything, you have plenty of choice on this forum sweety :)

If you don't wanna be called dumb, READ the freakin' post before replying, something you obviously failed to do in your first reply. :lol:

But saying that Serena only wins because of weak era is non-sense..because you're saying that your own fav isn't worthy competition for Serena.

Well if that's what you're saying, then..we may well agree on that one. :lol: MashaPasha ain't no competition for Serena.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:54 AM
I don't think Serena is the GOAT of everything :lol: but you saying the only reason she's doing well is because the tour is weak is laughable and symbolic of all your tacky, desperate posts about Serena on this forum. So again, try to refrain from childish, weak personal attacks because someone thinks you're wrong. It's not a good look buddy. Bye :wavey:

Are you kidding me? I said the only reason she is doing THIS well, even made that word in bigger fuller caracters just for you and you're still coming at me with this crap :lol: . I'm sorry about the personal attacks but I do think someone who doesn't understand the expression "doing this well" and gets offended as a result of that is dumb.

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:10 AM
:lol: Unlike you I don't simply present arguments regardless of validity to try and elevate my faves or denigrate my non-faves. Hell, you can put them both at 16+ slams and just ahead of Serena for all I care. The facts are facts, Graf directly benefited from Seles being taken out of the game, when Graf was struggling to win slams for quite a few years, only to promptly go back to mopping up the mess left behind as soon as Seles was removed. If you want to award Monica those slams sure, that's just one more name that Serena would have to surpass which is growing ever more likely considering she plans on playing until Rio. If you weren't busy getting ahead of yourself you would understand that my point wasn't to say "GRAF'S SLAM COUNT IS OVERRATED< SHE SUCKS AND SERENA IS BETTER!!1" it's to say that that bullshit Dominic was spewing about a perceived 'weak era' is not only entirely subjective, but it just leads to asterisks being thrown on everyone. You can say Serena picked up a few slams in a weak era, I can say Steffi's only equal was completely removed from the game allowing her to go back to winning slams without having to directly overcome her, and the next guy can say Margaret's Aussie titles were won with weak competition, someone else can come up with bullshit for Chrissie or Martina, and so on. Got it?

Myself and Dominic and others were only RESPONDING to OTHERS who tried to claim the 90s era being weaker than the 00s was some kind of indisputable fact, and thus Serena must be greater than Graf. We were merely pointing out that, if one DOES want to play the game of comparing the strength of eras, there ARE arguments you could make to say that the 90s was stronger than the 00s.

For what it's worth, I agree that taking into account strength of eras is entirely subjective and thus can't really be used in a debate about legacies. And therefore, Serena can only be considered greater than Graf if she wins more Slams than her. Agreed? :)

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:11 AM
Are you kidding me? I said the only reason she is doing THIS well, even made that word in bigger fuller caracters just for you and you're still coming at me with this crap :lol: . I'm sorry about the personal attacks but I do think someone who doesn't understand the expression "doing this well" and gets offended as a result of that is dumb.
This isn't the first time Serena has won at least 2 slams in a year though. The fact that Serena has been able to dominate from 2002 to 2008 to 2012 (in a sense), shows that this "weak era" shit is nonsense. Her dominating isn't an anomaly.

Also, having a dominant player doesn't necessarily make the era "strong" and having a fully competitive top 5/10/20 doesn't necessarily make it "weak". You people suck at this. o.O

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:12 AM
Myself and Dominic and others were only RESPONDING to OTHERS who tried to claim the 90s era being weaker than the 00s was some kind of indisputable fact, and thus Serena must be greater than Graf. We were merely pointing out that, if one DOES want to play the game of comparing the strength of eras, there ARE arguments you could make to say that the 90s was stronger than the 00s.

For what it's worth, I agree that taking into account strength of eras is entirely subjective and thus can't really be used in a debate about legacies. And therefore, Serena can only be considered greater than Graf if she wins more Slams than her. Agreed? :)
I disagree.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:16 AM
Also, having a dominant player doesn't necessarily make the era "strong" and having a fully competitive top 5/10/20 doesn't necessarily make it "weak". You people suck at this. o.O

No it doesn't but you know we have eyes, and we watch the matches

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:16 AM
This isn't the first time Serena has won at least 2 slams in a year though. The fact that Serena has been able to dominate from 2002 to 2008 to 2012 (in a sense), shows that this "weak era" shit is nonsense. Her dominating isn't an anomaly.

Also, having a dominant player doesn't necessarily make the era "strong" and having a fully competitive top 5/10/20 doesn't necessarily make it "weak". You people suck at this. o.O

Eh, from 2003-2007 she only won 4 slams compared to Henin's 7. :shrug:

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:22 AM
Myself and Dominic and others were only RESPONDING to OTHERS who tried to claim the 90s era being weaker than the 00s was some kind of indisputable fact, and thus Serena must be greater than Graf. We were merely pointing out that, if one DOES want to play the game of comparing the strength of eras, there ARE arguments you could make to say that the 90s was stronger than the 00s.

For what it's worth, I agree that taking into account strength of eras is entirely subjective and thus can't really be used in a debate about legacies. And therefore, Serena can only be considered greater than Graf if she wins more Slams than her. Agreed? :)

If you've seen any of my posts on this topic you'd know that I don't agree because I don't believe in cross-generational comparisons. The conditions in which Serena built her legacy is apples and oranges compared to Graf's era, which is apples and oranges to the court era, or the Lenglen era, and so on. All that matters is establishing yourself as the greatest of your era and head and shoulders above your contemporaries, which is something Serena's done, but something she can still improve on.

But based on your posting history you seem to be a fan of Graf, so I'm sure you want everything to be based strictly on slam count(except ironically in cases before the "open era" which doesn't really apply to women's tennis but whatever :lol:) as is the case with most Graf fans. So we can agree to disagree? ;)

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:49 AM
Eh, from 2003-2007 she only won 4 slams compared to Henin's 7. :shrug:
2002 to 2008 to 2012, not THROUGH those years. Reading is fundamental.

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:52 AM
No it doesn't but you know we have eyes, and we watch the matches
You barely do that. You make baseless, aimless, irrelevant remarks even when you haven't seen a second of a match.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:52 AM
2002 to 2008 to 2012, not THROUGH those years. Reading is fundamental.

But how could you say she dominated 2008 when she only won a single slam? No one dominated that terrible year of tennis. :shrug:

Brad[le]y.
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:54 AM
Welcome back Rimon :hug:

He's so obvious, it's hilarious. :lol: Even his name, he just flipped the syllables of his old name to mon-ri :hysteric:

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:56 AM
But how could you say she dominated 2008 when she only won a single slam? No one dominated that terrible year of tennis. :shrug:
I'm just saying her dominance carries throughout these years. A single year isn't the case. I think you understand my point, though?

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:58 AM
y.;22619958']He's so obvious, it's hilarious. :lol: Even his name, he just flipped the syllables of his old name to mon-ri :hysteric:

I thought I was the only one who noticed that :rolls:

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:52 AM
You barely do that. You make baseless, aimless, irrelevant remarks even when you haven't seen a second of a match.

Ok do you stalk me? Otherwise that is your baseless, aimless, irrelevant remark honey.

dybbuk
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:06 AM
Can Serena fans tell me why they even respond to Dominic anymore? The poor soul is ear-deep in hatred and there's no hope for him anymore. Serena could win the next 8 Slams straight and she would still be "5th" best to him. Arguing with him over Serena is literally the most futile thing to do on the entire whole of TF.

Sam L
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:20 AM
You can only be the best of your era, not of all time.

Serena is the best of her era. The only players that come close to winning as many slams as her are Venus/Henin who both have less than half the slams she has.

That's the same for Graf with Seles but the latter was stabbed. Even with this, Seles is still the rival of Graf's career and beat her in 3 slam finals.

Evert and Navratilova won same number of slams and created the most competitive rivalry in tennis history.

Court was head and shoulders above her competition like Serena.

And so on...

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:26 AM
2002 to 2008 to 2012, not THROUGH those years. Reading is fundamental.

Serena dominated 2002-2003 and 2008-present
She was never dominant at anytime from injury in 2003 to Henin's first retirement in 2008

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:27 AM
You can only be the best of your era, not of all time.

Serena is the best of her era. The only players that come close to winning as many slams as her are Venus/Henin who both have less than half the slams she has.

That's the same for Graf with Seles but the latter was stabbed. Even with this, Seles is still the rival of Graf's career and beat her in 3 slam finals.

Evert and Navratilova won same number of slams and created the most competitive rivalry in tennis history.

Court was head and shoulders above her competition like Serena.

And so on...

Tell that to MIchael Jordan.

There is a general consensus that Graf is Open Era GOAT even though I know you hate that fact.

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:29 AM
Serena dominated 2002-2003 and 2008-present
She was never dominant at anytime from injury in 2003 to Henin's first retirement in 2008
Why are you responding to me with this?

Sam L
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:32 AM
Tell that to MIchael Jordan.

There is a general consensus that Graf is Open Era GOAT even though I know you hate that fact.
That's because we are living in 2012. And where was that general consensus in 1950? 1980? 1990?

Where will it be in 2020? Who knows but the fact that it's always changing means there isn't one.

And I know you don't like Serena. So what's news?

Sam L
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:37 AM
Tell that to MIchael Jordan.

There is a general consensus that Graf is Open Era GOAT even though I know you hate that fact.
And even if Steffi were the greatest ever, Serena is still the best player out there right now and has been for the last decade and still continues to be. That's more factual and more relevant than anything else.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:39 AM
Can Serena fans tell me why they even respond to Dominic anymore? The poor soul is ear-deep in hatred and there's no hope for him anymore. Serena could win the next 8 Slams straight and she would still be "5th" best to him. Arguing with him over Serena is literally the most futile thing to do on the entire whole of TF.

:unsure: you're aware that a tennis player's legacy has to do mostly with the amount of slams she won right? If Servena ends up with more slams than Evert and Navratilova then she can surpass them, I've never said otherwise :weirdo:

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:46 AM
That's because we are living in 2012. And where was that general consensus in 1950? 1980? 1990?

Where will it be in 2020? Who knows but the fact that it's always changing means there isn't one.

And I know you don't like Serena. So what's news?

That doesn't make any sense. And I like Serena. Don't feel the same about some of her fans here.

It's not always changing. It only changes when someone eclipses the previous GOAT.

Until someone can approach Steffi's stats, she's the Open Era GOAT with Martina closely behind. No one is likely to change that for the next 8 years.

Same with Michael Jordan. Until someone is able to do what he did, it's not "always changing"

Sam L
Dec 24th, 2012, 07:03 AM
That doesn't make any sense. And I like Serena. Don't feel the same about some of her fans here.

It's not always changing. It only changes when someone eclipses the previous GOAT.

Until someone can approach Steffi's stats, she's the Open Era GOAT with Martina closely behind. No one is likely to change that for the next 8 years.

Same with Michael Jordan. Until someone is able to do what he did, it's not "always changing"
What doesn't make sense that in 50s people thought Lenglen was GOAT and in the 80s Navratilova and so on? Well we will see. I'll be around when Serena retires in glory and people make the final assessment on her career. Will you? We'll see.

And yes, you like Serena but you hate her fans so much that you're in every Serena thread talking about her with them. Hilarious. :lol:

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 07:17 AM
What doesn't make sense that in 50s people thought Lenglen was GOAT and in the 80s Navratilova and so on? Well we will see. I'll be around when Serena retires in glory and people make the final assessment on her career. Will you? We'll see.

And yes, you like Serena but you hate her fans so much that you're in every Serena thread talking about her with them. Hilarious. :lol:

Serena is nowhere near Graf's or Nav's accomplishments. And the Open Era isn't that new. For the past 20 years the conversation has been Graf, Navratilova, Evert. Unless Serena can reach 22, that's not going to change. And no one else is close to 22.

But keep trying to denigrate Graf. I know that's your schtick.

Sam L
Dec 24th, 2012, 07:22 AM
Serena is nowhere near Graf's or Nav's accomplishments. And the Open Era isn't that new. For the past 20 years the conversation has been Graf, Navratilova, Evert. Unless Serena can reach 22, that's not going to change. And no one else is close to 22.

But keep trying to denigrate Graf. I know that's your schtick.
And keep watching Serena win. I know how much you like her. :lol:

shoryuken
Dec 24th, 2012, 07:25 AM
Serena is the best of her era. The only players that come close to winning as many slams as her are Venus/Henin who both have less than half the slams she has.


Amazing how just 5 years ago Henin was breathing down her back :lol: Anyway, she has 15 now and we should focus on 16.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-sGUWKdM3uu8/UM4CkjjcnZI/AAAAAAAAAAo/GK2R9PoQr8M/s250/FINALmed.gif

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 07:28 AM
What doesn't make sense that in 50s people thought Lenglen was GOAT and in the 80s Navratilova and so on? Well we will see. I'll be around when Serena retires in glory and people make the final assessment on her career. Will you? We'll see.
And yes, you like Serena but you hate her fans so much that you're in every Serena thread talking about her with them. Hilarious. :lol:

That's not necessarily a given.

:oh:

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 08:01 AM
So many random duplicate accounts made on this site. :lol:

renstar
Dec 24th, 2012, 08:04 AM
Henin was only a threat to Serena on clay, and Serena won shit all on clay since 2008 even without Henin so who cares about her retiring. So you are admiting Serena dominated about 7 years. That is pretty good and comparable to other potential GOATs. Graf was only the Worlds best player 5 years and many consider her best ever, yet Serena has been the best player in the World more years than that.

Was the 2007 US Open played on clay? Hmmm interesting

And lets not forget Clijsters Serena whippings there either;)

renstar
Dec 24th, 2012, 08:09 AM
And to all those saying about Grafs records being meaningless because of Seles we can now say Serenas slams since the retirement of Henin and Clijsters are meaningless since they have aptly demonstrated they can demolish her on a GS stage. So her main competition has gone and her grunting punch bags are the only ones left.

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 24th, 2012, 08:52 AM
Was the 2007 US Open played on clay? Hmmm interesting

And lets not forget Clijsters Serena whippings there either;)

The 2007 USO was easily Henin's best EVER level of play on a HC, vs Serena in a very bad year form-wise. Serena had a one-off performance in Australia, but for the rest of the year her game was in a transitional period from 04-08. Don't forget she certainly rectified that mess of a year by dominating her in Miami 6-2 6-0, and spoiling her comeback by beating her in the 2010 AO final.

And to all those saying about Grafs records being meaningless because of Seles we can now say Serenas slams since the retirement of Henin and Clijsters are meaningless since they have aptly demonstrated they can demolish her on a GS stage. So her main competition has gone and her grunting punch bags are the only ones left.

... So Clijsters being 2-7 against Serena is demolition? Even Kim's fans regularly call her 2009 USO SF performance one of her best performances of her comeback, and she still needed two tight sets to pull through, I mean really :lol: Realistically speaking neither Henin nor Clijsters have been Serena's main rival, Kim is dominated in H2H and outside of 2007 Henin was only ever a true match on clay. That's not to say Henin didn't deserve her wins, but let's not make it something it's not.

Besides, you can't compare Serena vs the Belgians to Steffi vs Monica. Serena wasn't making numerous slam finals losing to them, only to promptly go back to winning slams as soon as they left. She still got beat in slams by the likes of Jankovic, Srebotnik, and Venus after the retirement of Henin. If Henin retired and then Serena went on to immediately win FO, Wimbledon and USO of 2008 like Steffi did in 93, then we can talk.

What was the point of even opening this thread if you're so clearly biased?

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:35 AM
That doesn't make any sense. And I like Serena. Don't feel the same about some of her fans here.

It's not always changing. It only changes when someone eclipses the previous GOAT.

Until someone can approach Steffi's stats, she's the Open Era GOAT with Martina closely behind. No one is likely to change that for the next 8 years.

Same with Michael Jordan. Until someone is able to do what he did, it's not "always changing"

But if Serena can somehow get to 18, certainly she too enters the discussion, no?! :shrug:

Let's wait out and see how it goes.

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 01:47 PM
If you've seen any of my posts on this topic you'd know that I don't agree because I don't believe in cross-generational comparisons. The conditions in which Serena built her legacy is apples and oranges compared to Graf's era, which is apples and oranges to the court era, or the Lenglen era, and so on. All that matters is establishing yourself as the greatest of your era and head and shoulders above your contemporaries, which is something Serena's done, but something she can still improve on.

You can only be the best of your era, not of all time.

Serena is the best of her era. The only players that come close to winning as many slams as her are Venus/Henin who both have less than half the slams she has....

OK, so Serena is the greatest of her era, just like Graf was. But she is a weaker "greatest of her era" than Graf, was less dominant over her rivals than Graf, etc. :oh:

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:33 PM
OK, so Serena is the greatest of her era, just like Graf was. But she is a weaker "greatest of her era" than Graf, was less dominant over her rivals than Graf, etc. :oh:

And so what?! Maria surely ain't gonna go down as the greatest of ANY era..heck even generation suck owns her. :wavey:

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 02:58 PM
OK, so Serena is the greatest of her era, just like Graf was. But she is a weaker "greatest of her era" than Graf, was less dominant over her rivals than Graf, etc. :oh:
Serena has shown the highest quality of tennis of any era, though.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:11 PM
And so what?! Maria surely ain't gonna go down as the greatest of ANY era..heck even generation suck owns her. :wavey:

I love how your responce changes absolutely nothing of what he said and is basically just a childish comeback because you were hurt by what he said :lol: And that's basically ALL you do.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:15 PM
Serena has shown the highest quality of tennis of any era, though.

Says who? Racquet technology has evolved a lot since the 80's and early 90's. I could tell you that if put young Graf, Seles etc. in today's tour with today's technology, they would show the highest level of tennis but it would be meaningless because we will never know, just like your statement was meaningless.

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:25 PM
Says who? Racquet technology has evolved a lot since the 80's and early 90's. I could tell you that if put young Graf, Seles etc. in today's tour with today's technology, they would show the highest level of tennis but it would be meaningless because we will never know, just like your statement was meaningless.
You're talking about an IF. I'm talking about what has happened and what is happening.

Just as Usain Bolt has ran the fastest ever (new technology, evolving, etc., whatever), the fact remains that he has ran the fastest ever. Blinded by hate, as usual.

Dominic
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:29 PM
You're talking about an IF. I'm talking about what has happened and what is happening.

Just as Usain Bolt has ran the fastest ever (new technology, evolving, etc., whatever), the fact remains that he has ran the fastest ever. Blinded by hate, as usual.

I'm talking about, comparing levels of play of different eras is meaningless because of racquet technology and doesn't make anyone's legacy any greater.

BTW your comparison with Usain Bolt is horrible because the only "instrument" he uses is shoes and technology doesn't make a drastic difference like it does in tennis.

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:42 PM
I'm talking about, comparing levels of play of different eras is meaningless because of racquet technology and doesn't make anyone's legacy any greater.

BTW your comparison with Usain Bolt is horrible because the only "instrument" he uses is shoes and technology doesn't make a drastic difference like it does in tennis.
You're saying comparing the play of different eras is meaningless, yet, you're still chiming in on this debate about who the GOAT is/where each GOAT of a certain era falls in comparison to the other GOATs of different eras. Where the fuck is the logic, Dom?! :lol:

Track is definitely impacted by new knowledge, evolution, technology. Just as swimming is impacted by new technology. The running attire, the running form, the shoes, the evolution of athleticism. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, which isn't a deviation from the norm. It's especially important because those sports (track and swimming) are sports where victory can be determined (and has been determined) by a hundredth/thousandth of a second.

Believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. Have a good Christmas Eve/Christmas.

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:52 PM
And so what?! Maria surely ain't gonna go down as the greatest of ANY era..heck even generation suck owns her. :wavey:

i don't know who among gen suck owns her . but if 5-7 is being owned , than Sybille Bammer owns Serena too

i consider that both statements are jokes , but if you agree with the first one you have to agree with the second

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 03:54 PM
Serena has shown the highest quality of tennis of any era, though.

Too many holes in her game to say she's shown the highest quality of any era.
Lack of variety, lack of a good frontcourt game, etc. However, she's definitely shown the strongest and most athletic level of tennis of any era in 2002-2003.

MrProdigy555
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:00 PM
Too many holes in her game to say she's shown the highest quality of any era.
Lack of variety, lack of a good frontcourt game, etc. However, she's definitely shown the strongest and most athletic level of tennis of any era in 2002-2003.
Radwanska has more "variety" than Serena, yet, Serena continues to show a higher level of tennis. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

And she has enough doubles/mixed titles and victories to combat your "frontcourt" theory.

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:01 PM
I love how your responce changes absolutely nothing of what he said and is basically just a childish comeback because you were hurt by what he said :lol: And that's basically ALL you do.

Why is it childish? Serena isn't greater than Graf and Maria ain't greater than anybody..BOTH are true statements, no?! :shrug:

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:04 PM
i don't know who among gen suck owns her . but if 5-7 is being owned , than Sybille Bammer owns Serena too

i consider that both statements are jokes , but if you agree with the first one you have to agree with the second

Sybille Bammer owns Serena, fine...but the thing is: EVERYBODY owns Masha..Juju owned her, to say nothing of Serena...then it comes the younger generation, what's the h2h between Mari vs Caro?

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:08 PM
Sybille Bammer owns Serena, fine...but the thing is: EVERYBODY owns Masha..Juju owned her, to say nothing of Serena...then it comes the younger generation, what's the h2h between Mari vs Caro?


your statement was about Generation Suck ..., now you speak about Juju....

Do you know that you are a mess?

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:10 PM
your statement was about Generation Suck ..., now you speak about Juju....

Do you know that you are a mess?

Sybille Bammer was part of generation suck?! :shrug: It's you who introduced a variable in it, not moi.

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:14 PM
Radwanska has more "variety" than Serena, yet, Serena continues to show a higher level of tennis. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

And she has enough doubles/mixed titles and victories to combat your "frontcourt" theory.

If you want to say she has the highest level ever, then she needs to be able to execute all of these things better than anyone else. Graf and Navratilova both had a clearly higher level of skill while being exquisite athletes.

And doubles and mixed titles were won with brute force and overpowering of opponents. Serena is not even a top 10 volleyer in today's game, nonetheless "any era".

This is nothing to take away from her greatness. It's just outrageous to say she's had the highest quality of tennis in any era.

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:16 PM
Sybille Bammer was part of generation suck?! :shrug: It's you who introduced a variable in it, not moi.

your statement was that Sharapova is owned by generation Suck :lol:

In reality she has positive H2H vs all gen suck players except Azarenka , with whom 5-7 definitely can not be called "owned"

otherwise Justine Henin is owned by Serena and Serena is owned by Bammer etc

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:19 PM
If you want to say she has the highest level ever, then she needs to be able to execute all of these things better than anyone else. Graf and Navratilova both had a clearly higher level of skill while being exquisite athletes.

And doubles and mixed titles were won with brute force and overpowering of opponents. Serena is not even a top 10 volleyer in today's game, nonetheless "any era".

This is nothing to take away from her greatness. It's just outrageous to say she's had the highest quality of tennis in any era.

Exquisite athletes..well, well..and Serena is let me guess: just a brute, huh?! :lol:

Same old, same old..

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:23 PM
your statement was that Sharapova is owned by generation Suck :lol:

In reality she has positive H2H vs all gen suck players except Azarenka , with whom 5-7 definitely can not be called "owned"

otherwise Justine Henin is owned by Serena and Serena is owned by Bammer etc

Okay...I guess just the beatdowns in all those finals clouded my judgement. 5-7 ain't all too bad, you're right.

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:28 PM
Okay...I guess just the beatdowns in all those finals clouded my judgement. 5-7 ain't all too bad, you're right.


by the way go and check H2H Masha vs Caro, because you are "losing qualification"

as for "EVERYBODY owns Masha" I'm still waiting who is this "everybody"? Serena and Justine are definitely not "everybody" (by the way, both of them lost in Slam Final to Pova)....

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 04:38 PM
Exquisite athletes..well, well..and Serena is let me guess: just a brute, huh?! :lol:

Same old, same old..

Serena's father himself compared the movement of Graf to a thoroughbred racehorse and the movement of everyone else, including his two girls, a pack mule. :shrug:

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:10 PM
by the way go and check H2H Masha vs Caro, because you are "losing qualification"

as for "EVERYBODY owns Masha" I'm still waiting who is this "everybody"? Serena and Justine are definitely not "everybody" (by the way, both of them lost in Slam Final to Pova)....

Wasn't sure about the h2h between Maria vs Caro, that's why I asked..

Everybody was a figure of speech..more in reaction to the mantra that Serena only dominated because of weak era. Specially coming from a Masha-fan.

dsanders06
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:15 PM
Serena has shown the highest quality of tennis of any era, though.

Again, based on what exactly? She wins her matches by less emphatic scorelines than Graf did at her best, and her best seasons are less dominant than Graf's best. There's actually no quantitative measure where Peak Serena is more dominant than Peak Graf, quite the opposite in fact.

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:24 PM
Serena, Justine, and Mauresmo are the 3 players I would say own Sharapova. Probably not any others, but Azarenka will probably end up with a lopsided winning H2H with Sharapova considering she is already ahead. Maria in her prime lost 5 slam semis in a row, which indicates someone who struggles in general with other top players though.

Serena, Justine and Mauresmo in almost a decade ..... moreover all these H2H-s have asteriscs , because Serena lost in Slam and YEC finals and Justine lost in Slam Final to Sharapova, Mauresmo was doublebagelled by Pova in Slam SF in her best year of career...... So it's not like Sharapova couldn't beat any of them to win big titles.

as for 5 semis in a row it's just a provement of high competition that time.... Justine Henin was in 4 Finals in 2006 and won only 1 on her best surface , just to notice

young_gunner913
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:39 PM
Serena, Justine and Mauresmo in almost a decade ..... moreover all these H2H-s have asteriscs , because Serena lost in Slam and YEC finals and Justine lost in Slam Final to Sharapova, Mauresmo was doublebagelled by Pova in Slam SF in her best year of career...... So it's not like Sharapova couldn't beat any of them to win big titles.

as for 5 semis in a row it's just a provement of high competition that time.... Justine Henin was in 4 Finals in 2006 and won only 1 on her best surface , just to notice

Um no they don't, that's just the retarded logic Sharapova fanbase has to use to shadow themselves of the reality of how useless and inept Sharapova was against these 3.

2-10 vs Serena
3-6 vs Justine
1-4 vs Mauresmo

You can put as many asterisks as you want, it will never add another win to the tally and it will never change the fact that she is a non-factor.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:42 PM
Um no they don't, that's just the retarded logic Sharapova fanbase has to use to shadow themselves of the reality of how useless and inept Sharapova was against these 3.

2-10 vs Serena
3-6 vs Justine
1-4 vs Mauresmo

You can put as many asterisks as you want, it will never add another win to the tally and it will never change the fact that she is a non-factor.

It's 7-3 against Henin. ;)

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Serena, Justine and Mauresmo in almost a decade ..... moreover all these H2H-s have asteriscs , because Serena lost in Slam and YEC finals and Justine lost in Slam Final to Sharapova, Mauresmo was doublebagelled by Pova in Slam SF in her best year of career...... So it's not like Sharapova couldn't beat any of them to win big titles.

as for 5 semis in a row it's just a provement of high competition that time.... Justine Henin was in 4 Finals in 2006 and won only 1 on her best surface , just to notice

Uhmmmm...Maria got those two wins ( and if we're gonna put asterisk..then '04 YEC has asterisk too, Serena was clearly injured), but for the rest Serena has stopped Maria at the big tournaments more often than vice-versa.

AcesHigh
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:47 PM
And this predictably turned into a Sharapova thread :lol:

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 05:54 PM
Um no they don't, that's just the retarded logic Sharapova fanbase has to use to shadow themselves of the reality of how useless and inept Sharapova was against these 3.

2-10 vs Serena
3-7 vs Justine
1-3 vs Mauresmo

You can put as many asterisks as you want, it will never add another win to the tally and it will never change the fact that she is a non-factor.


you can't even find correct H2H , so it's you who is a non-factor :lol:

but for the rest Serena has stopped Maria at the big tournaments more often than vice-versa.

Serena has stopped other players as well , Henin has only 2 wins over Serena outside clay and it's the player who is considered to be competitive with Serena

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:01 PM
Serena has stopped other players as well , Henin has only 2 wins over Serena outside clay and it's the player who is considered to be competitive with Serena

Nobody was competitive with Serena for more than few matches...that's what tards like Douchesanders won't grasp. :lol:

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:03 PM
Nobody was competitive with Serena for more than few matches...that's what tards like Douchesanders won't grasp. :lol:

Hingis was very competitive with Serena.

Also Henin never had much of a chance to meet Serena in her prime, outside of the 4 times in 07 where she beat her on all 3 surfaces in 3 consecutive slams. :shrug:

young_gunner913
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:06 PM
you can't even find correct H2H , so it's you who is a non-factor :lol:

Ooooo ouch that hurt so bad. Now tell me, how does that fix Sharapova's terrible H2H's?

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:09 PM
If prime Henin of 2003-2007 faced a 30 something Serena as Maria and others have the good fortune (well if they were any good) to now, she would probably get alot of wins outside of clay. Yet even Maria peaking now according to some of her fans is geting 1 or 2 games off Serena. Even Wozniacki is a much tougher opponent for Serena right now than Maria.


Maria can't be peaking now , because she is playing worse than she was playing when losing 5 SF in a row . Your statement is delusional. The competition now is weak , that's why Sharapova has "better season" than in her pre-injury period , not bacause she has any peak

Ooooo ouch that hurt so bad. Now tell me, how does that fix Sharapova's terrible H2H's?

i don't know how 1-3 to Mauresmo is more terrible than 0-2 to Bammer ?

there is nothing terrible to have losing h2h vs the best players , if you at least once managed to beat them and win big title

It's not like Justine doesn't have lopsided H2H with some players.

young_gunner913
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:13 PM
i don't know how 1-3 to Mauresmo is more terrible than 0-2 to Bammer ?

LOL @ your pathetic trolling. I get so much enjoyment out of seeing Sharapovaturds run around trying not to answer why Martha has a negative H2H vs Bagelie & Justine when she won the career slam and that was suppposed to make her one of the GOATs. :rolls:

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:23 PM
LOL @ your pathetic trolling. I get so much enjoyment out of seeing Sharapovaturds run around trying not to answer why Martha has a negative H2H vs Bagelie & Justine when she won the career slam and that was suppposed to make her one of the GOATs. :rolls:

why Justine has lopsided H2H vs Venus? why Monica Seles has lopsided H2H vs Hingis? Why Hingis has lopsided head to head vs Steffi?

Why Federer being GOAT has lopsided H2H vs Nadal?

Sharapova lost to Mauresmo in big matches like the WTA Championships and U.S Open, almost all their matches were big matches and Momo won most

but still she was beaten with 2 bagels at US Open in year Momo was Wimb and AO champion. And 1-3 is not as lopsided as 2-7 Henin -Venus for instance

If Sharapova didn't have some losing H2H-s vs other great players of her time she would have won something like 8-9 Slams already .....It's tennis , she had to beat players with positive H2H vs her to win her Slams.

young_gunner913
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:27 PM
why Justine has lopsided H2H vs Venus? why Monica Seles has lopsided H2H vs Hingis? Why Hingis has lopsided head to head vs Steffi?

Why Federer being GOAT has lopsided H2H vs Nadal?

Are you that retarded? :weirdo: Match ups. :lol:

Meanwhile, we're still talking about your excuses for Martha's lopsided H2H's with Serena, Justine & Mauresmo. The only reason you have in defense is that she beat them in big moments which is great but it's what's expected of a top player. You don't get brownie points to make up for the various beatings you've been given at their hands just because you beat them 2 or 3 times in a big moment. Especially when they've given you lashings in big moments in return.

Lilowannabe
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:30 PM
Hingis was very competitive with Serena.

Yeah, before serena hit 18....

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:31 PM
Hingis was very competitive with Serena.

Also Henin never had much of a chance to meet Serena in her prime, outside of the 4 times in 07 where she beat her on all 3 surfaces in 3 consecutive slams. :shrug:

And Serena never got the chance to play Henin on non-clay surfaces during HER prime either. :shrug:

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:40 PM
And Serena never got the chance to play Henin on non-clay surfaces during HER prime either. :shrug:

Are you crazy? Serena played Henin tons in her prime, where else would all of those wins come from? Thin air?

NashaMasha
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:40 PM
Are you that retarded? :weirdo: Match ups. :lol:

Meanwhile, we're still talking about your excuses for Martha's lopsided H2H's with Serena, Justine & Mauresmo. The only reason you have in defense is that she beat them in big moments which is great but it's what's expected of a top player. You don't get brownie points to make up for the various beatings you've been given at their hands just because you beat them 2 or 3 times in a big moment. Especially when they've given you lashings in big moments in return.

so for Justine Venus is a match up problem , while Masha is not allowed to have match ups :lol:

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:43 PM
Are you crazy? Serena played Henin tons in her prime, where else would all of those wins come from? Thin air?

'02-'03..they played what 4 times? :shrug: 2 times on clay, 1 on grass...

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:45 PM
Yeah, before serena hit 18....

Nope, still very competitive. She led 19 year old Serena 2-1 in 2001 in fact, so your statement is objectively false.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:46 PM
'02-'03..they played what 4 times? :shrug: 2 times on clay, 1 on grass...

Fact is she played Henin way closer to her prime than she did to Henin's. Henin was still losing to randoms in those years.

Brad[le]y.
Dec 24th, 2012, 06:48 PM
Yeah, before serena hit 18....

Her H2H with Serena was 3-4 after Serena's 18th birthday. :shrug:

moby
Dec 24th, 2012, 10:39 PM
Fact is she played Henin way closer to her prime than she did to Henin's. Henin was still losing to randoms in those years.coughantuchougha

Sam L
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:01 PM
And doubles and mixed titles were won with brute force and overpowering of opponents. Serena is not even a top 10 volleyer in today's game, nonetheless "any era".


:lol: Yes, you really sound like you like Serena. Stay pressed. I have this feeling 2013 is going to be a bad year for the likes of you. :lol:

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:10 PM
Fact is she played Henin way closer to her prime than she did to Henin's. Henin was still losing to randoms in those years.

'07 was Juju's best year and they met 4 times.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:14 PM
'07 was Juju's best year and they met 4 times.

Your point is?

TheDream
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:39 PM
Fact is she played Henin way closer to her prime than she did to Henin's. Henin was still losing to randoms in those years.

Let's get one thing straight.. Serena led Henin 6-2 on non clay surfaces and one of the non clay wins Henin got over Serena was when Serena couldn't even hit a two handed backhand because of the injury she sustained in the previous round. That's a fact.

bandabou
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:41 PM
Your point is?

You said that Serena didn't play Juju in Juju's prime...fact is they DID meet and even more often than they met in Serena's prime.

TheDream
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:54 PM
Do people realize Serena won most of her slams when Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis, Venus, Capriati, Clijsters, Seles, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Pierce, were all around and near their best, at their best, or just top players in general? This proves she would be successful in any era.

And, why are people being facetious? Most of the records that Graf, Navratilova and Evert have are because of them playing an average of 20 tournaments per year. Graf, averaged a little less, but I digress. Winning over 100 titles is not going to happen averaging less than 10 tournaments a year and Serena averages less than that.

TheDream
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:57 PM
You said that Serena didn't play Juju in Juju's prime...fact is they DID meet and even more often than they met in Serena's prime.

None of this matters. If this guy is actually arguing Henin would be dominating Serena on non clay surfaces he's delusional. Hell, Masha destroyed a peak Henin at the 06 US Open and 08 AO, so if Masha could do that, surely Sharalova could, it's all so immaterial.

JarkaFish
Dec 24th, 2012, 11:57 PM
Let's get one thing straight.. Serena led Henin 6-2 on non clay surfaces and one of the non clay wins Henin got over Serena was when Serena couldn't even hit a two handed backhand because of the injury she sustained in the previous round. That's a fact.Of course she couldn't, also Henin kept making lucky shots in their next meeting that year as well so we should disqualify that one as well. There's always some bullshit disrespectful excuse from Williams fans and her herself, it's quite sad tbh.

You said that Serena didn't play Juju in Juju's prime...fact is they DID meet and even more often than they met in Serena's prime.
Okay so they did play and Henin dominated her. :shrug:

I don't see how this is helping your argument. :lol:

Sam L
Dec 25th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Serena and Justine are just bad comparisons though because when one was at peak, the other wasn't.

The only year when they were anywhere near their peaks together was 2003 when they split their Grand Slam meetings and the slam titles.

Were they ever No. 1 and No. 2 at the same time? Maybe in 2003? Also, Justine did come back from her first retirement and reached and lost a slam final to the new and resurgent Serena Williams.

TheDream
Dec 25th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Of course she couldn't, also Henin kept making lucky shots in their next meeting that year as well so we should disqualify that one as well. There's always some bullshit disrespectful excuse from Williams fans and her herself, it's quite sad tbh.


Okay so they did play and Henin dominated her. :shrug:

I don't see how this is helping your argument. :lol:

WTF are you talking about? Serena lost the US Open match fair and square but you can't deny Serema was hampered at Wimbledon that year. Even the biggest Henin fans will acknowledge that. If Masha is able to blow Henin away in the best point of her career, why couldn't Serena? 6-2 off of clay is pretty emphatic.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Also maybe we should look towards disqualifying Serena's 07 AO considering the only reason she probably won there is because Henin didn't play, this seems reasonable considering Henin owned her in the next 3 consecutive slams that she did choose to play. :shrug:

TheDream
Dec 25th, 2012, 12:09 AM
Serena and Justine are just bad comparisons though because when one was at peak, the other wasn't.

The only year when they were anywhere near their peaks together was 2003 when they split their Grand Slam meetings and the slam titles.

Were they ever No. 1 and No. 2 at the same time? Maybe in 2003? Also, Justine did come back from her first retirement and reached and lost a slam final to the new and resurgent Serena Williams.

Pretty much. I never considered Serena and Justine a real rivalry because of this. Even then, Serena rose to the challenge post 2007 while Justine threw in the towel. It's not Serena's fault Justine quit when Serena got fit and healthy again. Capriati beat Serena 3 times in a row in 2001, including in slams and Serena beat her 8 times in a row.

TheDream
Dec 25th, 2012, 12:11 AM
Also maybe we should look towards disqualifying Serena's 07 AO considering the only reason she probably won there is because Henin didn't play, this seems reasonable considering Henin owned her in the next 3 consecutive slams that she did choose to play. :shrug:

Considering she got blasted off the court the following year by Sharapova, this means squat. So, you are projecting Serena would've lost to Henin if they met in Australia, simply because she lost the next 3 meetings to Henin? :weirdo:

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 12:12 AM
Serena and Justine are just bad comparisons though because when one was at peak, the other wasn't.

The only year when they were anywhere near their peaks together was 2003 when they split their Grand Slam meetings and the slam titles.

Were they ever No. 1 and No. 2 at the same time? Maybe in 2003? Also, Justine did come back from her first retirement and reached and lost a slam final to the new and resurgent Serena Williams.
You're probably right, I'm just amazed how rabid Serena crazies like TheDream eat nonsensical and disrespectful excuses like "lucky shots" up. :lol:

Kooyong
Dec 25th, 2012, 01:03 AM
Says who? Racquet technology has evolved a lot since the 80's and early 90's. I could tell you that if put young Graf, Seles etc. in today's tour with today's technology, they would show the highest level of tennis but it would be meaningless because we will never know, just like your statement was meaningless.

In the case of Steffi this can potentially be confirmed.

With the 80s and 90s style rackets Steffi was able to get great angle off her inside out forehand.

I image using a modern racket Steffi would be able to increase that angle.

I think there is more to a great player than just shot selection and style of play but attitude so we can safety presume that Steffi, Monica, Martina N and Chrissy would be able to adapt and with their attitude become greats in todays era.

In some ways I think this thread has gone off track, the question was if Serena reached 18 slams would she be referred to as a Great along side the other greats with a similar number of slams.

Sam L
Dec 25th, 2012, 01:19 AM
With the 80s and 90s style rackets Steffi was able to get great angle off her inside out forehand.

I image using a modern racket Steffi would be able to increase that angle.


How have racquets changed since 1999 when she retired to now? :confused: In any case, don't pros alter the racquets to what they want anyway? Also, angles don't come from the quality of your racquet but how early you take the ball, that's what I've found from my experience. The only real difference in racquet technology has been wood and graphite. Anything else is minor.

Kooyong
Dec 25th, 2012, 01:29 AM
How have racquets changed since 1999 when she retired to now? :confused: In any case, don't pros alter the racquets to what they want anyway? Also, angles don't come from the quality of your racquet but how early you take the ball, that's what I've found from my experience. The only real difference in racquet technology has been wood and graphite. Anything else is minor.

Very true the top players have the rackets designed to suit them.

I'm not technically sure how they have changed except the rackets sold in shops today are lighter.

Yes the timing of a shot does create the angle but as the sweet spot is bigger on modern rackets than it was in the days of wooden rackets or even the rackets produced in the 1980s the player today has more control.

Sam L
Dec 25th, 2012, 01:48 AM
Very true the top players have the rackets designed to suit them.

I'm not technically sure how they have changed except the rackets sold in shops today are lighter.

Yes the timing of a shot does create the angle but as the sweet spot is bigger on modern rackets than it was in the days of wooden rackets or even the rackets produced in the 1980s the player today has more control.
I still don't think there has been a big difference since the switch to graphite.

In any case, getting back to the original argument, the high level of tennis displayed by Serena starts with her serve which is now almost unanimous that it is the greatest in women's tennis history.

She has displayed a game that beginning with the serve can shut down anyone's game at the highest level of competition. That doesn't come from her racquet technology but her skill and technique as a tennis player. That's what makes her great and arguably the greatest.

Sam L
Dec 25th, 2012, 01:57 AM
Her serve is what makes her the greatest of all time? I agree that her serve is such a huge weapon that it gives her an advantage over everybody, but the serve isn't the apex of tennis talent ffs. If that was thr case Isner and Karlovic would be the most gifted tennis players of all time. :lol:
These are silly comparisons considering these men haven't even won a single GS.

A better comparison would be a Sampras, Laver or Federer having the best serve amongst all men as assessed by everyone else and an overpowering ground game.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 02:05 AM
Difference between Fed/Sampras and Serena is that they have the achievements and stats to back their game, Serena has good achievements but they still pale in comparison to other greats.

Sam L
Dec 25th, 2012, 02:23 AM
Difference between Fed/Sampras and Serena is that they have the achievements and stats to back their game, Serena has good achievements but they still pale in comparison to other greats.
So now we're back to achievements and stats. Ok well her career isn't finished yet.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 02:45 AM
So now we're back to achievements and stats. Ok well her career isn't finished yet.We'll see what happens. ;)

TheDream
Dec 25th, 2012, 03:07 AM
Difference between Fed/Sampras and Serena is that they have the achievements and stats to back their game, Serena has good achievements but they still pale in comparison to other greats.

Serena's career is far from over and the fact she's just 3 slams away gro
being in Evert and Navratilova category, that speaks volumes. I know it drives you crazy that Serena can
presumably be greatest ever, and you're bitter as hell, but hop in the train because it's not ending anytime soon? 15 slams pales in comparison to other greats when it's just 3 away from Top 3 players of all time in Evert and Navratilova? The hate on this board is almost scary. :scared:

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 03:16 AM
Serena's career is far from over and the fact she's just 3 slams away gro
being in Evert and Navratilova category, that speaks volumes. I know it drives you crazy that Serena can
presumably be greatest ever, and you're bitter as hell, but hop in the train because it's not ending anytime soon? 15 slams pales in comparison to other greats when it's just 3 away from Top 3 players of all time in Evert and Navratilova? The hate on this board is almost scary. :scared:It's not just slams, it's number of weeks at number 1, titles won, etc.

Sam L
Dec 25th, 2012, 03:20 AM
It's not just slams, it's number of weeks at number 1, titles won, etc.
Weeks at No. 1 has been a joke since they got rid of the divisor system.

Titles won is not a good judgement either because players don't play that much anymore.

Even back in the 90s Seles/Graf etc played a lot less than Navratilova/Court etc.. I mean Court in one year won like 21 tournaments. Seles/Graf regularly at most played like 14/15 tournaments in the early 90s.

The way the game has changed, it would be career suicide to play as much as those in the past.

Serena is right to only concentrate on the slams and lengthen her career.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 03:21 AM
Serena is right to only concentrate on the slams and lengthen her career.

If you say so.

TheDream
Dec 25th, 2012, 03:23 AM
It's not just slams, it's number of weeks at number 1, titles won, etc.

Nav and Evert played almost 20 tournaments a year on average. Graf at around 15. Serena less than 10, so you do the math, and the game was alot less physical then. Serena could've played 16 tournaments a year but she probably wouldn't even be around any longer.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 03:31 AM
If Serena is truly the greatest player of all time as you guys believe she is than she shouldn't have any problems racking up the slams over the next 4 years given the state of the WTA now. :shrug:

So why be so defensive? If you're so assured of her being the GOAT than let her racket do the talking, and don't try to downplay past great's achievements to fit your bias.

rjd1111
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:19 AM
Also maybe we should look towards disqualifying Serena's 07 AO considering the only reason she probably won there is because Henin didn't play, this seems reasonable considering Henin owned her in the next 3 consecutive slams that she did choose to play. :shrug:

There was no owning. Serena was injured at wimbledon and

because of the injury she had no warmups for the USO.

Also in their next meeting after the USO Serena gave

Justine the worst whipping a No 1 player ever recieved 6 - 2 6 - 0

Brad[le]y.
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:28 AM
There was no owning. Serena was injured at wimbledon and

because of the injury she had no warmups for the USO.

Also in their next meeting after the USO Serena gave

Justine the worst whipping a No 1 player ever recieved 6 - 2 6 - 0

Lies.

2009 Wimbledon SF: (3) Venus Williams def. (1) Dinara Safina 6-1 6-0.

MrProdigy555
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:28 AM
If Serena is truly the greatest player of all time as you guys believe she is than she shouldn't have any problems racking up the slams over the next 4 years given the state of the WTA now. :shrug:

So why be so defensive? If you're so assured of her being the GOAT than let her racket do the talking, and don't try to downplay past great's achievements to fit your bias.
"The state of the WTA"

Stop it. There are a lot of talented competitors in the game. This myth that the WTA is in a dire state needs to end.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:34 AM
"The state of the WTA"

Stop it. There are a lot of talented competitors in the game. This myth that the WTA is in a dire state needs to end.

You don't think things were dire 2008-2011? Things are a bit better now but the talent still is pretty mediocre, generation suck is still generation suck.

How is it a myth btw? Loads of tennis analysts has been calling out the WTA for the past few years, including former players like Evert, Navratilova, and Johnny Mac.

MrProdigy555
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:45 AM
You don't think things were dire 2008-2011? Things are a bit better now but the talent still is pretty mediocre, generation suck is still generation suck.

How is it a myth btw? Loads of tennis analysts has been calling out the WTA for the past few years, including former players like Evert, Navratilova, and Johnny Mac.
The fact that you just included Evert pretty much devalues anything you have to say. She is not an analyst, she barely knows what's going on in women's tennis, to be honest. She was a great player, to say the least, but she is a terrible analyst. Most American tennis commentators are.

Anyway, the only bad year was 2011.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:47 AM
The fact that you just included Evert pretty much devalues anything you have to say. She is not an analyst, she barely knows what's going on in women's tennis, to be honest. She was a great player, to say the least, but she is a terrible analyst. Most American tennis commentators are.

Anyway, the only bad year was 2011.Which also happens to be the year Serena didn't win a slam, you're so biased. :lol:

If you can't admit that the past few years have been godawful than you're just in denial, point blank. I can still enjoy some matches here and there but I'm not going to delude myself, there's a reason why Generation Suck has coined that name and there's a reason why plenty of analysts, fans, and former players consider the last few years to be a terribly weak period.

MrProdigy555
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:49 AM
Which also happens to be the year Serena didn't win a slam, you're so biased. :lol:

If you can't admit that the past few years have been godawful than you're just in denial, point blank. I can still enjoy some matches here and there but I'm not going to delude myself, there's a reason why Generation Suck has coined that name and there's a reason why plenty of analysts, fans, and former players consider the last few years to be a terribly weak period.
2011 wasn't a good year though. It was chaos in all the slams. Everything was so random.

I would be claiming every year that Serena didn't win a slam as being a bad year, by your logic, which I haven't done. So, try again.

JarkaFish
Dec 25th, 2012, 04:53 AM
2011 wasn't a good year though. It was chaos in all the slams. Everything was so random..

I agree that 2011 was a terrible year, the breaking point where Clijsters and Serena couldn't save at least the majors from ridicule anymore, but the previous years were just as pathetic if you look at the full tour calendar.

Stop being disingenuous, thank you.

rjd1111
Dec 25th, 2012, 05:00 AM
Serena's career is far from over and the fact she's just 3 slams away gro
being in Evert and Navratilova category, that speaks volumes. I know it drives you crazy that Serena can
presumably be greatest ever, and you're bitter as hell, but hop in the train because it's not ending anytime soon? 15 slams pales in comparison to other greats when it's just 3 away from Top 3 players of all time in Evert and Navratilova? The hate on this board is almost scary. :scared:

Remember back in the day when Serena lost to someone

that player instantly became a " Hope " someone in this

thread said that Azerenka could " save " tennis from Serena

As each of those Hopes came up Serena always came back and

smacked them down. Well the haters finally gave up comparing

todays players to Serena. Now everytime Serena wins an event

up pops another thread singing the praises of yesteryear

players and how Serena could never surpass their achievements

They completely ignore the evidence of eyes and common sense

that would tell anyone that these players would not beat Serena

Williams. YouTube is available for all to see. They ignore the

athleticism and ability and that everyday more experts and former

champs and pundits are declaring Serena the GOAT. They vehemently

proclaim that Stats and achievements are the only thing that

matters for GOATdom. Winning on court is different. They know that

Serena may not beat the stats of those so they denigrate all

the top players by calling it a " weak Era " because the Stats

and achievements of those oldtime players are the Last Refuge they

have to justify their bias. Think about it. They have nowhere else

to go. They have given up that a " hope " will emerge anytime soon.

But the last word has not been spoken yet. If Serena can hang on

and catch those oldtime players I wonder what they will come up with

then.