PDA

View Full Version : Who Is The Greatest Player Of The Past Decade


Pages : [1] 2

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:14 AM
THIS THREAD AND POLL INCLUDES SINGLES, DOUBLES AND MIXED DOUBLES RESULTS...

I say Martina Hingis!

She is going for her 80th career WTA Tour Title (singles and doubles) in Doha today!

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:18 AM
u mean the past decade (1990's) or past 10 years? the past 10 years statiscally probably hingis, but the past 5 years i'd say henin.

cellophane
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:20 AM
Serena.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:22 AM
In terms of who will be remembered in 25 years... Serena hands down. Plus Serena has 8 slams, just cannot ignore that.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:22 AM
u mean the past decade (1990's) or past 10 years? the past 10 years statiscally probably hingis, but the past 5 years i'd say henin.

1997 - present ;)

Wayn77
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:24 AM
where is Maria Sharapova in the list?

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:25 AM
In terms of who will be remembered in 25 years... Serena hands down. Plus Serena has 8 slams, just cannot ignore that.

serena may have 8 slams (:worship: ) but martina spent 209 weeks (or just over 4 years) as World No.1 - a lot longer than serena. martina has also won way more singles AND doubles titles than serena, and holds a swag of 'youngest ever' records :bounce:

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:26 AM
where is Maria Sharapova in the list?

give me a break, sharapova ain't good enough

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:26 AM
where is Maria Sharapova in the list?

best of the next 10 years.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:29 AM
How could there even be a question if we're talking about 2000-2007. I think even Henin has a better argument then Hingis.

But, of course, Serena is the unquestionedable winner here.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:30 AM
serena has won a whole 25 tournaments, whereas hingis has 200+ weeks at #1. and henin is the best player on all surfaces.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:31 AM
serena may have 8 slams (:worship: ) but martina spent 209 weeks (or just over 4 years) as World No.1 - a lot longer than serena. martina has also won way more singles AND doubles titles than serena, and holds a swag of 'youngest ever' records :bounce:

True, and Martina is/was a great player to have acheived that. However slams are what professional tennis revolves around, and that is what will be remembered in 25 years. Plus Martina also played a lot of tennis, no doubt had Serena played more and not gotten injured she would've been #1 a lot longer.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:32 AM
and henin is the best player on all surfaces.

Yup and those 3 Wimbledon titles, with two other runner up trohpies says it all...oh wait...that's Venus my bad.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:35 AM
How could there even be a question if we're talking about 2000-2007. I think even Henin has a better argument then Hingis.

But, of course, Serena is the unquestionedable winner here.

1997-2007

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:38 AM
True, and Martina is/was a great player to have acheived that. However slams are what professional tennis revolves around, and that is what will be remembered in 25 years. Plus Martina also played a lot of tennis, no doubt had Serena played more and not gotten injured she would've been #1 a lot longer.


hingis was also injured. she has plenty of wins over the williams. hingis is 6-7 with serena 11-10 with venus. being number 1 is equally important as slams. 209 weeks is remarkable. hingis will school serena next time they play.

Paneru
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:41 AM
hingis was also injured. she has plenty of wins over the williams. hingis is 6-7 with serena 11-10 with venus. being number 1 is equally important as slams. 209 weeks is remarkable. hingis will school serena next time they play.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

hdfb
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:42 AM
I'm a big Hingis fan but my vote has to go to Serena..... Sharapova hardly counts for the past 'decade'.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:42 AM
hingis was also injured. she has plenty of wins over the williams. hingis is 6-7 with serena 11-10 with venus. being number 1 is equally important as slams. 209 weeks is remarkable. hingis will school serena next time they play.

Like she schooled her the last 3 times they played right :tape:

Bruno71
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:42 AM
hingis will school serena next time they play.

Whatever you're smoking, it's working! :rolleyes:

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:47 AM
I'm a big Hingis fan but my vote has to go to Serena..... Sharapova hardly counts for the past 'decade'.

that's why i didn't include her :D

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:47 AM
obviously Serena. Not even in question. 8 slams. A career slam. Has held all four slams at once. Doubles gold medal. Double career slam. A few mixed doubles slams. And has been no.1 for a sig. period of time. Has the best winning percentage among active players. Leads in H2H against the majority of top players. And just won a slam beating the no.1 seed ranked no. 81. Lol...i'd say she's the best in the last decade. Last 5 years would be Henin. Just her slams alone would make Serena the best in the last decade.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:48 AM
Like she schooled her the last 3 times they played right :tape:

and who won the 3 times before that. this is 2007 not 2001(when hingis left the game because of foot injurys), and 25 pounds ago.

kiwifan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:54 AM
Obviously Serena. :shrug:

mm1147
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:55 AM
u mean the past decade (1990's) or past 10 years? the past 10 years statiscally probably hingis, but the past 5 years i'd say henin.

yeah i agree from 1990-1999 hingis,seles and graf from 2000 until now capriati,venus,serena and justine

Apoorv
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:58 AM
Hingis
Serena
Justine
Lindsay
Venus
Amelie
Kim
Jennifer

I pick hingis over serena for her consistancy.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:04 AM
and who won the 3 times before that. this is 2007 not 2001(when hingis left the game because of foot injurys), and 25 pounds ago.

Serena was beating Hingis back in '99 when she was still very raw and erratic....your point? :shrug:

Talula
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:04 AM
It has to be Serena surely. Serena raised the bar in a way none of the other players have. Plus the 8 Grand Slams. Plus the fact that worldwide she's the most famous sportswoman - some people don't know who Justine and Martina and Lindsay are.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:06 AM
"the world according to serena and her fans"

1. serena lost only because she was either injured or just didn't care.

2. all that matters are slams, especially the AO. otherwise serena would have been #1 every week.

3. everyone else who ever won was lucky or cheated.

4. noone has ever been injured or played poorly angainst serena. they were always at there best when serena beat them.

5. serena has never been lucky.

iWill
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:06 AM
hingis was also injured. she has plenty of wins over the williams. hingis is 6-7 with serena 11-10 with venus. being number 1 is equally important as slams. 209 weeks is remarkable. hingis will school serena next time they play.

You just keep dreaming and hands down over the last decade its Serena Martina is only ahead in titles because she plays more and its pretty obvious that if Serena didnt get hurt in 03 she would've won the USO that year and remained number 1 for much longer and I dont think there is too much of an argument there plus 8>5 no matter how you look at it

Williams Rulez
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:06 AM
and who won the 3 times before that. this is 2007 not 2001(when hingis left the game because of foot injurys), and 25 pounds ago.yet, its been 8 years since hingis won a slam and just 2 months since serena won her last.. :tape:

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:07 AM
Hingis
Serena
Justine
Lindsay
Venus
Amelie
Kim
Jennifer

I pick hingis over serena for her consistancy.

really? I just don't see how you can put Hingis ahead of Serena. I know she's been no.1 longer and has won more titles. But in tennis grand slams count for everything. When people consider GOAT the no.1 consideration is number of slams. Plus Hingis was out of the game for several years. Maybe If Hingis had 7 slams and Serena 8 then I could see Hingis being considered as greater. But there is a 3 slam difference and Serena has won a career slam. Plus when people look back and look for consistency they are going to see slams results not titles won. Like serena has won slams from 1998 (9?) to 2007. Noone else has done that. I'd say that's pretty consistant.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:08 AM
"the world according to serena and her fans"

1. serena lost only because she was either injured or just didn't care.

2. all that matters are slams, especially the AO. otherwise serena would have been #1 every week.

3. everyone else who ever won was lucky or cheated.

4. noone has ever been injured or played poorly angainst serena. they were always at there best when serena beat them.

You sure have learned a lot about Serena and her fans in your one month of posting on this board :tape:

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:17 AM
yet, its been 8 years since hingis won a slam and just 2 months since serena won her last.. :tape:

and how many years was hingis injured. hingis has a top 10 ranking, and just won japan, and has won some other tournaments as well. whereas serena has won the AO and thats it. had hingis had serenas draw she probably would be AO champion of 2007.

AcesHigh
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:25 AM
and how many years was hingis injured. hingis has a top 10 ranking, and just won japan, and has won some other tournaments as well. whereas serena has won the AO and thats it. had hingis had serenas draw she probably would be AO champion of 2007.

When did Hingis win her last slam?? 8 years ago? She wasn't injured for 8 years.

To say Hingis is better is not only laughable, but a clear sign of unprecedented delusion.

Williams Rulez
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:28 AM
and how many years was hingis injured. hingis has a top 10 ranking, and just won japan, and has won some other tournaments as well. whereas serena has won the AO and thats it. had hingis had serenas draw she probably would be AO champion of 2007.:lol: and serena hasn't been injured?

Serena just won AO tt's all.. and Hingis won what? Tokyo.. WOW! and she also got bounced out of Doha by Daniela... :tape: Yeah, you keep dreaming dude.. Fact is, its been 8 years since Martina won a slam.. and in those 8 years, Serena won 8, including the French.. :kiss:

Volcana
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:31 AM
Sylvie Bammer

Williams Rulez
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:31 AM
and how many years was hingis injured. hingis has a top 10 ranking, and just won japan, and has won some other tournaments as well. whereas serena has won the AO and thats it. had hingis had serenas draw she probably would be AO champion of 2007.PS: Martina had her ass handed to her the last 2 times she played Maria.. you can't be sure she was gonna Maria...

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:32 AM
1997-2007 past tens years. no matter what they all say, the numbers, statistics and legacy. no doubt martina HINGIS. :P

Volcana
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:34 AM
serena may have 8 slams (:worship: ) but martina spent 209 weeks (or just over 4 years) as World No.1 - a lot longer than serena. martina has also won way more singles AND doubles titles than serena, and holds a swag of 'youngest ever' records :bounce:
What do you know about Helen Wills Moody other than she won 21 GS singles titles? 209 weeks at #1, the numner of WTA titles, all that will fade with history.

GS singles titles, for better or worse, (and I think it's 'worse') are the measure of tennis players. The rest is 'frou-frou silence.

In fact, by your criteria, the order of who's the best player from 1997 to now is kind of fixed.

Serena
Hingis
Venus
Henin

Specifically because you said include doubles and mixed. Venus vs Hingis is so close, number of titles is relevant as a tie-breaker.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:35 AM
Gee, Serena's Kicking Some But At The Moment, Keep The Votes Coming!

I Would Have Though Vee Would Be Third!!

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:37 AM
What do you know about Helen Wills Moody other than she won 21 GS singles titles? 209 weeks at #1, the numner of WTA titles, all that will fade with history.

GS singles titles, for better or worse, (and I think it's 'worse') are the measure of tennis players. The rest is 'frou-frou silence.

HEY, im a huge hingis fan, so i'll always remember that she spent 209 weeks as No.1 :p

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:37 AM
really? I just don't see how you can put Hingis ahead of Serena. I know she's been no.1 longer and has won more titles. But in tennis grand slams count for everything. When people consider GOAT the no.1 consideration is number of slams. Plus Hingis was out of the game for several years. Maybe If Hingis had 7 slams and Serena 8 then I could see Hingis being considered as greater. But there is a 3 slam difference and Serena has won a career slam. Plus when people look back and look for consistency they are going to see slams results not titles won. Like serena has won slams from 1998 (9?) to 2007. Noone else has done that. I'd say that's pretty consistant.

Not all people look at only the slams. Those who are interesting in knowing more look at everything. And everything counts. I really like reading the thread "who is better" serena va. martina, because you can see, all that they hinge their argument on is primarily and almost solely grandslams alone. Martina Navratilova has only 18 and not 24 like Court or 22 like Graf, but easily by her whole record she is touted as better than them. In my opinon, the whole record speaks for itself. No need to explain.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:40 AM
and how many years was hingis injured. hingis has a top 10 ranking, and just won japan, and has won some other tournaments as well. whereas serena has won the AO and thats it. had hingis had serenas draw she probably would be AO champion of 2007.
If I could hit a curve ball, I probably would have broken Hank Aaron's home run record in 2004.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:43 AM
and how many years was hingis injured. hingis has a top 10 ranking, and just won japan, and has won some other tournaments as well. whereas serena has won the AO and thats it. had hingis had serenas draw she probably would be AO champion of 2007.

If my Grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley car.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:46 AM
What do you know about Helen Wills Moody other than she won 21 GS singles titles? 209 weeks at #1, the numner of WTA titles, all that will fade with history.

GS singles titles, for better or worse, (and I think it's 'worse') are the measure of tennis players. The rest is 'frou-frou silence.

I wanted to give this as an afterthought conclusion of my previous post. but since it didn't go that way i'll be less subtle. Most people who hinge their knowledge of who is best alone base it only on GS alone because that is all they care to commit to their knowledge and love of tennis.

For example, why do I regard Chris Evert better than Martina N.? Well because I can't get over the fact that she has such a pristine record of wins vs loses, I didn't base that on GS because I know that some players can lose all season long but suddenly do well only in GS where the limelight or they just get the kcik out of it in big events. Whole season records require you to have a determination and responsibility to surrender your full attention whole year long.

In any case, new comers to tennis usually only see what is the most easiest seen, people who i actually value opinion of are those who i have seen dig up the records analyze them and show in a logical manner how the whole record of one player is more brilliant than another not just one aspect.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:46 AM
PS: Martina had her ass handed to her the last 2 times she played Maria.. you can't be sure she was gonna Maria...

maria was lucky to be the tournament after the first round. its been an up and down year for maria. i'm surprised she got by kim. her match against serena was one her worst ever(take nothing away from serena). if she plays like that against hingis, hingis wins.

kittyking
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:53 AM
I think your referring to 1997-2007

In this case I think that clearly Martina Hingis was the best player of the past decade - Serena Williams is nowhere near her, based on the fact that Serena Williams didnt dominate the game for long and hasnt done much in the way of WTA title since - yes I understand that shes won the aussie open this year but you gotta take into consideration that flukes happen and possibly refer to my avatar too :p

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:57 AM
I wanted to give this as an afterthought conclusion of my previous post. but since it didn't go that way i'll be less subtle. Most people who hinge their knowledge of who is best alone base it only on GS alone because that is all they care to commit to their knowledge and love of tennis.

For example, why do I regard Chris Evert better than Martina N.? Well because I can't get over the fact that she has such a pristine record of wins vs loses, I didn't base that on GS because I know that some players can lose all season long but suddenly do well only in GS where the limelight or they just get the kcik out of it in big events. Whole season records require you to have a determination and responsibility to surrender your full attention whole year long.

In any case, new comers to tennis usually only see what is the most easiest seen, people who i actually value opinion of are those who i have seen dig up the records analyze them and show in a logical manner how the whole record of one player is more brilliant than another not just one aspect.
That's an excellent point, my friend. Not only did Chris Evert win 90 percent of ALL her singles matches, she did it over a NINETEEN-YEAR career. However, Because Martina Navratilova excelled in all three disciplines (167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, 10 mixed titles), I have to give her the G.O.A.T. title.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:57 AM
I think your referring to 1997-2007

In this case I think that clearly Martina Hingis was the best player of the past decade - Serena Williams is nowhere near her, based on the fact that Serena Williams didnt dominate the game for long and hasnt done much in the way of WTA title since - yes I understand that shes won the aussie open this year but you gotta take into consideration that flukes happen and possibly refer to my avatar too :p

YES I'M REFERRING TO 1997 - 2007,

Thankyou Kittyking i always new u had loads of common sense, martina all the way :bounce:

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:59 AM
That's an excellent point, my friend. Not only did Chris Evert win 90 percent of ALL her singles matches, she did it over a NINETEEN-YEAR career. However, Because Martina Navratilova excelled in all three disciplines (167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, 10 mixed titles), I have to give her the G.O.A.T. title.

in that case, hingis is clearly better than serena

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:00 AM
maria was lucky to be the tournament after the first round. its been an up and down year for maria. i'm surprised she got by kim. her match against serena was one her worst ever(take nothing away from serena). if she plays like that against hingis, hingis wins.
You accuse Serena's fans of making excuses for her when she loses, then you turn around and do the same thing for Maria Sharapova. Serena smoked her, just like Sharapova smoked Serena at Wimbledon 2004. Period.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:01 AM
What do you know about Helen Wills Moody other than she won 21 GS singles titles? 209 weeks at #1, the numner of WTA titles, all that will fade with history.

GS singles titles, for better or worse, (and I think it's 'worse') are the measure of tennis players. The rest is 'frou-frou silence.

In fact, by your criteria, the order of who's the best player from 1997 to now is kind of fixed.

Serena
Hingis
Venus
Henin

Specifically because you said include doubles and mixed. Venus vs Hingis is so close, number of titles is relevant as a tie-breaker.

Its actually all not that far, and personally Hingis wins the top spot.

Total GS = singles doubles mixed

Serena
16 = 8 + 6 + 2 (noncalendar single GS, career doubles GS)
total titles 40 = 27s + 11d + 2m
57 weeks no.1
win loss ratio: 83

Martina
15 = 5 + 9 +1 (calendar doubles GS, All tier I, Slam Cups, Championships, etc, except RG)
total titles 81 = 43s + 37d + 1m
209 weeks no.1
win loss ratio: 81

Venus
13 = 5 + 6 + 2 (career doubles GS)
total titles 45 = 33s + 10d + 2m
11 weeks no.1
win loss ratio: 81

Just for her fans, I'd credit serena the years 2002-2003.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:02 AM
I wanted to give this as an afterthought conclusion of my previous post. but since it didn't go that way i'll be less subtle. Most people who hinge their knowledge of who is best alone base it only on GS alone because that is all they care to commit to their knowledge and love of tennis.

For example, why do I regard Chris Evert better than Martina N.? Well because I can't get over the fact that she has such a pristine record of wins vs loses, I didn't base that on GS because I know that some players can lose all season long but suddenly do well only in GS where the limelight or they just get the kcik out of it in big events. Whole season records require you to have a determination and responsibility to surrender your full attention whole year long.

In any case, new comers to tennis usually only see what is the most easiest seen, people who i actually value opinion of are those who i have seen dig up the records analyze them and show in a logical manner how the whole record of one player is more brilliant than another not just one aspect.

so then your questions should be Who is the Greatest Player of the Past Decade (only "tennis afficionados" need reply)? The majority of tennis fans are not hardcore in the way that you describe. So if you meant the greatest player of the past decade in the minds of most people? Then Serena, hands down. Also, I think most pundits would place Serena ahead of Hingis and I think they have on many occasions. But lets do a comparion. Feel free to add anywhere you want.

# of days as no. 1: Hingis
# of singles titles: Hingis
# of doubles titles: Hingis
# of Singles Slams: Serena
# of Doubles Slams: Hingis
# of Mixed Doubles Slams: Serena
winning percentage: Serena
# of career singles slams: Serena

Lol..that's all i could come up with right now. So pretty much even. I would probably add # of olympic singles and doubles medals. Multiple slams. Slam final winning percentage. I'm sure there's a lot more.

But in the end in the minds of the majority of tennis fans and pundits Serena pulls up ahead. If slams were not so important then Clijsters would be shoe in for HOF but as it stands now, she is not.

Mr.Kardashian
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:04 AM
serena definitely

cellophane
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:05 AM
But in the end in the minds of the majority of tennis fans and pundits Serena pulls up ahead. If slams were not so important then Clijsters would be shoe in for HOF but as it stands now, she is not.

Of course she is a shoe in for HOF? She's not just won 1, she also made 4 other finals and has 2 doubles slams, has been number 1 in singles and doubles. If Jana Novotna made it, Kim certainly will.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:06 AM
still looking for the weeks no.1 for venus and serena.
Eleven weeks for Venus, 57 weeks for Serena.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:11 AM
Its actually all not that far, and personally Hingis wins the top spot.

Total GS = singles doubles mixed

Serena
16 = 8 + 6 + 2 (noncalendar single GS, career doubles GS)
total titles 40 = 27s + 11d + 2m
win loss ratio: 83

Martina
15 = 5 + 9 +1 (calendar doubles GS)
total titles 80 = 43s + 36d + 1m
209 weeks no.1
win loss ratio: 81

Venus
13 = 5 + 6 + 2 (career doubles GS)
total titles 45 = 33s + 10d + 2m
win loss ratio: 81

still looking for the weeks no.1 for venus and serena.

I don't think you should include mixed or doubles when counting slam titles. If you did that then you have some wierd names popping up. If you did that then :

Ai Sugiyama
8 = 7 + 1 (career doubles GS)

Justine Henin
5 = 5

Maria Sharapova
2 = 2

Sugiyama comes off as a better player than both Henin and Sharapova. So, my point is total gs # is not a good way to compare top players.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:11 AM
Eleven weeks for Venus, 57 weeks for Serena.

Thanks i saw it right under the media box at WTA before i read this but thanks anyway.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:13 AM
Of course she is a shoe in for HOF? She's not just won 1, she also made 4 other finals and has 2 doubles slams, has been number 1 in singles and doubles. If Jana Novotna made it, Kim certainly will.
Jana Novotna got in because she won 12 doubles majors (what I like to call the Pam Shriver Rule). If Clijsters does get in, and I think she will, she'll have Gabriela Sabatini to thank, not Novotna.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:14 AM
Of course she is a shoe in for HOF? She's not just won 1, she also made 4 other finals and has 2 doubles slams, has been number 1 in singles and doubles. If Jana Novotna made it, Kim certainly will.

Iono if 1 slam is enough. Her career is not over so this discussion is moot. But its not a def. thing for her to be in HOF if she ends her career with 1 slam. That coupled with tennis pundits' seeming disdain for her "lack of competitive drive" and early retirement doesn't bode well for her.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:15 AM
I don't think you should include mixed or doubles when counting slam titles. If you did that then you have some wierd names popping up. If you did that then :

Ai Sugiyama
8 = 7 + 1 (career doubles GS)

Justine Henin
5 = 5

Maria Sharapova
2 = 2

Sugiyama comes off as a better player than both Henin and Sharapova. So, my point is total gs # is not a good way to compare top players.
No, Sugiyama comes off as a better doubles player than those two, not a better overall player.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:18 AM
Iono if 1 slam is enough. Her career is not over so this discussion is moot. But its not a def. thing for her to be in HOF if she ends her career with 1 slam. That coupled with tennis pundits' seeming disdain for her "lack of competitive drive" and early retirement doesn't bode well for her.
If they keep Clijsters out for only winning one singles major, then they need to kick Sabatini, Yannick Noah and Dodo Cheney (1936 Australian) out. The precedent has already been set, my friend.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:20 AM
No, Sugiyama comes off as a better doubles player than those two, not a better overall player.

that's my point. You can't look at overall # of slam titles to see who is greater. I assume that when you are talkign about greatest player you are talking more about their single's prowess then their doubles. For ex. if you have someone who only won 2 slams singles titles but lets say 10 doubles slam titles. Then they have 12 slam titles overall. You can't compare that to someone who has 12 singles slams titles but no doubles slams titles. I think this will def. become more of an issue in the future with many upcoming female players no longer focusing on doubles. Sharapova is the most glaring example that comes to mind.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:21 AM
If they keep Clijsters out for only winning one singles major, then they need to kick Sabatini and Yannick Noah out. The precedent has already been set, my friend.

lol..i'm all for Clijsters in the HOF. But I was reading Bodo and he seems pretty opposed to it. And he actually votes for this shiz.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:21 AM
I don't think you should include mixed or doubles when counting slam titles. If you did that then you have some wierd names popping up. If you did that then :

Ai Sugiyama
8 = 7 + 1 (career doubles GS)

Justine Henin
5 = 5

Maria Sharapova
2 = 2

Sugiyama comes off as a better player than both Henin and Sharapova. So, my point is total gs # is not a good way to compare top players.


We are talking about the greatest player here. And yes but doubles and mixed is part of the career of a player especially when we are talking about THE GREATEST.

For the three you stated as examples,
the thread title can answer this itself, as to why those three aren't included:
(1) GREATEST for sugiyama
(2) PAST DECADE for Henin and Sharapova

Princeza
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:22 AM
:rocker2: Martina

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:24 AM
that's my point. You can't look at overall # of slam titles to see who is greater. I assume that when you are talkign about greatest player you are talking more about their single's prowess then their doubles. For ex. if you have someone who only won 2 slams singles titles but lets say 10 doubles slam titles. Then they have 12 slam titles overall. You can't compare that to someone who has 12 singles slams titles but no doubles slams titles. I think this will def. become more of an issue in the future with many upcoming female players no longer focusing on doubles. Sharapova is the most glaring example that comes to mind.

Yes and, I was just trying to point out that to you in my earlier post. You friend Darrin can answer that for you with his post:

That's an excellent point, my friend. Not only did Chris Evert win 90 percent of ALL her singles matches, she did it over a NINETEEN-YEAR career. However, Because Martina Navratilova excelled in all three disciplines (167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, 10 mixed titles), I have to give her the G.O.A.T. title.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:27 AM
We [b]are/b] talking about the greatest player here. And yes but doubles and mixed is part of the career of a player especially when we are talking about THE GREATEST.

For the three you stated as examples,
the thread title can answer this itself, as to why those three aren't included:
(1) GREATEST for sugiyama
(2) PAST DECADE for Henin and Sharapova

I understand, I just don't think doubles counts for as much anymore. Especially with a lot of the top players not playing doubles in slams anymore. It starts to become irrelevant and I think already is as a measure of greatness. I mean Federer is obviously the better player than Macenroe even though he prolly has less overall slam # titles. Why, because Federer doesn't play doubles. I mean, when was the last time serena or Venus were even entered into doubles (not mixed) in a slam. I think like 2002 maybe. 5 years ago. And the one time Venus did enter (mixed) she got to the final, in what was her worst year on tour.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:31 AM
I understand, I just don't think doubles counts for as much anymore. Especially with a lot of the top players not playing doubles in slams anymore. It starts to become irrelevant and I think already is as a measure of greatness. I mean Federer is obviously the better player than Macenroe even though he prolly has less overall slam # titles. Why, because Federer doesn't play doubles. I mean, when was the last time serena or Venus were even entered into doubles (not mixed) in a slam. I think like 2002 maybe. 5 years ago. And the one time Venus did enter (mixed) she got to the final, in what was her worst year on tour.


Since you look at it that way then consider this, you must be talking about who will be the greatest player in the next decade 2007-2017 (or if you like 2005-2015), or this thread should be 10 years later.

Because during the last decade it was a standard to play singles and doubles. Besides, you cannot have enought talent, strength, determination and great player characteristics in you to try to play singles and doubles together? To try to win singles and doubles in a slam at the same time? Or even just in Tier I's throughout the year? No. The greatest player for me and must play both - especially since we are talking about the last decade, full of excellent players who played both singles and doubles (Lindsay as one example), which was nothing like what this coming decade will be - which is full of power players.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:32 AM
Yes and, I was just trying to point out that to you in my earlier post. You friend Darrin can answer that for you with his post:

Anyhoo....I think in the past yes. Doubles counts for a lot. But today...no. If the # of singles slam title is close. then yes all that other stuff comes into consideration. But Martina and Serena are not close. And like I said earlier if this question was meant for tennis afficionados (as you described them) then my bad, count me out. But if this was meant for tennis fans in general (who make up the majority of tennis fans) then for this last decade doubles doesn't count. Why? cuz the majority of tennis fans don't care about it. It's a dying breed.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:34 AM
Since you look at it that way then consider this, you must be talking about who will be the greatest player in the next decade 2007-2017 (or if you like 2005-2015), or this thread should be 10 years later.

Because during the last decade it was a standard to play singles and doubles. Besides, you cannot have enought talent, strength, determination and great player characteristics in you to try to play singles and doubles together? To try to win singles and doubles in a slam at the same time? Or even just in Tier I's throughout the year? No. The greatest player for me and must play both - especially since we are talking about the last decade which was nothing like what this coming decade will be - which is full of power players.

well for the 1st half yes of this decade yes. But for the latter part. Lol..basically after Martina went into her semi retirement. Quite a few top players had already stopped adding doubles to their schedule. And if you comparing the two, then Serena continued to play in the latter part of this decade when playing doubles and singles at slams was no longer as common.
bleh...alright you've convinced me. Doubles should count. But only for the first half of this last decade. But since we can't dived the decade in two, then it just counts. Tough bananas for Serena, Maria, Justine & Co.

Williams Rulez
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:34 AM
Yes and, I was just trying to point out that to you in my earlier post. You friend Darrin can answer that for you with his post:however.. Martina also leads Chris in no of weeks at no1, singles titles won and their head to head, and they are tied for the no of slams..

as for serena and martina, serena has won the complete collection of majors, displaying her ability to play on slams on all surfaces, and she has achieved basically everything martina has... Martina may have more titles, but she has played for a longer period, and definitely more tournaments. hence, you can't just say tt because martina has more weeks at no1 and won more doubles titles, she is greater than serena

hingis-seles
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:38 AM
I'm surprised we're at page 3 and no one has brought this up. Martina won the 1996 Wimbledon doubles title, so for this discussion at least, you would have to remove that from consideration. So it's 5 singles, 8 doubles, and 1 mixed for Hingis.

As for this discussion, it's fairly obvious that Serena Williams has accomplished more in the past decade than any other female tennis player. I'm surprised at some of the people picking Martina over Serena. Serena has 3 extra singles Slams. It's not even debatable.

On a seperate note, Hingis is a clear #2 over Venus and Justine because of how far ahead she is in all the non-Slam categories (titles, weeks at #1, etc.).

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:38 AM
that's my point. You can't look at overall # of slam titles to see who is greater. I assume that when you are talkign about greatest player you are talking more about their single's prowess then their doubles. For ex. if you have someone who only won 2 slams singles titles but lets say 10 doubles slam titles. Then they have 12 slam titles overall. You can't compare that to someone who has 12 singles slams titles but no doubles slams titles. I think this will def. become more of an issue in the future with many upcoming female players no longer focusing on doubles. Sharapova is the most glaring example that comes to mind.
Like Lecciones said, you should look at a player's entire body of work. For instance, Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King and Margaret Court won numerous titles in all three disciplines, which meant they had to excel in all aspects of the game (serving, volleying from both sides, groundstrokes from both sides, court coverage, point construction, you name it). Also, because it was not unusual for them to play five singles AND four or five doubles matches in seven days, they had to be physically and mentally fit. Because of the foundation laid by women like those three, today's players can afford to play what the old-schoolers would consider a part-time schedule. I don't think that today's players are as skilled as their predecessors, but because of the insane amount of money they're making on and (especially) off the court, they don't have to be.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:41 AM
however.. Martina also leads Chris in no of weeks at no1, singles titles won and their head to head, and they are tied for the no of slams..

as for serena and martina, serena has won the complete collection of majors, displaying her ability to play on slams on all surfaces, and she has achieved basically everything martina has... Martina may have more titles, but she has played for a longer period, and definitely more tournaments. hence, you can't just say tt because martina has more weeks at no1 and won more doubles titles, she is greater than serena

hahaha thats exactly my point, you have to look at the whole career. Well I hope you got that point and didn't take that one too literally. In any case as an answer to the rest of the points in your post i'll just answer this:

Serena played from 1995-2007 no official retirements = 12 years
Martina played from 1994-2002 and 2006-2007 = 10 years

I really don't want to post anymore, I've been repeating myself already. In any case I've contributed a lot to this thread already. Thanks everyone I'm tired of typing, I'm the only one explaining Hingis' record wahahahah.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:43 AM
I'm surprised we're at page 3 and no one has brought this up. Martina won the 1996 Wimbledon doubles title, so for this discussion at least, you would have to remove that from consideration. So it's 5 singles, 8 doubles, and 1 mixed for Hingis.

As for this discussion, it's fairly obvious that Serena Williams has accomplished more in the past decade than any other female tennis player. I'm surprised at some of the people picking Martina over Serena. Serena has 3 extra singles Slams. It's not even debatable.

On a seperate note, Hingis is a clear #2 over Venus and Justine because of how far ahead she is in all the non-Slam categories (titles, weeks at #1, etc.).

Man, I had to G' rep you on this. Clearly, one of your faves is Hingis, yet you're arguing your points based on the merits of the issue rather than a dislike for Serena. That is greatly appreciated and actually refreshing. :yeah:

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:44 AM
I'm surprised we're at page 3 and no one has brought this up. Martina won the 1996 Wimbledon doubles title, so for this discussion at least, you would have to remove that from consideration. So it's 5 singles, 8 doubles, and 1 mixed for Hingis.

As for this discussion, it's fairly obvious that Serena Williams has accomplished more in the past decade than any other female tennis player. I'm surprised at some of the people picking Martina over Serena. Serena has 3 extra singles Slams. It's not even debatable.

On a seperate note, Hingis is a clear #2 over Venus and Justine because of how far ahead she is in all the non-Slam categories (titles, weeks at #1, etc.).

Ok this will be my last post im really tired of typin hahaha. I thought we are talking about players. Not the decade as the range of time of their achievements but as players who fall into that time range. Agh.... beats me the logic of that statement really. Sorry.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:47 AM
lol..i'm all for Clijsters in the HOF. But I was reading Bodo and he seems pretty opposed to it. And he actually votes for this shiz.
I don't think Sabatini, Noah, Patrick Rafter or Hana Mandlikova SHOULD be in, but because they are in, I don't see how you can keep Clijsters out.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:51 AM
Like Lecciones said, you should look at a player's entire body of work. For instance, Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King and Margaret Court won numerous titles in all three disciplines, which meant they had to excel in all aspects of the game (serving, volleying from both sides, groundstrokes from both sides, court coverage, point construction, you name it). Also, because it was not unusual for them to play five singles AND four or five doubles matches in seven days, they had to be physically and mentally fit. Because of the foundation laid by women like those three, today's players can afford to play what the old-schoolers would consider a part-time schedule. I don't think that today's players are as skilled as their predecessors, but because of the insane amount of money they're making on and (especially) off the court, they don't have to be.

wow....I completely disagree. I'm of the camp that believes that thos players could play singles, mixed doubles, doubles all the time because the game was not nearly as physical as today. I mean just watching old tapes of those matches it is clear (at least to me) that the game was not nearly as physical as it is today. Today women are serving almost as hard as some of the men and hitting groundstrokes almost as hard. Example Vaidisova hit an 86 mph winner against Serena, James Blake 85 mph. Singles is much more demanding on the body. I firmly believe that there is no way in hell someone like navaritilova,BJK, etc could play that same schedule if they played women's tennis today. Yes I know the increased speed has a lot to do with racquet technology but that's doesn't explain all of it. Fact of the matter is women's game is insanely more physical than it ever was. Evidence by the constant injuries, Henin can barely play a full singles schedule, Clijsters retiring early, Davenports' collapse in AO '05 final due to overplaying. I think actually the women are playing too hard and too much of physical game that its killing their bodies.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:54 AM
Ok this will be my last post im really tired of typin hahaha. I thought we are talking about players. Not the decade as the range of time of their achievements but as players who fall into that time range. Agh.... beats me the logic of that statement really. Sorry.

Yes, I see what your trying to say. When you look at it like that, then I think Hingis has a case. But if you're looking at it within' the specified time span, than I think it's Serena with out question.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:54 AM
Ok this will be my last post im really tired of typin hahaha. I thought we are talking about players. Not the decade as the range of time of their achievements but as players who fall into that time range. Agh.... beats me the logic of that statement really. Sorry.

huh..i was thinking best player in that decade, as in their accomplishments in that decade. G'nite. I gotta head to bed too. But it was fun wasting time over this topic. I love stuff like this, especially when people are reasonable and not fanatic haters or overly crazy fans.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:58 AM
I'm of the camp that believes that thos players could play singles, mixed doubles, doubles all the time because the game was not nearly as physical as today

It's probably that in part, but I'm sure they also HAD to play that much to make a decent living at it. It's very similar to today. The girls that seem to need the money more, tend to play more doubles. :shrug: Of course Davey was an exception, but she was/is part of the old school/new school transition plus I think she recognized the value it added to her game.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:58 AM
I love stuff like this, especially when people are reasonable and not fanatic haters or overly crazy fans.

Yep.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:07 AM
It's probably that in part, but I'm sure they also HAD to play that much to make a decent living at it. It's very similar to today. The girls that seem to need the money more, tend to play more doubles. :shrug: Of course Davey was an exception, but she was/is part of the old school/new school transition plus I think she recognized the value it added to her game.

true. But Navratilova, everet, etc were well known and had endorsements (even back then) so I doubt they were hurting for the cash. Low ranked girls obviously do it cuz they need the money and money can make you knee not hurt so bad.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:08 AM
wow....I completely disagree. I'm of the camp that believes that thos players could play singles, mixed doubles, doubles all the time because the game was not nearly as physical as today. I mean just watching old tapes of those matches it is clear (at least to me) that the game was not nearly as physical as it is today. Today women are serving almost as hard as some of the men and hitting groundstrokes almost as hard. Example Vaidisova hit an 86 mph winner against Serena, James Blake 85 mph. Singles is much more demanding on the body. I firmly believe that there is no way in hell someone like navaritilova,BJK, etc could play that same schedule if they played women's tennis today. Yes I know the increased speed has a lot to do with racquet technology but that's doesn't explain all of it. Fact of the matter is women's game is insanely more physical than it ever was. Evidence by the constant injuries, Henin can barely play a full singles schedule, Clijsters retiring early, Davenports' collapse in AO '05 final due to overplaying. I think actually the women are playing too hard and too much of physical game that its killing their bodies.
I will concede the point that the game was easier on the body back in the day than it is now, but not because of the reasons you mentioned. Back then, there were a lot more tournaments played on natural surfaces (grass and clay). Today, more than half the tournaments on the calendar are played on hard courts. The flip side to your argument is that because the prize money back in the day wasn't all that great, and the players had to pay all their own expenses, they had to play all three disciplines just to make an extra dollar. A few of today's players make more money in one year off the court than Chris Evert made in 19 years on it ($8,896,195). Today's game may be more physically demanding, but in my opinion, the money they're making today makes it more than a fair trade.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:11 AM
It's probably that in part, but I'm sure they also HAD to play that much to make a decent living at it. It's very similar to today. The girls that seem to need the money more, tend to play more doubles. :shrug: Of course Davey was an exception, but she was/is part of the old school/new school transition plus I think she recognized the value it added to her game.
I think it's more "not good at singles" than "need the money more".....

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:25 AM
true. But Navratilova, everet, etc were well known and had endorsements (even back then) so I doubt they were hurting for the cash. Low ranked girls obviously do it cuz they need the money and money can make you knee not hurt so bad.
Navratilova wasn't making nearly as much in endorsements as Evert before she came out. As you might imagine, that well dried up completely afterward. Also, as I stated earlier, players back then had to pay for everything--air fare, lodging, rental cars, meals, practice courts--out of their own pockets. It wasn't unusual for a player to win a tournament and still come out behind financially. Today, if you're represented by one of the major agencies, you have most of that stuff taken care of for you, and if your name happens to be Henin, Hingis, Williams, Clijsters, Mauresmo or Sharapova, you get paid six figures for SHOWING UP at some events. If yesterday's players were making today's money, there's no way they would have played as much.

darrinbaker00
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:27 AM
huh..i was thinking best player in that decade, as in their accomplishments in that decade. G'nite. I gotta head to bed too. But it was fun wasting time over this topic. I love stuff like this, especially when people are reasonable and not fanatic haters or overly crazy fans.
Well, that leaves me out.... :silly:

The Dawntreader
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:28 AM
Serena, Serena's domination period in 02-03 totally eclipsed Hingis's:worship:

MyskinaManiac
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:33 AM
Martina... you can't go past what she has done. 5 GS does not do her justice. Her achievements and records speak so much more than Serena's will ever.

She was pretty much wedged between several eras of varying styles and still (despite briefly retiring) has managed to come back and be highly competitive.

martinahfan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:33 AM
martina hingis 80 ( 81 today lol ) !

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:52 AM
Obviously if we're talking about the best and most successful tennis player from 1997 to 2007 then it's Serena.

No one can match what Serena did, 8 grand slam singles titles including all 4 at once. 6 grand slam doubles titles and 2 mixed doubles titles. Also no one can match how Serena dominated top 10 and top 5 players, not just beating them but destroying them like they were players ranked outside the top 20.

And that's just on achievement alone without even taking into account Serena obviously is a far better tennis player than Martina ever were.

Hingis would get the nod for 2nd over Venus because of weeks at number 1(although during 2000 and 2001 Hingis was ranked number 1 most of the time even though she wasn't the best player, it was in fact Venus but she just didn't play enough to "officially" be ranked number 1.

Venus would get the nod of Justine for number 3 because of her 6 doubles grand slams and 2 mixed doubles grand slam titles.

kikikid
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:06 AM
S.W is the best1

shirley
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:46 AM
serena

ce
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:49 AM
my queen serena

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:03 AM
If Hingis had (already) won a slam in her second career I could have argued that her amazing run as No 1 in the world compensates for Serena having two more slam singles titles. But a difference of three slam victories is too much, especially since Serena won all four of them while Martnina hasn't won the French. So, I'd like to vote for Hingis, but since this ain't a "most fave" player poll it's got to be Serena. Henin is No 3 (but is the most important challenger for Serena when we do a decade poll again three years from now) and Venus No 4..........All in my modest opinion of course. ;)

Mina Vagante
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:05 AM
serena :worship:

Shimizu Amon
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:10 AM
To me that's Serena and Justine. Both ladies put their mark on the last decade. And I think both of them will be remembered in a positive way (besides some little minors ;)).

Masha still needs to work on becoming one of the greatest players, which I hope she will become after a couple of years.

Watching
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:16 AM
My first post. I give it Serena.
We are talking about the last decade and although people are talking about the Hingis consistency - she hasn't been no.1 or won a slam for the last 8 years! She is currently 7th?? or something and is not doing too well in this 'new era' with bad records against the players unlike Serena. Serena has also crushed her in the last 3 matches.

CORIA01
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:40 AM
HINGIS cos she won her slams when she was very young!

barmaid
Mar 3rd, 2007, 01:50 PM
Obviously Serena with her 8 Grand Slams tops this poll with those accomplishments:worship: Martina certainly has impressive stats in "overall" categories..singles, doubles, mixed a total of 81 WTA victories!:hearts: Still Serena has an amazing GS total for a player who really doesn't play as much as the others! :worship:


barmaid:wavey:

Callystarr
Mar 3rd, 2007, 01:54 PM
serena may have 8 slams (:worship: ) but martina spent 209 weeks (or just over 4 years) as World No.1 - a lot longer than serena. martina has also won way more singles AND doubles titles than serena, and holds a swag of 'youngest ever' records :bounce:


Martina has also competed a heyal of a lot more than Serena Williams...In the last 10 years Serena probaly has HALF the amount of tournaments as Hingis...even with Hingis not playing for a few years.

trufanjay
Mar 3rd, 2007, 01:57 PM
I'm glad Serena is winning. She is the winner hands down. No need for much discussion.

Craigy
Mar 3rd, 2007, 01:59 PM
Serena.

Poova
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:01 PM
Serena of course. And I don't even like her. :p

Callystarr
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:03 PM
Martina won all her matches against Serena before 2002...not to mention Serena won the last 3....I highly doubt Hingis will be doing any schooling.

williams123
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:09 PM
for me alway's venus. she started this whole thing. serena followed in her footsteps.

The Daviator
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Even in doubles at Slam level, Serena beats her :lol:

Serena has 10/12 (Just missing AO and RG mixed :p )

Hingis has 8/12 (Missing RG singles, and RG/W/USO mixed :p )

DemWilliamsGulls
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:33 PM
Serena with Venus second....The Williams Sisters changed the face of tennis...the past 6 years....

Il Primo!
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:35 PM
I really don't figure why Kim is in the poll whereas Maria isn't listed :rolleyes:

.............................

Serena is the best in term of achievements, no doubt about that. Nevertheless, in term of game, I've never seen someone play better than Venus in 2001 or 2002

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
HINGIS!---THERES NO CONTEST HERE.


hingis #1 209 weeks
titles 43 singles, 36 doubles, 5 slams wins, 5 slam finals

serena #1 57 weeks
titles 27 singles, 10 doubles, 8 slams wins, 2 slam finals

.Andrew.
Mar 3rd, 2007, 02:46 PM
Serena ;)

Volcana
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:01 PM
in tennis, through it's history, GS titles are the defining measure. All else is tie-breaker.

Serena could win five more GS singles titles, and the same people in this thread would be screaming "weeks-at-#1".

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:09 PM
in tennis, through it's history, GS titles are the defining measure. All else is tie-breaker.

Serena could win five more GS singles titles, and the same people in this thread would be screaming "weeks-at-#1".

wrong being the best over 12 months is the definiing measure, not 2 weeks. in the 70's and 80's the best players didn't even play all the slams. but if your a serena fan and slam singles titles is the only stat that stands out, then i guess slams wins is all that matters.

TSequoia01
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:24 PM
After reading all the post and analyzing all the points of view, it occurred to me this season so far parallels the arguments. Martina has played 5 events, won a tier 1, SF at a tier II, made QF at a slam while Serena has played twice and won a GS and a QF @ Tier III. Now who has started the year off the best? Most would indicate Serena but some would laud Martina's consistency. Truth is Serena is a greater player than Martina, while She is more active or consistantly active if you prefer. Activity has never been a measure of greatness from my point of view. Victories in lesser events will never add up to a Victory in a slam. That is why Capriati with only 14 total victories but 3 slams is rated so high. Although consistancy and weeks at #1 should count for something....agree with Volcana maybe a tie-breaker.

trufanjay
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:28 PM
I agree. I think it's all about the slams. Since the slams are the hardest to win, the level of a players greatness is measured by those.

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:35 PM
Wrong because many of the weeks Hingis was ranked number 1 she was not the best player. But hey when Hingis is getting crushed 6-3, 6-2 by Serena in a GS semifinal what else are Hingis fans going to say. I'm not sure why there is a poll for this. Serena easily.

wrong being the best over 12 months is the definiing measure, not 2 weeks. in the 70's and 80's the best players didn't even play all the slams. but if your a serena fan and slam singles titles is the only stat that stands out, then i guess slams wins is all that matters.

goldenboi356
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:36 PM
where is Maria Sharapova in the list?

this makes me laugh.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:39 PM
wrong being the best over 12 months is the definiing measure, not 2 weeks. in the 70's and 80's the best players didn't even play all the slams. but if your a serena fan and slam singles titles is the only stat that stands out, then i guess slams wins is all that matters.

:worship: these smilies are great sometimes.

Vamos.
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:39 PM
give me a break, sharapova ain't good enough

How on earth is Cljisters then, you lunatic?

stefi62
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:41 PM
I'm not a huge fan of hers, but I have to admit that IMO that's Serena!

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:42 PM
Wrong because many of the weeks Hingis was ranked number 1 she was not the best player. But hey when Hingis is getting crushed 6-3, 6-2 by Serena in a GS semifinal what else are Hingis fans going to say. I'm not sure why there is a poll for this. Serena easily.



"Wrong because many of the weeks Hingis was ranked number 1 she was not the best player." :confused:

But hey when Hingis is getting crushed 6-3, 6-2 by Serena in a GS semifinal what else are Hingis fans going to say. What conclusion would you want to stretch from that?

PatrickRyan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:44 PM
Serena
8 Grand Slam Singles Titles
4 Grand Slam Doubles Titles
2 Grand Slam Mix Doubles Titles
57 Weeks at #1
YEC 2001
27 Singles Titles

PatrickRyan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:45 PM
for me alway's venus. she started this whole thing. serena followed in her footsteps.

Serena won the first Slam ;)

die_wahrheit
Mar 3rd, 2007, 03:55 PM
Nonsense poll.
Serena Williams wins easiyl because of 8 Grand Slam-Titles.
No reason for Hingis fans to argue that.

Doubles/Mixed and all that doesn't cut.
If it would count, Paola Suarez should have made the list.
But you can't take those contests serious anymore since media decided in the 70ies to completely ignore doubles matches.
Since that decision, doubles is no contest for the elite.

MisterQ
Mar 3rd, 2007, 04:03 PM
Serena has done enough remarkable things to put her at the top of this list, imo.

The next group of players, however (Hingis, Venus, Henin, and perhaps Davenport), are also defining players of their era, and it's harder to choose among them).

Cashif
Mar 3rd, 2007, 04:16 PM
Though I love Martina, for me it is Henin because of her consistency. In the past five years she has been the most consistent player whenever not injured.

sweetpeas
Mar 3rd, 2007, 04:24 PM
henin is the best player on all surfaces .Mushroom alert?


hingis has 200+ weeks at #1. WEAKEAST LINK!!!

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 04:28 PM
All those weeks at # 1 and the many tournaments she's won other than the slams, those things DO count for Martina IMO (if not, why even bother to play all those tournaments at all?).

Having said that, there are no two ways about it, the slams still matter the most. If Serena had won only one, maybe even two slams more than Martina one could possibly argue that Martina's other achievements even it up for her. But 8 vs 5 slams in favor of Serena is just too big a gap IMO, and I say this being a fan of Martina. And let's not forget that Serena has won all four slams while the French Open are still missing from Martina's resume. So, even though I think it's a closer call than some of the other posters do, I had to vote for Serena.

If Martina could add the French to her collection she would be in a stronger position, but we will see what the future brings.:)

Kworb
Mar 3rd, 2007, 04:30 PM
Tough one. I'm gonna say Hingis because I personally value longevity a lot. But I do understand if you go by slams first.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:12 PM
Even in doubles at Slam level, Serena beats her :lol:

Serena has 10/12 (Just missing AO and RG mixed :p )

Hingis has 8/12 (Missing RG singles, and RG/W/USO mixed :p )

wow...serena only needs two mixed Slam titles to have a complete career slam. Amazing. Although I would have to throw in Olympic singles medal. But she has a chance in 2008!

grogom31
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:12 PM
serena has won a whole 25 tournaments, whereas hingis has 200+ weeks at #1. and henin is the best player on all surfaces.

In what ground henin is the bet player in all surfaces. i would say you are biais.

Sally Struthers
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:13 PM
it's all about the majors, so Serena! And then Hingis

grogom31
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:14 PM
hands down serena williams.

trufanjay
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:16 PM
In what ground henin is the bet player in all surfaces. i would say you are biais.
I agree. Henin is not the best on all surfaces.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:19 PM
If Hingis had (already) won a slam in her second career I could have argued that her amazing run as No 1 in the world compensates for Serena having two more slam singles titles. But a difference of three slam victories is too much, especially since Serena won all four of them while Martnina hasn't won the French. So, I'd like to vote for Hingis, but since this ain't a "most fave" player poll it's got to be Serena. Henin is No 3 (but is the most important challenger for Serena when we do a decade poll again three years from now) and Venus No 4..........All in my modest opinion of course. ;)

Serena > Hingis > Henin/Venus

I think Davenport ruined the whole being no.1 thing. You can be no.1 but if you're clearly not the best player in the draw then :shrug: who cares. Hingis was no.1 for a long time but for a big chunk of that time was not the best player in the draw. To me being no.1 means you are the best, but if there are players ranked lower than you who are beatnig you consistently and winning slams while you are not, then it's a hollow no.1. Kinda like Sharapova being no.1 but being brutalized by no.81 in the slam final.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:22 PM
Serena > Hingis > Henin/Venus

I think Davenport ruined the whole being no.1 thing. You can be no.1 but if you're clearly not the best player in the draw then :shrug: who cares. Hingis was no.1 for a long time but for a big chunk of that time was not the best player in the draw. To me being no.1 means you are the best, but if there are players ranked lower than you who are beatnig you consistently and winning slams while you are not, then it's a hollow no.1. Kinda like Sharapova being no.1 but being brutalized by no.81 in the slam final.


i'm sure being #1 will be back in vogue, if serena ever regains it.

lecciones
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:26 PM
wow...serena only needs two mixed Slam titles to have a complete career slam. Amazing. Although I would have to throw in Olympic singles medal. But she has a chance in 2008!

It will be no surprise for martina to win any doubles calendar grandslam, so i guess easy to complete doubles slams as well for martina.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:27 PM
In what ground henin is the bet player in all surfaces. i would say you are biais.

because she has a great allcourt game perfectly suited for hardcourts, yet has won 3 french titles. last year she was in finals of all 4 slams.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:30 PM
i'm sure being #1 will be back in vogue, if serena ever regains it.

If serena becomes no.1 and is being consistently beaten by players ranked below her. then, yeah I wouldn't give her much props for being no.1. Women's tour is just in wierd states. Lol....but you will never see that beacuse Serena barely plays. If Serena plays and there are clearly better players than her, no way in hell would she reach no.1. She just doesn't play enough tourneys. Even now, she'd have to win or reach the F of every tourney she enters to reach no.1.

trufanjay
Mar 3rd, 2007, 05:33 PM
i'm sure being #1 will be back in vogue, if serena ever regains it.
Who cares. As long as she is winning slams. I think most people agree that the slams are most important, regardless of who the number one player is.

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:05 PM
Serena > Hingis > Henin/Venus

I think Davenport ruined the whole being no.1 thing. You can be no.1 but if you're clearly not the best player in the draw then :shrug: who cares. Hingis was no.1 for a long time but for a big chunk of that time was not the best player in the draw. To me being no.1 means you are the best, but if there are players ranked lower than you who are beatnig you consistently and winning slams while you are not, then it's a hollow no.1. Kinda like Sharapova being no.1 but being brutalized by no.81 in the slam final.
Well, if you argue that Hingis wasn't and Sharapova isn't the real No.1 you can't argue that Serena was the real No. 81 either.

Besides, the rankings are supposed to reflect consistency and it does count. Not as much as slam victories, but Hingis has those too. If the poll would only cover the 2000-2007 era Henin is my # 2 and Venus # 3, but if we include (like is the case here) 1997-1999 Hingis is a close # 2 behind Serena IMO.

starin
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:24 PM
Well, if you argue that Hingis wasn't and Sharapova isn't the real No.1 you can't argue that Serena was the real No. 81 either.

Besides, the rankings are supposed to reflect consistency and it does count. Not as much as slam victories, but Hingis has those too. If the poll would only cover the 2000-2007 era Henin is my # 2 and Venus # 3, but if we include (like is the case here) 1997-1999 Hingis is a close # 2 behind Serena IMO.

yup. rankngs reward consistency and used to reflect who could beat whom on consistent basis, but with so many top women players in and out of the game in sporadic bursts, its not a good indicator. Henin over venus?!?! no wayy!!!....j/p. I think if both ended their careers now, in retrospect Venus would be considered greater because of her doubles. But as it stands Henin >>>>>Venus. I just hope Venus & Henin bring their A games to Miami and Venus wins :hearts:

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:27 PM
Of course Serena wasn't the real number 81 in terms of skills and talent. LOL. Exactly my point about rankings not measuring a player true skill level. Heck Serena is still only ranked 15 now. Can you name 14 players better than Serena. Of course you can't.

Yes consistency counts but there have been players more consistent than Hingis, was beating her, winning slams and still ranked behind her, Venus in the 2nd half of 2000 comes to mind, Jennifer in the first half of 2001 comes to mind, Venus again in the second half of 2001, that's alot weeks right there alone Hingis piled up as number 1 when she wasn't the best player, and there were more periods like that for Hingis. Heck if I remember correctly Hingis was still ranked number 1 for part of 2002, :lol:

Well, if you argue that Hingis wasn't and Sharapova isn't the real No.1 you can't argue that Serena was the real No. 81 either.

Besides, the rankings are supposed to reflect consistency and it does count. Not as much as slam victories, but Hingis has those too. If the poll would only cover the 2000-2007 era Henin is my # 2 and Venus # 3, but if we include (like is the case here) 1997-1999 Hingis is a close # 2 behind Serena IMO.





Well, if you argue that Hingis wasn't and Sharapova isn't the real No.1 you can't argue that Serena was the real No. 81 either.

Besides, the rankings are supposed to reflect consistency and it does count. Not as much as slam victories, but Hingis has those too. If the poll would only cover the 2000-2007 era Henin is my # 2 and Venus # 3, but if we include (like is the case here) 1997-1999 Hingis is a close # 2 behind Serena IMO.

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:29 PM
yup. rankngs reward consistency and used to reflect who could beat whom on consistent basis, but with so many top women players in and out of the game in sporadic bursts, its not a good indicator. Henin over venus?!?! no wayy!!!
Well, we all have our opinions and if they were always the same as those of everyone else we wouldn't have anything to talk about.;)

TSequoia01
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:33 PM
i'm sure being #1 will be back in vogue, if serena ever regains it.

Even when Serena was #1 She only played 12 or 13 tournies.

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:46 PM
Of course Serena wasn't the real number 81 in terms of skills and talent. LOL. Exactly my point about rankings not measuring a player true skill level. Heck Serena is still only ranked 15 now. Can you name 14 players better than Serena. Of course you can't.

Yes consistency counts but there have been players more consistent than Hingis, was beating her, winning slams and still ranked behind her, Venus in the 2nd half of 2000 comes to mind, Jennifer in the first half of 2001 comes to mind, Venus again in the second half of 2001, that's alot weeks right there alone Hingis piled up as number 1 when she wasn't the best player, and there were more periods like that for Hingis. Heck if I remember correctly Hingis was still ranked number 1 for part of 2002, :lol:
Have you seen a post of mine where I said that Serena was the # 81 player in the world (or # 15 for that matter)? I don't think so. On the contrary, I responded to someone else who said that Sharapova isn't the real # 1 because a real # 1 doesn't lose to the # 81 player in the world.

And consistency isn't only about how you do against the other top players but also about how often you slip up against the lower ranked players. It isn't exclusively about how great you are at your peak, but also about how many (or few) bad days you have.

serenafann
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:56 PM
Queen of all things Serena.

TSequoia01
Mar 3rd, 2007, 06:59 PM
Have you seen a post of mine where I said that Serena was the # 81 player in the world (or # 15 for that matter)? I don't think so. On the contrary, I responded to someone else who said that Sharapova isn't the real # 1 because a real # 1 doesn't lose to the # 81 player in the world.

And consistency isn't only about how you do against the other top players but also about how often you slip up against the lower ranked players. It isn't necessarily always about peak vs peak :eek: , but also about how good you are "on average."

What happened to Venus and Serena aside from their injuries and family crisis, is they both have been playing tennis since they were little girls. Both wanted to experience other facets of life. Now that both have dabbled look forward to a new committment, much like what Andre Agassi experienced. Serena said her best is yet to come. :eek: Venus at Memphis gave us all a glimpse of what her game could become. I said all that to say, line them up here comes "Round Two"!

PatrickRyan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:00 PM
Martina won all her matches against Serena before 2002...not to mention Serena won the last 3....I highly doubt Hingis will be doing any schooling.

Serena beat Martina 5 times before 2002

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:07 PM
Well number 1 if you are consistently losing to other top players obviously they are better than you no matter what the rankings say. The only reason Hingis was ranked number 1 in the periods I mentioned was because she was playing more than Venus and Jennifer. That's the ONLY reason.

If Henin was to get injured again and miss a month and Kuzzy moved past her in the rankings would you say Kuzzy is better than Henin? LOL. I hope not.

Have you seen a post of mine where I said that Serena was the # 81 player in the world (or # 15 for that matter)? I don't think so. On the contrary, I responded to someone else who said that Sharapova isn't the real # 1 because a real # 1 doesn't lose to the # 81 player in the world.

And consistency isn't only about how you do against the other top players but also about how often you slip up against the lower ranked players. It isn't exclusively about how great you are at your peak, but also about how many (or few) bad days you have.

santhuruu
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:10 PM
Serena Williams, hands down! In this decade we saw everything of this champion, when she was like what seventeen she won the UsOpen beating three of the top four seeds in that tournament, she made history with Venus winning gold in doubles at the Olympics, Serena won all four Grand Slam Titles in a row, she has faced injuries but she came back many times as a champion, like at the Australian Open in 2005 and 2007. That's a lot in a decade for a great champion, so based on that my answer is Serena Williams, but that doesn't mean that the other players were worse, cause they were and still are and going to be great champions!

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:15 PM
What happened to Venus and Serena aside from their injuries and family crisis, is they both have been playing tennis since they were little girls. Both wanted to experience other facets of life. Now that both have dabbled look forward to a new committment, much like what Andre Agassi experienced. Serena said her best is yet to come. :eek: Venus at Memphis gave us all a glimpse of what her game could become. I said all that to say, line them up here comes "Round Two"!
I give up.:lol: I said that I have voted in the poll for Serena Williams because all things considered I think she's been the best player of the last 10 years. Don't know what I've said to make people believe otherwise.:help:

cellophane
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:19 PM
I give up.:lol: I said that I have voted in the poll for Serena Williams because all things considered I think she's been the best player of the last 10 years. Don't know what I've said to make people believe otherwise.:help:

"I often wonder if some members really are as stupid as they appear to be or whether they are only pretending.;)"

;)

TSequoia01
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:21 PM
I give up.:lol: I said that I have voted in the poll for Serena Williams because all things considered I think she's been the best player of the last 10 years. Don't know what I've said to make people believe otherwise.:help:

I read your various comments, and understood how you voted. My previous comments were not meant as a criticism only to add to your previous thoughts. :shrug: :shrug:

-sugi-
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:21 PM
I don't want to admit it because I am not a fan, but it is certainly Serena. Without a doubt.

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:25 PM
I read your various comments, and understood how you voted. My previous comments were not meant as a criticism only to add to your previous thoughts. :shrug: :shrug:
:yeah:

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 07:54 PM
Well number 1 if you are consistently losing to other top players obviously they are better than you no matter what the rankings say. The only reason Hingis was ranked number 1 in the periods I mentioned was because she was playing more than Venus and Jennifer. That's the ONLY reason.

If Henin was to get injured again and miss a month and Kuzzy moved past her in the rankings would you say Kuzzy is better than Henin? LOL. I hope not.
I don't think I've said that Hingis is the # 2 in this poll for me solely on the basis of her long reign as the # 1 player. It's only a contributing factor. Most important are her 5 slams (as many or more than anyone other than Serena) and her success in tournaments other than slams. In view of the fact that her slam total is equal to that of Venus and Justine, her many tournament wins, reign as # 1, plus her longevity makes a valid case for Martina as the # 2 player of the last ten years IMO. Even if you are of the opinion that her # 1 ranking wasn't always kosher, she hasn't been a human yoyo like most of her contemporaries have been either, so in terms of consistency she has the edge over everyone else.

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:11 PM
And that's fine. If you scroll up you will see where I said I would give Hingis the edge for number 2 over Venus and Henin based on achievement even though I consider Venus and Henin better tennis players. Also Martina consistency is overrated. Martina career winning % is basically the exact same as Venus and Justine, all three are around 81%, Martina has won what 43 titles, Venus-34, and Justine-31, now I haven't looked it up but I would be willing to bet she played in alot more career events than Venus and Henin have. Now don't get me wrong Hingis was great before the power players caught up with her and I'm certainly not anti Hingis by any means but some of her fans seem to remember her as a better player than she actually was/is.

I don't think I've said that Hingis is the # 2 in this poll for me solely on the basis of her long reign as the # 1 player. It's only a contributing factor. Most important are her 5 slams (as many or more than anyone other than Serena) and her success in tournaments other than slams. In view of the fact that her slam total is equal to that of Venus and Justine, her many tournament wins, reign as # 1, plus her longevity makes a valid case for Martina as the # 2 player of the last ten years IMO. Even if you are of the opinion that her # 1 ranking wasn't always kosher, she hasn't been a human yoyo like most of her contemporaries have been either, so in terms of consistency she has the edge over everyone else.

driger
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:16 PM
209 weeks vs 53 weeks----4 times as many weeks at number 1 for hingis

8 slams to 5 slams----1.6 times the slams for serena

46 tournament wins to 25----nearly twice as many for hingis

slam finals even

head to head virtually even


get a clue. hopefully they will play soon

serena has one win over a top 5 player in how many years?

Tennisaddict
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:18 PM
I don´t think that´s even a question. Yes, Henin and Hingis have achieved a lot also but Serena stands head and shoulders above the rest.

You can´t neutralize her 8 slam wins with all the double and/or surfaces titles the other ones won.

Serena is the best player of the past decade right now. It will be interesting to see how Henin, Hingis and Venus will do the next 5 years as they have a chance to equal Serena. Than we can have an relevant discussion about this.

égalité
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:23 PM
Slams are what you get remembered for.

They are not, however, the ultimate measure of greatness. I don't think anyone can argue that Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario had a better career than Lindsay Davenport.

Weeks at #1 is more telling than slam titles. And Martina leaves everyone in the dust in that category.

hingisGOAT
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:23 PM
hingis, easily. she was the most at #1, most doubles Slams and doubles titles, most singles titles, 5 singles slams, 12 slam finals. nobody comes close.

PatrickRyan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:27 PM
209 weeks vs 53 weeks----4 times as many weeks at number 1 for hingis

8 slams to 5 slams----1.6 times the slams for serena

46 tournament wins to 25----nearly twice as many for hingis

head to head virtually even


get a clue. hopefully they will play soon

serena has one win over a top 5 player in how many years?

Correction: Serena was Number 1 fore 57 weeks, and she has 27 titles, not 25!

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:27 PM
Thanks for the laugh. Oh, also ASV had 4, Davenport 3, that's only a one slam difference. But three is a huge difference and yes ASV was a better clay court player than Lindsay. Obviously Lindsay was better on grass and hard courts.

Slams are what you get remembered for.

They are not, however, the ultimate measure of greatness. I don't think anyone can argue that Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario had a better career than Lindsay Davenport.

Weeks at #1 is more telling than slam titles. And Martina leaves everyone in the dust in that category.

maximus82
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:28 PM
I am a Henin fan, but even I have to say that right now Serena is the stand-out, with Venus/Hingis/Henin right behind. Serena has won all of the slams (in a row, even), which none of the others have done, and has a couple more GS titles.

(now hopefully Henin can rack up a couple more this year and we this can become a real debate :))

égalité
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:43 PM
Well number 1 if you are consistently losing to other top players obviously they are better than you no matter what the rankings say. The only reason Hingis was ranked number 1 in the periods I mentioned was because she was playing more than Venus and Jennifer. That's the ONLY reason.

If Henin was to get injured again and miss a month and Kuzzy moved past her in the rankings would you say Kuzzy is better than Henin? LOL. I hope not.

:weirdo:

Martina never played more than 20 tournaments in a season during her FOUR YEARS of dominance. That's just a false perception created by haters like yourself. Thanks for the laugh to you, too.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:47 PM
Gee, at one stage yesterday Serena had almost 80% of the vote, I'm very surprised Venus only has 3 votes!!

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:53 PM
No hate here. I was thinking of 2000 when Venus beat her in the QF of Wimby on the way to the title and the SF of the Us open on the way to the title, and when Jen beat her in the finals of AO and won the french in 2001. Jen also beat Hingis in the 2002 final too in case you have forgotten. Hingis never dominated for 4 years. How can you dominate when you don't win a slam and getting bounce out of Wimby in the 1st round? I guess your memory is a little shakey there.

:weirdo:

Martina never played more than 20 tournaments in a season during her FOUR YEARS of dominance. That's just a false perception created by haters like yourself. Thanks for the laugh to you, too.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:58 PM
No hate here. I was thinking of 2000 when Venus beat her in the QF of Wimby on the way to the title and the SF of the Us open on the way to the title, and when Jen beat her in the finals of AO and won the french. Jen also beat Hingis in the 2002 final too in case you have forgotten. Hingis never dominated for 4 years. How can you dominate when you don't win a slam and getting bounce out of Wimby in the 1st round? I guess your memory is a little shakey there.

Of course Martina dominated over a 4 year period - the rankings reflect that, and she won 33 titles from 1997-2000, and held a winning record over Venus and Serena. And we are talking singles AND doubles AND mixed doubles in this thread, Hingis won the GRAND SLAM, for doubles in 1998, and, in fact won 5 Grand Slam doubles titles in a row, pretty neat huh?

MisterQ
Mar 3rd, 2007, 08:58 PM
Heck if I remember correctly Hingis was still ranked number 1 for part of 2002, :lol:

Hingis' reign at No. 1 ended on Oct. 14, 2001.

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:02 PM
But didn't she get it back at some point in 2002?

Hingis' reign at No. 1 ended on Oct. 14, 2001.

TSequoia01
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:06 PM
Hingis' reign at No. 1 ended on Oct. 14, 2001.

I remember during the USO, Hingis being #1 with no slams became an embarrassment for the wta scoring system. After Serena bounced her in straights that system came really under fire.

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:06 PM
How many slams did Hingis win in 1999 and 2000? 1 combined including a 1st round Wimby flameout, and was getting beat by Lindsay, Venus and Serena in most of their GS matchups. Not exactly what I would consider dominance but if to you she dominate then so be it.

Of course Martina dominated over a 4 year period - the rankings reflect that, and she won 33 titles from 1997-2000, and held a winning record over Venus and Serena. And we are talking singles AND doubles AND mixed doubles in this thread, Hingis won the GRAND SLAM, for doubles in 1998, and, in fact won 5 Grand Slam doubles titles in a row, pretty neat huh?

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:15 PM
How many slams did Hingis win in 1999 and 2000? 1 combined including a 1st round Wimby flameout, and was getting beat by Lindsay, Venus and Serena in most of their GS matchups. Not exactly what I would consider dominance but if to you she dominate then so be it.

wtf?

between 1997 and 2000 Hingis made the final of 10 of the 16 GS Championships, winning 5, and only failed to make the S/F of a GS twice ('99 Wimbledon, where she was out of sorts, and '00 Wimbledon where Vee was too good, winning in 3s). If u compare that to Lindsay, Serena and Venus, Hingis had by far the better record, and still does when u add singles, doubles and mixed :worship:

MisterQ
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:19 PM
I remember during the USO, Hingis being #1 with no slams became an embarrassment for the wta scoring system. After Serena bounced her in straights that system came really under fire.

Hingis was the reigning WTA Tour Championships winner, finalist at AO, and semifinalist at RG and USO around the time her No. 1 period ended. Which is not to say that she was the best player in the world at that point -- but her results were decent.

2001 was a strange year -- Capriati and Venus both did so well, but they didn't accumulate enough points for various reasons to dsplace Hingis. And then, after Capriati grabbed No. 1 for 3 weeks, seemingly out of nowhere, Davenport took the No. 1 spot at the end of the year. :lol:

TaxPower
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:22 PM
Justine is the most complete

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:24 PM
We're not talking about 1997 or 1998. You said Hingis dominated 4 years. Obviously I will give you 1997 and MAY give you 1998. That's two years. Where are the other two years she dominated? And don't try to combine the stats as Hingis did most of that damage in 1997 and alot of it in 1998. Tell me what did Hingis do in 1999 and 2000 that you consider dominate. And how was Hingis no slams in 2000 better than Venus two slams in 2000 including beating Hingis head to head twice. Singles only please. Talk about being in a dream world. :lol:

wtf?

between 1997 and 2000 Hingis made the final of 10 of the 16 GS Championships, winning 5, and only failed to make the S/F of a GS twice ('99 Wimbledon, where she was out of sorts, and '00 Wimbledon where Vee was too good, winning in 3s). If u compare that to Lindsay, Serena and Venus, Hingis had by far the better record, and still does when u add singles, doubles and mixed :worship:

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:25 PM
Come on, seriously, it is OBVIOUSLY Serena. There is really no debate that I can see.

jellybelly
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:25 PM
LIke another poster signiture JAM E KA BABY!

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:27 PM
:lol: at Venus getting less votes than Jennifer & Kim, and equal to Amelie. :tape:

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:28 PM
For me it goes:

1. Serena Williams
2. Venus Williams
3. Martina Hingis
4. Justine Henin
5. Lindsay Davenport
6. Jennifer Capriati
7. Amelie Mauresmo
8. Kim Clijsters

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:38 PM
:lol: at Venus getting less votes than Jennifer & Kim, and equal to Amelie. :tape:

Yeah, this should have been set up to choose an order.

The problem is that those that would put Vee higher in the order are picking Serena, eliminating their chance to vote again. While the others, who wouldn't pick Vee (or Serena for that matter) if they'd won every slam that's been played since they turned pro, simply vote for their fave. :shrug:

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:42 PM
Baby Williams avatars :rocker2: :rocker2:

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:45 PM
:lol: at Venus getting less votes than Jennifer & Kim, and equal to Amelie. :tape:
I think that has to do with most Serena and Venus having more or less the same fanbase. That's too much of a generalization I'm sure, and we ain't even supposed to vote on the basis of who our personal faves are anyway, but I think that if you would remove Serena from the poll that more of the Serena votes would go to Venus than to Justine or Martina. Venus "suffers" more from Serena's achievements than any other player in this poll.

LoveFifteen
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:47 PM
I think that has to do with most Serena and Venus having more or less the same fanbase. That's too much of a generalization I'm sure, and we ain't even supposed to vote on the basis of who our personal faves are anyway, but I think that if you would remove Serena from the poll that more of the Serena votes would go to Venus than to Justine or Martina. Venus "suffers" more from Serena's achievements than any other player in this poll.


I agree 100%.

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:48 PM
Well, I agree 200%. :p :D

Chrissie-fan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:52 PM
For me it goes:

1. Serena Williams
2. Venus Williams
3. Martina Hingis
4. Justine Henin
5. Lindsay Davenport
6. Jennifer Capriati
7. Amelie Mauresmo
8. Kim Clijsters
I mostly agree

1.Serena Williams
2.Martina Hingis

3.Justine Henin
3.Venus Williams
(If you put a gun to my head I choose Henin for # 3, but I can understand arguments for both. In other words: Too close to call)

5.Lindsay Davenport
6.Jennifer Capriati
7.Amelie Mauresmo
8.Kim Clijsters

PatrickRyan
Mar 3rd, 2007, 09:54 PM
For Me

1.Serena
2.Hingis
3.Venus
4.Justine
5.Davenport
6.Capriati
7.Mauresmo
8.Clisjters
9.Sharapova

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:01 PM
Mine are:

1.Serena
2.Venus or Martina (it's a battle still being decided)
3 (reserved fo the loser of the above battle.)
4. The Hand
5. Davey
6. J-Cap
7. MoMo
8. Shapo

LeRoy.
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:14 PM
Serena :shrug:

Whichever way you slice it. its hard to argue against Serena imo

égalité
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:17 PM
No hate here. I was thinking of 2000 when Venus beat her in the QF of Wimby on the way to the title and the SF of the Us open on the way to the title, and when Jen beat her in the finals of AO and won the french in 2001. Jen also beat Hingis in the 2002 final too in case you have forgotten. Hingis never dominated for 4 years. How can you dominate when you don't win a slam and getting bounce out of Wimby in the 1st round? I guess your memory is a little shakey there.

:weirdo:

Your arguments are wholly irrelevant. You can't just give examples of Venus beating Martina (especially since Martina has a winning H2H against her and destroyed her 6-1 6-1 in the 2001 AO semis). Venus lost in the first round of the French Open, just as Martina lost in the first round of Wimbledon (to the eventual semifinalist, mind you). You can't just give individual examples of matches. What do you make of Capriati beating Serena in two slam QF's in 2003, then? We're talking about the past 10 YEARS, here. Martina has been consistently as the top of the game over the past 10 years more than anyone else has. You've over-scrutinizing individual upsets. You can fallaciously downplay any player's achievements that way.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:20 PM
Serena obviously!!! No question!!

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:24 PM
What a sad case you got there. You are jumping all over the place. Do you even know what year it is now? :lol:

In 2000 Venus didn't lose in the 1st round in the French, she made the QF. Hingis didn't even play.

I do remember Venus and Jennifer winning two slams in 2001 and Hingis none and yes Venus torched Hingis in 2001.

When did JCap beat Serena in two slams QF in 2003?

Wow, you are spectacularly stupid.


:weirdo:

Your skill for effective argument is really embarrassingly awful. You can't just give examples of Venus beating Martina (especially since Martina has a winning H2H against her and destroyed her 6-1 6-1 in the 2001 AO semis). Venus lost in the first round of the French Open, just as Martina lost in the first round of Wimbledon (to the eventual semifinalist, mind you). You can't just give individual examples of matches. What do you make of Capriati beating Serena in two slam QF's in 2003, then? We're talking about the past 10 YEARS, here. Martina has been consistently as the top of the game over the past 10 years more than anyone else has.

égalité
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:27 PM
What a sad case you got there. You are jumping all over the place. Do you even know what year it is now? :lol:

In 2000 Venus didn't lose in the 1st round in the French, she made the QF. Hingis didn't even play.

I do remember Venus and Jennifer winning two slams in 2001 and Hingis none and yes Venus torched Hingis in 2001.

When did JCap beat Serena in two slams QF in 2003?

Wow, you are spectacularly stupid.

I never gave any years :rolls:

If you want a year, Venus lost in R1 of the French in 2001 to Barbara Schett.

What the hell are you talking about, anyway?! I'm talking about the past 10 years, which is what this thread is about! I remember Hingis winning 3 slams in 1997. And 1 in 1998. Oh, and 1 in 1999. And Venus never TORCHED Hingis in 2001. Hingis embarrassed her 6-1 6-1 in the AO semis.

Hingis DID play Roland Garros in 2000, by the way. She made the semis. Check your facts.

And sorry, that was a typo. Capriati beat her twice in 2004.

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:34 PM
Why don't we all check our facts and come back with a flawless post? :D

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:38 PM
Why don't we all check our facts and come back with a flawless post? :D

OK, Martina Hingis is the best of the past decade

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:38 PM
Sorry, meant 2002 about the FO. But seriously, what in the hell am I talking about? I could ask you the same thing. Wasn't you talking to say Hingis had a better year in 2000? So what does 2001 have to do with 2000?

I never gave any years :rolls:

If you want a year, Venus lost in R1 of the French in 2001 to Barbara Schett.

What the hell are you talking about, anyway?! I'm talking about the past 10 years, which is what this thread is about! I remember Hingis winning 3 slams in 1997. And 1 in 1998. Oh, and 1 in 1999. And Venus never TORCHED Hingis in 2001. Hingis embarrassed her 6-1 6-1 in the AO semis.

Hingis DID play Roland Garros in 2000, by the way. She made the semis. Check your facts.

And sorry, that was a typo. Capriati beat her twice in 2004.

OZTENNIS
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:38 PM
Anybody that said Clijsters, Mauresmo or Capriati, please explain...

:inlove:
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:42 PM
OK, Martina Hingis is the best of the past decade

You might wanna try again.

égalité
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:42 PM
Sorry, meant 2002 about the FO. But seriously, what in the hell am I talking about? I could ask you the same thing. Wasn't you talking to say Hingis had a better year in 2000? So what does 2001 have to do with 2000?

No, I wasn't trying to say Hingis had a better 2000, just that over the past decade, she's accomplished more than Venus. You may think otherwise and that's fine. They're two of the best players ever you can make cases for both.

Venus3000
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:44 PM
They voted for their favorite.

Anybody that said Clijsters, Mauresmo or Capriati, please explain...

Sefo
Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:44 PM
Look at the discrepancy between the Sisters:
Serena 126 votes.
Venus 5 votes.:bolt:

terjw
Mar 3rd, 2007, 11:55 PM
First of all - I don't regard any player in the last decade as great. To me it's not just about slams. It's about dominance over a long period of time and must include slams. I don't put Serena in the great category because her dominance only lasted one and a half years.

As far as best player of the last decade - during those precise 10 years. Well I just don't think like that. Those years are divided up as to who was best. Hingis the first 2 years, Serena utterly dominant 2002. Justine overall best the last few years - although no-one has really been the clear-cut best player in the world throughout a whole 12 months now since Serena. All the players have had little spells of being the best player - and to me saying a player is the best of the last 10 years implies that for the majority of that time - they were the undisputed best player playing.

So I just look at it as who has the best overall career record. And for me that has to be Serena although god knows I'm no fan of hers. As Chrissie Fan put it - slams aren't everything but they do count a lot. And Serena has too many of them not to say she has the best career record.

Venus3000
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:12 AM
Of course that's because most of those voters are fans of both Ree and Vee so they are being honest. And even though I'm sure many of those fans prefer Vee over Ree they can't honestly say Vee has been better than Ree, the stats just don't support that.

As far as Kim, Amelie, Lindsay, Jen, Henin and Hingis, no their career record doesn't support them over Serena either but obviously people are just voting for their favorite.

Look at the discrepancy between the Sisters:
Serena 126 votes.
Venus 5 votes.:bolt:

OZTENNIS
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:13 AM
martina's still the best lol

Volcana
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Of course Martina dominated over a 4 year period - the rankings reflect that, and she won 33 titles from 1997-2000, and held a winning record over Venus and Serena. And we are talking singles AND doubles AND mixed doubles in this thread, Hingis won the GRAND SLAM, for doubles in 1998, and, in fact won 5 Grand Slam doubles titles in a row, pretty neat huh?It's neat, but it doesn't show dominance in SINGLES. For better or worse, Hingis had ONE dominant year. 1997. When you claim she as dominant for four years, you're actually arguing she was the dominant player in 2000, a year when she didn't win a slam at all. Which makes as much sense as the rest of your arguements.

MrSerenaWilliams
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:29 AM
It's Serena HANDS DOWN

the real fight is for 2nd place

Reached 7 GS finals in 9 attempts
6 straight AO finals
Won 3 RG titles

OZTENNIS
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:47 AM
It's neat, but it doesn't show dominance in SINGLES. For better or worse, Hingis had ONE dominant year. 1997. When you claim she as dominant for four years, you're actually arguing she was the dominant player in 2000, a year when she didn't win a slam at all. Which makes as much sense as the rest of your arguements.

Hey i specifically said when i started this thread, the greatest SINGLES DOUBLES AND MIXED DOUBLES player of the past 10 years

Venus3000
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:50 AM
I agree it's Serena hands down. But who did that other stuff you are talking about?

It's Serena HANDS DOWN

the real fight is for 2nd place

Reached 7 GS finals in 9 attempts
6 straight AO finals
Won 3 RG titles

LeRoy.
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:53 AM
I agree it's Serena hands down. But who did that other stuff you are talking about?

1) Venus 2001-2003
2) Hingis 1997-2002
3) Henin 2003,2005,2006

terjw
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:06 AM
1) Venus 2001-2003
2) Hingis 1997-2002
3) Henin 2003,2005,2006

Kim beats Justine hands down in 2005
and Hingis in 2002? - Serena dominated.

LeRoy.
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Kim beats Justine hands down in 2005
and Hingis in 2002? - Serena dominated.

I was responding to these

1)Reached 7 GS finals in 9 attempts - Venus
2)6 straight AO finals - Hingis
3)Won 3 RG titles - Justine

OZTENNIS
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Kim beats Justine hands down in 2005
and Hingis in 2002? - Serena dominated.

no she didnt, justine flogged clijsters in fo final (60 64) and us final (75 61) was ye No.1 and won heaps in between

Venus3000
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:21 AM
That was '03.

no she didnt, justine flogged clijsters in fo final (60 64) and us final (75 61) was ye No.1 and won heaps in between

terjw
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:23 AM
no she didnt, justine flogged clijsters in fo final (60 64) and us final (75 61) was ye No.1 and won heaps in between

2005 you idiot. Oh my god you are a bigger fool than I thought. In 2005 Kim won the USO, won 9 titles, in their only match - Kim beat Justine in the Canadian Open final. Kim did not play Justine in FO. Look it up :rolleyes: Lindsay was year end #1, Kim was #2 but won a major and more tiltles than Lindsay.

driger
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:33 AM
forget the stats, i'll take justine henin as the best player over the last ten years, and today.

eck
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:34 AM
no she didnt, justine flogged clijsters in fo final (60 64) and us final (75 61) was ye No.1 and won heaps in between

In 05, both Kim and Justine had their time to shine. Justine FO leadup, Kim UO leadup.
So I guess it's fair to say it kinda belongs to both of them

driger
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:35 AM
no she didnt, justine flogged clijsters in fo final (60 64) and us final (75 61) was ye No.1 and won heaps in between

u tell em oz, love that avatar.

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:01 AM
where is Maria Sharapova in the list?

At the bottom.

Lulu.
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:04 AM
S.Williams

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:08 AM
serena may have 8 slams (:worship: ) but martina spent 209 weeks (or just over 4 years) as World No.1 - a lot longer than serena. martina has also won way more singles AND doubles titles than serena, and holds a swag of 'youngest ever' records :bounce:


She also has a losing record against Serena. And SO many of those weeks
at No 1 without winning a slam. Maintaining the position by playing
Marathon Tennis every week.

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:11 AM
hingis was also injured. she has plenty of wins over the williams. hingis is 6-7 with serena 11-10 with venus. being number 1 is equally important as slams. 209 weeks is remarkable. hingis will school serena next time they play.

She is 3-5 against Serena

FanDeJen
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:15 AM
Jen of course, who else?

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:18 AM
and who won the 3 times before that. this is 2007 not 2001(when hingis left the game because of foot injurys), and 25 pounds ago.

We know why she really left the game

driger
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:21 AM
She is 3-5 against Serena

6-7

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerheadtoheaddetail.asp?PlayerID=80301&Player1ID=230234

HINGIS THE BEST STATISCALLY, HENIN THE BEST PERIOD

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:22 AM
Serena
8 Grand Slam Singles Titles
4 Grand Slam Doubles Titles
2 Grand Slam Mix Doubles Titles
57 Weeks at #1
YEC 2001
27 Singles Titles


I think its 6 GS doubles titles.

driger
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:23 AM
We know why she really left the game

WE KNOW WHY SERENA LEFT THE GAME TOO.

JUSTINE HENIN :lol:

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:23 AM
6-7

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerheadtoheaddetail.asp?PlayerID=80301&Player1ID=230234

HINGIS THE BEST STATISCALLY, HENIN THE BEST PERIOD

My bad. Serena is 5-3 over Henin.

égalité
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:46 AM
We know why she really left the game

Because she had foot surgery :rolleyes:

miss_molik
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:57 AM
Its hard to say, cause Serena, Martina and Justine all have a few good years left in them. I voted Martina mainly cause of all her titles and weeks at number one. I'll say Justine will be the best of 2003-2011 (approx)

LucasArg
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:57 AM
1st Serena
2nd Venus
3rd Justine

RJWCapriati
Mar 4th, 2007, 05:48 AM
Capriati

starin
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:05 AM
for all the people who voted Hingis as the best player, what would Serena have to accomplish to be considered greater than hingis? Would she have to be no.1 as long as Hingis? (that aint never gonna happen) or how many more slams than hingis would she have to win to be considered greater? I.E. if Serena had 10 slams and hingis 5 slams would you still consider Hingis greater? If Serena won the French and had 2 career slams, would hingis still be greater?

I just don't see how anyone could consder Hingis as the more accomplished player between her and Serena? It just boggles my mind. I'm a fan of Serena so i'm biased. But i'm an even bigger fan of Venus' and I can def. concede that Hingis is more accomplished than Venus. That's just fact.

darrinbaker00
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:13 AM
for all the people who voted Hingis as the best player, what would Serena have to accomplish to be considered greater than hingis? Would she have to be no.1 as long as Hingis? (that aint never gonna happen)
Why not?

starin
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:25 AM
Why not?

I could never see her playing that long with that much consistency. The way she plays, I doubt she could be healthy for that long enough of time. So even if she was playing her best tennis there would be bound to be times when she is injured and with as few tournaments as she plays, she could easily miss a tournament or two and get bumped down.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:51 AM
for all the people who voted Hingis as the best player, what would Serena have to accomplish to be considered greater than hingis? Would she have to be no.1 as long as Hingis? (that aint never gonna happen)

I have to agree. Serena just isn't as passionate about the grind of the tour as Hingis is. Serena is passionate about winning tennis matches, but I don't believe she's passionate about the day to day of the tour life.

Kunal
Mar 4th, 2007, 07:29 AM
serena

maddogz48
Mar 4th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Serena is greater because she has a better record than Martina. :)

Martina's only has more weeks at number 1 than Serena and that in my opinion does not compare with the numerous Grand Slam titles that Serena has.

Mileen
Mar 4th, 2007, 07:54 AM
for all the people who voted Hingis as the best player, what would Serena have to accomplish to be considered greater than hingis? Would she have to be no.1 as long as Hingis? (that aint never gonna happen) or how many more slams than hingis would she have to win to be considered greater? I.E. if Serena had 10 slams and hingis 5 slams would you still consider Hingis greater? If Serena won the French and had 2 career slams, would hingis still be greater?



:worship: very well said!

josemanuel
Mar 4th, 2007, 08:00 AM
The greatest player involves a lot of things. It´s not just "better record" which is not that big. I love Martina but if we´re talking about the last decade Martina is the best, although she left 3 years the tour.
She has:
- More weeks at No 1 that any of the ones mentioned (and if u add the weeks at No 1 of Venus Serena and Henin i guess u don´t get 209)
- More GS doubles titles that any
- More Wta titles
- More Wta doubles titles

The only one that Martina doesn´t win is in GS singles titles where Serena has actually 3 more. And the fact that Serena made THE grand slam and won the 4 majors that Martina didn´t. For me not enough, but I consider Serena and Martina the best ones of the LAST decade, stop talking about Venus or Justine!!

Sexysova
Mar 4th, 2007, 08:53 AM
Serena!

bandabou
Mar 4th, 2007, 12:43 PM
Serena...yeah she lacks a bit in titles and weaks at no.1 ( although must say that at least of Martina's weak at no.1 were hollow..in that she wasn't the best player on the tour, she just played more than other top players). But you consider that all of Serena titles are tier II and better...and 8 of her 27 titles are majors. Wow..

rjd1111
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:35 PM
Because she had foot surgery :rolleyes:


She sued the shoe company, blaming them for her foot problems

She lost the lawsuit.

After the surgury her doctors said her feet were fine.

She quit anyway.

Maybe she should have seen a Head doctor to fix her real problem.

She couldn't deal with not having won a Slam in years. She held

on to the No1 rank by playing nearly every week ( this is probably what

injured her feet ) and was getting beat by the Big Babes.

stevos
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:50 PM
Wow, some of the comments :lol:

I'm sorry, but Serena is so easily the winner, it's not even questionable. Hingis might be kind of close, but I mean Serena has all the grand slams, 3 more than Hingis (or Justine), and is just an amazing player.

Other players on this list are great, but in comparison to Serena they don't have a hope in this competition.

Cat's Pajamas
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Serena without doubt.

Derek.
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Serena Williams.

People who say Hingis or Henin are on crack.

driger
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:00 PM
The greatest player involves a lot of things. It´s not just "better record" which is not that big. I love Martina but if we´re talking about the last decade Martina is the best, although she left 3 years the tour.
She has:
- More weeks at No 1 that any of the ones mentioned (and if u add the weeks at No 1 of Venus Serena and Henin i guess u don´t get 209)
- More GS doubles titles that any
- More Wta titles
- More Wta doubles titles

The only one that Martina doesn´t win is in GS singles titles where Serena has actually 3 more. And the fact that Serena made THE grand slam and won the 4 majors that Martina didn´t. For me not enough, but I consider Serena and Martina the best ones of the LAST decade, stop talking about Venus or Justine!!


haven't you heard? slams are all that matters? doesn't matter that hingis has 10 finals and 5 wins, and spent 3 years more at #1 than serena. :lol: :lol: :lol:

PatrickRyan
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:04 PM
haven't you heard? slams are all that matters? doesn't matter that hingis has 10 finals and 5 wins, and spent 3 years more at #1 than serena. :lol: :lol: :lol:

yeah and wasn't the reason Hingis left the game was that she was scared of the BIG BAD WILLIAM SISTERS! And she couldn't handle their power :eek: :sad:
And at least serena can win the majority of Grand Slam finals she's in :o

daffodil
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:07 PM
I think pro-Martina people are confusing "Greatest" with "Most winningest"!



Serena, easily.