PDA

View Full Version : Do You Consider J. Henin A Great In The Sport of Tennis?


Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:11 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42002000/jpg/_42002708_henin_usopen300.jpg
Justine Henin (BEL)
/Djoo-steen/ /En-ah/

25 years old
(1999-present)
Active Player-Singles
Right-Handed; One-Handed Backhand
All-Court Player
Coach: Carlos Rodriguez since age 14


Grand Slam Singles Titles: 6 (4 French Open, 1 USO, 1 AO) (13th All-Time)
Grand Slam Finalist: 10 times
Grand Slam Semifinalist: 15 times
Grand Slam Quarterfinalist: 16 times
Grand Slam Record: 116-23 (83%)

Year-End Championships: 2006
Olympic Titles: 2004
Weeks At #1: 79+ (7th in Open Era)
Year-End #1 Ranking: 2003 and 2006 (2007 likely--5th in Open Era)
Top Ten Year Ending: 2001-2007

Win-Loss: 388-90 (81%) (7th Open Era)
Hardcourt: 210-53 (80%)
Clay: 115-18 (86%)
Grass: 45-10 (82%)
Carpet: 14-8 (64%)

Tournaments Played: 123
Tournaments Won: 34 (11th in Open Era)

Tournament Finals: 51-16
Tournament Semis: 51-20
Tournament Quart: 68-16
Tier I Wins: 9
Tier II Wins: 14
Tiebreaks: 56-33

Hardcourt: 19
Clay: 12
Grass: 3
Indoor: 1

Henin Wins Olympic Gold (2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTz_V3xbjEA
No Strings: Henin (Part I of III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUWVt3qluNY&mode=related&search=
No Strings: Henin (Part II of III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AErElDWrh3E&mode=related&search=
No Strings: Henin (Part III of III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwjcWZawsqk

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42016000/gif/_42016734_henin_options_416.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42025000/gif/_42025432_henin_attack4.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42016000/gif/_42016738_henin_serving_416.gif

sheyna
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:13 AM
But of course.

I'm also going to print this off and frame it - this is even better than the stats you made in your other thread - it has the beautiful picture too :hearts:

LudwigDvorak
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:15 AM
Is a thread like this necessary? I'm not sure how anyone with six grand slams in the Open Era couldn't be a great in the long run. :confused:

sheyna
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:16 AM
Is a thread like this necessary? I'm not sure how anyone with six grand slams in the Open Era couldn't be a great in the long run. :confused:

:secret: See the other threads regarding JH - some posters are saying that she's good but not GREAT!! :rolleyes:

FrOzon
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:17 AM
No question. :)

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:19 AM
She's a second tier great, grouped with Venus and Hingis. The top tier includes King, Evert, Court, Graf, Navritolova, Serena, Seles, etc.

So yes, she's great, but not one of the greatest.

Shepster
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:22 AM
:secret: See the other threads regarding JH - some posters are saying that she's good but not GREAT!! :rolleyes:
I just thought they were saying her surname wasn't Williams :tape:

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:22 AM
So yes, she's great, but not one of the greatest.
I don't think I asked if J. Henin was the greatest, so you won't have to worry about that.;)

Pureracket
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:22 AM
She's a second tier great, grouped with Venus and Hingis. The top tier includes King, Evert, Court, Graf, Navritolova, Serena, Seles, etc.

So yes, she's great, but not one of the greatest.
I agree with this.

She's a good player, and she'll be dangerous for the next few years. I don't think we can pick and choose a player for 5 year increments, though.

Wayn77
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:23 AM
without a shadow of a doubt ....

One of the all-time greats.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:24 AM
I agree with this.

She's a good player, and she'll be dangerous for the next few years. I don't think we can pick and choose a player for 5 year increments, though.
The STATS listed above are for her career, not a five-year period, so you won't have to pick and choose anything. :)

Pureracket
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:27 AM
The STATS listed above are for her career, not a five-year period, so you won't have to pick and choose anything. :)
Well, looking @ her career stats, I definitely have to agree with darko. Thanks for the correction.;)

sheyna
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:42 AM
Forehand_Volley

I think I'm falling in love with you :hearts: :hearts:

Lovin' your work :worship: :worship:

Wannabeknowitall
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:43 AM
No. I think she's very good in the sport of tennis but I don't feel she's ever really had a time on the tour where she clearly dominated like Seles, Graf, Serena, Evert, Court, King, Navratilova.

Kworb
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:48 AM
Definitely in the top 10 of all time

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:55 AM
Definitely in the top 10 of all time

Court
Graf
Seles
Evert
Navritlova
King
Serena
Wills Moody
Evonne Goolagong


That makes nine. You could certainly argue that she's greater than both Venus and Hingis, but it's def. not a foregone conclusion.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:58 AM
Court
Graf
Seles
Evert
Navritlova
King
Serena
Wills Moody
Evonne Goolagong


That makes nine. You could certainly argue that she's greater than both Venus and Hingis, but it's def. not a foregone conclusion.

There seems to be a lot of emphasis put on grand slam singles victories, and even more emphasis on the Open Era vs Pre-Open Era. I don't believe tennis history began in 1968. Just my opinion. I believe every woman on both of these lists are All-Time Greats. You can't omit Henin from being an All-Time Great when only a handful of women have been able to accomplish what she has in tennis history. Consider the thousands of players throughout the century + who played the sport. Any player that is inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame is All-Time Great and Henin will be there.

In my opinion, Margaret Court's Calendar Year Slam and her #1 position on both of these lists makes her the Greatest Grand Slam competitor of All-Time. And if you place all emphasis on Grand Slam events, you have to agree that she is the Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time.



Top 15 Grand Slam Singles Winnners In Tennis History: (Active Players In Bold)

1. (24) Margaret Smith Court
2. (22) Steffi Graf
3. (19) Helen Wills Moody
4. (18) Chris Evert
4. (18) Martina Navratilova
6. (12) Billie Jean King
7. (9) Maureen Connolly
7. (9) Monica Seles
9. (8) Serena Williams
9. (8) Suzanne Lenglen
11. (7) Maria Bueno
11. (7) Evonne Goolagong Cawley
13. (6) Justine Henin
13. (6) Margaret Osborne duPont
13. (6) Venus Williams
15. (5) Althea Gibson
15. (5) Martina Hingis


Top 15 Grand Slam winners in the history of womens tennis: (Active Players In Bold--NONE)

1 Margaret Smith Court (AUS) 62
2 Martina Navrátilová (USA) 59
3 Billie Jean King (USA) 39
4 Margaret Osborne duPont (USA) 37
5 Louise Brough Clapp (USA) 35
5 Doris Hart (USA) 35
7 Helen Wills Moody (USA) 31
7 Suzanne Lenglen (FRA) 31
9 Elizabeth Ryan (USA) 30
10 Steffi Graf (GER) 23
11 Pam Shriver (USA) 22
12 Chris Evert (USA) 21
13 Natasha Zvereva (BLR) 20
14 Maria Bueno (BRA) 19
15 Shirley Fry Irvin (USA) 17

Kworb
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:00 AM
Court
Graf
Seles
Evert
Navritlova
King
Serena
Wills Moody
Evonne Goolagong


That makes nine. You could certainly argue that she's greater than both Venus and Hingis, but it's def. not a foregone conclusion.
I do mean the Open Era, so that eliminates Wills Moody, and Henin is greater than Evonne Goolagong who won her Australian Open titles back when not everyone played there.

Naranoc
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:01 AM
Classless = no great :wavey:

jdyshrky
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:20 AM
Well she is a Great. I liked when tennis magazine did a feature on the best shots in tennis ever. I think in the future the Henin backhand will go down as one of the greatest shots ever, she just has one of the most magnificant shots in tennis history in my opinion. I'd gave her that even if she had won no Slams. She ain't the nicest person all the time but no one is.

She doesn't have the same hype factor that the Williams brought to the game but she proved that in an era where people complained tennis was all about brash ball bashing, big girls muscling the ball without thought, she has shown that that game still has other dimensions and levels that we never thought could develop. Hingis' excuses about height etc were nullified by Justine. Her timing and footwork is almost unrivalled in today's game.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 02:12 AM
.. but she proved that in an era where people complained tennis was all about brash ball bashing, big girls muscling the ball without thought, she has shown that that game still has other dimensions and levels that we never thought could develop.
Well said. She has definitely carved out a nice piece of tennis history for herself.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 21st, 2007, 02:23 AM
A great? yes.

An "alltime" great? No.

CoolDude7
Aug 21st, 2007, 02:33 AM
She is not that far behind Venus. Granted Vee has the more complete career, winning the golden doubles, and two of the mixed slams. There was a thread on this, Justine was just outside the top 20. Vee was like 18, i think serena was like 9.

edit

07. 1919-1926 Suzanne Lenglen .......... 08 _ 08 _ 03
08. 1999-2007 Serena Williams .......... 08 _ 06 _ 02
09. 1951-1954 Maureen Connolly ......... 09 _ 02 _ 00
10. 1915-1926 Molla Bjurstedt Mallory .. 08 _ 02 _ 02
____(won US Champs at 42!)
10. 1990-1996 Monica Seles ............. 09 _ 00 _ 00

12. 1947-1955 Louise Brough ............ 06 _ 21 _ 08
13. 1946-1950 Margaret Osborne duPont .. 06 _ 21 _ 09
14. 1959-1966 Maria Bueno .............. 07 _ 11 _ 00
15. 1949-1955 Doris Hart ............... 06 _ 14 _ 10
16. 1971-1980 Evonne Goolagong ......... 07 _ 06 _ 01
17. 1937-1951 Nancye Wynne Bolton ...... 06 _ 10 _ 00
18. 2000-2007 Venus Williams ........... 06 _ 06 _ 02
19. 1903-1914 Dorothea Douglass-Chambers 07 _ 00 _ 00
20. 1997-1999 Martina Hingis ........... 05 _ 09 _ 00
21. 1936-1940 Alice Marble ............. 05 _ 06 _ 07
22. 1925-1930 Daphne Akhurst ........... 05 _ 05 _ 04
23. 1956-1958 Althea Gibson ............ 05 _ 05 _ 00

24. 2003-2007 Justine Henin ............ 06 _ 00 _ 00
24. 1886-1900 Blanche Bingley .......... 06 _ 00 _ 00
24. 1951-1957 Shirley Fry .............. 04 _ 12 _ 01

27. 1909-1919 Hazel Hotchkiss .......... 04 _ 07 _ 06
28. 1989-1998 A. Sanchez Vicario ....... 04 _ 06 _ 03

Hingis is 20, henn 24, serena 8, vee 18. THe Question is what do you considered great? top 25? top 20? top 10?

moby
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:39 AM
That list ranks by strange arbituary rules. I wouldn't rely on it when deciding what makes a great player.

Apoleb
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:44 AM
Well she is a Great. I liked when tennis magazine did a feature on the best shots in tennis ever. I think in the future the Henin backhand will go down as one of the greatest shots ever, she just has one of the most magnificant shots in tennis history in my opinion. I'd gave her that even if she had won no Slams. She ain't the nicest person all the time but no one is.

She doesn't have the same hype factor that the Williams brought to the game but she proved that in an era where people complained tennis was all about brash ball bashing, big girls muscling the ball without thought, she has shown that that game still has other dimensions and levels that we never thought could develop. Hingis' excuses about height etc were nullified by Justine. Her timing and footwork is almost unrivalled in today's game.

And you're even a Williams fan? :eek:

They are so rare to find these days. Great post.

Justine is definitely "a" great. Being for the moment the second best of her generation automatically puts her in that position.

There are still up to 5 years that could decide the best of this generation, and anything could happen. The race is still on.

Expat
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:09 AM
she is a tier 2 great along with venus
serena is a tier 1 great

Mightymirza
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:52 AM
Si!

Petersmiler
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:42 AM
Can you make this a public poll so we can see which fools said no?

Actually, I can probably guess most of them.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:50 AM
Henin Wins Olympic Gold (2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTz_V3xbjEA
No Strings: Henin (Part I of III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUWVt3qluNY&mode=related&search=
No Strings: Henin (Part II of III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AErElDWrh3E&mode=related&search=
No Strings: Henin (Part III of III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwjcWZawsqk

A Magicman
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:55 AM
I hate to admit it, but she is the best player ever. Maybe not the greatest, but definitely the best.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:00 AM
Can you make this a public poll so we can see which fools said no?

Actually, I can probably guess most of them.
Not at this point. I purposefully didn't make voting public so everyone could vote anonymously. Hoping it would keep down any animosity between fan bases.

As I suspected, a great majority of tennis fans agree that Justine is a Great in the Sport of Tennis. It negates the whole "Henin has to win Wimbledon to be great" issue.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:00 AM
Can you make this a public poll so we can see which fools said no?

Actually, I can probably guess most of them.

Can you give me the list via PM, please :angel: ? I won't tell anyone... :p

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:13 AM
Serena's only 1 off of that list ;)


But :o :lol: this thread is about JUSTINE :yeah:


:smash: What kind of question is that really? :scratch:
Well, the place where I obtained the information listed top 15 as well. I'll be sure to let them know of your concern so no one feels slighted in the future. ;)

MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:17 AM
Top 15 Grand Slam winners in the history of womens tennis: (Active Players In Bold--NONE)

1 Margaret Smith Court (AUS) 62
2 Martina Navrátilová (USA) 59
3 Billie Jean King (USA) 39
4 Margaret Osborne duPont (USA) 37
5 Louise Brough Clapp (USA) 35
5 Doris Hart (USA) 35
7 Helen Wills Moody (USA) 31
7 Suzanne Lenglen (FRA) 31
9 Elizabeth Ryan (USA) 30
10 Steffi Graf (GER) 23
11 Pam Shriver (USA) 22
12 Chris Evert (USA) 21
13 Natasha Zvereva (BLR) 20
14 Maria Bueno (BRA) 19
15 Shirley Fry Irvin (USA) 17

Serena's only 1 off of that list ;)


But :o :lol: this thread is about JUSTINE :yeah:


:smash: What kind of question is that really? :scratch:


How could someone with 10 major Finals 6 major titles, over 30 tour titles, 2x Y.E. #1, Olympic Gold Medal, NOT be considered a great.

Honestly, I'd actually make a push for calling her the most hardworking woman in tennis TBH. :shrug: She's not built like Venus, but she's just as mobile. She's not built like Serena, but she matches her pretty much shot for shot (except the serve). In an age where tennis is all about accentuating your natural gifts, Justine has taken her small frame, and with INCREDIBLE amounts of hard work, turned herself into one of the best players in the Open Era.

I'd hesitate in callling her an Open Era top 10, but 15 for SURE. The Wimbledon thing is a BIGGIE for me. Also, the fact that she hasn't played significant doubles is kind of thing too. I'd for SURE call her one of the top 5 clay courters of the Open Era for SURE though.

Debates can continue about the '03 US Open and '04 Aussie Open and the absence of the defending champ, and while I feel that the outcome may have been different if she were there, the fact remains that UNLIKE the other 127 players in the draw, she won 7 (main draw :p) matches and that's why she has the trophies at home.

She's OF COURSE a great. Not the greatest, not even of this era, but DEFINITELY the most hard working/dedicated/single-minded/no-frills. A great for sure.

Seriously anyone that votes no is a hater :lol:...well not a "hater" but I mean come on :lol:

Wannabe, I understand where you're coming from, but I mean, they're letting ANYONE in the HOF nowadays, at least she earned her spot.

Love her, like her, admire her, hate her, if you will, but you can't deny that she's put together one of the best careers in tennis.

I have my own personal opinions about her and what have you, but still, in terms of what goes on on the tennis court, with the court, the ball, and the racquet, she's pretty damned good. (And that's coming from a "Reetard" :o )

MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:19 AM
Well, the place where I obtained the information listed top 15 as well. I'll be sure to let them know of your concern so no one feels slighted in the future. ;)
No, no, that's not why I said it :lol:

I was just saying that she's not far off. :yeah: She'll be on that list before I graduate from college :yeah::lol:

all_slam_andre
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:23 AM
Great players in the open era:
Tier I - Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court
Tier II - Seles, Serena, King
Tier III - Goolagong, Henin, Venus, Hingis

Within each tier, the players have been mentioned in no particular order.
Henin is undoubtedly a great player. 6 grand slam titles is absolutely outstanding and earns her that distinction without a shadow of a doubt.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:27 AM
No, no, that's not why I said it :lol:

I was just saying that she's not far off. :yeah: She'll be on that list before I graduate from college :yeah::lol:
Totally agree. Serena is too good of a player not to move up.
FYI, I was just messin' with 'ya! I like to have fun sometimes!:cool:

ikemstar
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:43 AM
She has never been the dominant player of her era, at any single point. She is not with the Greats, period.

jujufreak
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:24 AM
No. I think she's very good in the sport of tennis but I don't feel she's ever really had a time on the tour where she clearly dominated like Seles, Graf, Serena, Evert, Court, King, Navratilova.

she was the dominant player in the first few months of 2004 till the disease caught her.

again, she was the dominant player when she came back in 2005, winning all of her clay court matches

she was the dominant player in 2006, but every tennis fan knows what happened in Australia en why she didn't have the best preparation for Flushing Meadow

Beny
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:28 AM
Is a thread like this necessary? I'm not sure how anyone with six grand slams in the Open Era couldn't be a great in the long run. :confused:

You're forgetting about the WS fans and one Myskina-fan :lol:

ikemstar
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:12 PM
She has not been a dominant player at any time - period. She has never had a Graf-like invincibility, or that aura. A great player? Unquestionably: brilliant, talented. A great? NO.

Matt01
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:14 PM
She has not been a dominant player at any time - period.

You are wrong - period. :p

Ceri
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:15 PM
Definitely. And she's not done yet either! :)

Ceri
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:16 PM
Serena's only 1 off of that list ;)


But :o :lol: this thread is about JUSTINE :yeah:


:smash: What kind of question is that really? :scratch:


How could someone with 10 major Finals 6 major titles, over 30 tour titles, 2x Y.E. #1, Olympic Gold Medal, NOT be considered a great.

Honestly, I'd actually make a push for calling her the most hardworking woman in tennis TBH. :shrug: She's not built like Venus, but she's just as mobile. She's not built like Serena, but she matches her pretty much shot for shot (except the serve). In an age where tennis is all about accentuating your natural gifts, Justine has taken her small frame, and with INCREDIBLE amounts of hard work, turned herself into one of the best players in the Open Era.

I'd hesitate in callling her an Open Era top 10, but 15 for SURE. The Wimbledon thing is a BIGGIE for me. Also, the fact that she hasn't played significant doubles is kind of thing too. I'd for SURE call her one of the top 5 clay courters of the Open Era for SURE though.

Debates can continue about the '03 US Open and '04 Aussie Open and the absence of the defending champ, and while I feel that the outcome may have been different if she were there, the fact remains that UNLIKE the other 127 players in the draw, she won 7 (main draw :p) matches and that's why she has the trophies at home.

She's OF COURSE a great. Not the greatest, not even of this era, but DEFINITELY the most hard working/dedicated/single-minded/no-frills. A great for sure.

Seriously anyone that votes no is a hater :lol:...well not a "hater" but I mean come on :lol:

Wannabe, I understand where you're coming from, but I mean, they're letting ANYONE in the HOF nowadays, at least she earned her spot.

Love her, like her, admire her, hate her, if you will, but you can't deny that she's put together one of the best careers in tennis.

I have my own personal opinions about her and what have you, but still, in terms of what goes on on the tennis court, with the court, the ball, and the racquet, she's pretty damned good. (And that's coming from a "Reetard" :o )

Nice post :)

Petersmiler
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:48 PM
She has not been a dominant player at any time - period. She has never had a Graf-like invincibility, or that aura. A great player? Unquestionably: brilliant, talented. A great? NO.

I don't think anyone has tried to compare her legacy to Grafs. In fact there are very few players who could even be mentioned in the same breath as Graf.

There are also less than 20 who could claim to be above Justine on the greatness scale. Maybe 25 at a puch if you really hate her so much you want to put her as low as possible without damaging the credibility of your argument.

Does being in the top 20 (25) players of all time not make her a great? If you do not think so, fair enough, but others, including myself, disagree. Period!

Kworb
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:49 PM
She has not been a dominant player at any time - period. She has never had a Graf-like invincibility, or that aura. A great player? Unquestionably: brilliant, talented. A great? NO.
Graf had no noteworthy opponents in 87-89. Her main rival was a 30+ year old Navratilova. Then Seles came along and destroyed her "aura". Henin has reached an extraordinary level, but in the days of suicide tennis fluke losses will be more frequent. Every decade has a few greats, and this decade Henin is one of them.

roxi
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:20 PM
Yeah, she is!!! Not THE greatest but great, and she's only 25!!!

AlwaysGraf
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:20 PM
if she never wins another tennis slam id still consider her a great-a player with a game like hers doesn't come around very often-honestly some of the backhands she hits just make you laugh with astonishment or stun you into silence-there are players who win slams but its like mehhh-so what-henin takes the whole slam number and fucks it out the window with the way she plays the game-she will win more however but she's up there with the best

Brαm
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:28 PM
Henin Wins Olympic Gold (2004) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTz_V3xbjEA
This video still gives me goosebumps!

What an amazing moment for Justine :worship:

One has to feel sorry for poor Myskina, though. Probably the most horrible moment in her (professional) life :sad:

Mina Vagante
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:31 PM
She's a second tier great, grouped with Venus and Hingis. The top tier includes King, Evert, Court, Graf, Navritolova, Serena, Seles, etc.

So yes, she's great, but not one of the greatest.

i agree

annalu
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:08 PM
Yes, without a single doubt!

thrust
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:22 PM
I agree that Justine is a tier II great player. I would not put Serena in the tier I group, unless she wins at least 2 more Slams. Ten should be the criteria for an all time great. Lets face it, in todays game I doubt anyone will win 15-20 Slams again. It seemed as though Serena might, but due to the style of game she and most others have today, there are just too many injuries. Hard courts are probably part of the problem along with poor tournament scheduling.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:26 PM
Anyone who doesn't consider 6-time GS champion (and multiple finalist at all Slams) a great player is :weirdo:

thrust
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:28 PM
Any player who ends the year at #1 would have to be considered somewhat dominant, if not totally dominant. Justine ended the year at #1 twice and probably will do so again this year. I think only Davenport has accomplished that in recent times. Recent times being the last ten years or so.

MrSerenaWilliams
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:32 PM
Davenport in 2001/2005? :unsure:

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:38 PM
Davenport in 2001/2005? :unsure:

Lindsay is a great player too. She proved it many times. And, imo, her 2005 year-end #1 was pretty deserved as she won 6 titles, reached 2 GS finals and defeated her rival for No.1 Clijsters at both Slam matches they played that year.

freeandlonely
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:40 PM
She is great.
If she does stiil have something to prove, she has time and good opportunity.

Slutiana
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:46 PM
Im sorry, but there can't be all this tier 1 - tier 2 great thing. Nowadays tennis is (dare i say) more competitve. Im sure if henin was to go into a time machine and go back 25 years, she (same with v and s) would have AT LEAST 20 GS Singles. No doubt. Theres only so much you can do with stats. You have to think about circumstances and thinking about circumstances. There will be no:
Tier 2 - Serena, ----, -----, -----
Tier 3 - Venus, henin, -----, -----

its just.

Greats of the game

___, ____, ___, Serena, Venus and henin.

There's no doubt she is a great. No doubt. The only thing is that i think that she won't have as big a legacy as the legends and so i can't call her a legend who in 25 years, people remember her in the way they remember Evert and Martina N.

There's no doubt in my mind that along with that when venus, serena and henin are on, they are the best players ever to touch a racket but thats natural progression. Of course they should be.

selyoink
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:13 PM
Yes she has 6 slam titles, a gold medal, been runner up twice at Wimbledon, and once at the US Open and Australian Open. She has been a dominant player on the tour the last few years and is almost a certainty to make QFs of every event she enters.

jujufreak
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:24 PM
already 24 people who don't have a clue or are too blinded by their hatred ...

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:28 PM
Im sorry, but there can't be all this tier 1 - tier 2 great thing. Nowadays tennis is (dare i say) more competitve. Im sure if henin was to go into a time machine and go back 25 years, she (same with v and s) would have AT LEAST 20 GS Singles. No doubt. Theres only so much you can do with stats. You have to think about circumstances and thinking about circumstances. There will be no:
Tier 2 - Serena, ----, -----, -----
Tier 3 - Venus, henin, -----, -----

its just.

Greats of the game

___, ____, ___, Serena, Venus and henin.

There's no doubt she is a great. No doubt. The only thing is that i think that she won't have as big a legacy as the legends and so i can't call her a legend who in 25 years, people remember her in the way they remember Evert and Martina N.

There's no doubt in my mind that along with that when venus, serena and henin are on, they are the best players ever to touch a racket but thats natural progression. Of course they should be.

I am thinking about circumstances.

When Steffi Graf was in her prime, she held all four GSs at once, plus the Olympic gold. She dominated the field When Serena was in her prime, she held all four GSs at once, was number one, etc. She dominated her field. The same can not be said of Henin.

Putting all three of those players in the same grouping serves no purpose.

Knizzle
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:32 PM
Yeah, she's been a great for awhile now.

Calypso
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:40 PM
Of course she is!

AlwaysGraf
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:42 PM
I am thinking about circumstances.

When Steffi Graf was in her prime, she held all four GSs at once, plus the Olympic gold. She dominated the field When Serena was in her prime, she held all four GSs at once, was number one, etc. She dominated her field. The same can not be said of Henin.

Putting all three of those players in the same grouping serves no purpose.

I'll agree with your point, if you agree with me in that Serena doesn't belong in the top tier of court,graf,evert,nav

shirley
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:48 PM
Of course she is. You can't deny what Justine has achieved in the game

chris whiteside
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:49 PM
There's no hard and fast answer. It depends on your definition of the word "great" in terms of tennis players.

If you just mean great player in general terms then she obviously is but "all time great" - personally I think she's a way to go yet but she could make it.

_Cell-chuk
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:50 PM
No. I think she's very good in the sport of tennis but I don't feel she's ever really had a time on the tour where she clearly dominated like Seles, Graf, Serena, Evert, Court, King, Navratilova.

Before the virus, Justine was totally dominating the tour. She was the holder of 3 grand slams (Aus, French and the US) as well as most of the Tier 1s. I don't remember the exact number of points but she had like close to 8000 points and noone was close to her including Clijsters who at the time was playing nearly every tournament. She was beating every top player regularly. If that is not dominating, I don't know what is.

If Justine had not had the virus I am pretty sure she would have gone onto win 5-6 consecutive slams and we simply wouldn't have the one time (or two time) Russian slam wonders right now.

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:51 PM
I'll agree with your point, if you agree with me in that Serena doesn't belong in the top tier of court,graf,evert,nav

If King is included in that group (which she usually is) I don't understand how Serena isn't. In fact, with only three more Open Era GSs, I don't understand wh yCourt should be included in that list, and not Serena.

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:52 PM
I'm not entirely comfortable saying 'Justine's a truly great player' but it's easier to argue for than it is to argue against.

Volcana
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:26 PM
Im sorry, but there can't be all this tier 1 - tier 2 great thing. Nowadays tennis is (dare i say) more competitve. Im sure if henin was to go into a time machine and go back 25 years, she (same with v and s) would have AT LEAST 20 GS Singles.That statement is completely ridiculous. Let's actually look at tennis 25 years ago. That brings us to 1982.

Chris Evert, only the greatest clay court player of all time, won six of her 18 GS singles titles during or after 1982, including three of her wins at Roland Garros. Could Henin beat Evert on clay with the equipment available in 1982? I very much doubt it. Equipment today has far bigger sweet spots. It's far more forgiving. We know that players from 25 years ago could be successful with today's equipment. Look at Navratilova. She won a slam in mixed when she was a month shy of being FIFTY years old. Sure she's the greatest female player of all time, but playing with equipment that turns her errors from 25 years ago into winners doesn't hurt.

Speaking of Navratilova, she won FIFTEEN of her GS singles titles during or after 1982. And of course, there's only so much time to win those 20 slams, since in 1988, there was this player name of Graf. Won the calendar slam. You might have heard of her.

Oh yeah, and all those players were as big or bigger than Henin, Navratilova in her prime was faster, Graf was as fast as Henin, and Evert was close.

The shortest period of time you can win 20 GS singles titles in is five years. So where are those 20 GS singles titles going to come from? Between 1982 and 1987, Henin would have 24 slams to work with. Of those 24, Navratilova won 15, Evert 6 and Graf 1. That's 22. So to get from the six she has currently to 20, Henin needs another 14. Which means the ONLY way she'd get them is by beating Evert, Navratilova or Graf. In their prime.

Forget it. It's easier to argue that if she went back 25 years, she wouldn't have the six she has, since four of them are Roland Garros, and Evert owned that tournament. (I wouldn't make that arguement myself, but it's easier to support.)

Volcana
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:42 PM
If King is included in that group (which she usually is) I don't understand how Serena isn't.King has more GS singles titles, GS doubles titles and GS mixed titles, and had to go through Court and Evert to get them, not to mention, Goolagong and Bueno. BJK had to beat the best of the best for her GS singles titles. Serena hasn't had to do that. Not her fault, but she hasn't.

If you put all those players, in their prime, with today's equipment, but with the training they had, I'd take Serena in a heartbeat. But if equipment from 1980 was used, I'd take Navratilova. The sweetspot on today's rackets is the same size as the entire racket was in 1980. The sweetspot on those rackets was about the size of two adult fists. Most of today's top twenty power baseliners wouldn't be top forty players with those rackets. Every other swing would produce an error.

Serena would have won some slams 25 years ago, but I doubt she's be up to eight now. The way she played in the 1999 US Open definitely would NOT have worked with a 1980-era racket.

The only player from today I'm sure would do better 25 years ago is Hingis.

chloe-l
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:49 PM
Serena's only 1 off of that list ;)


But :o :lol: this thread is about JUSTINE :yeah:


:smash: What kind of question is that really? :scratch:


How could someone with 10 major Finals 6 major titles, over 30 tour titles, 2x Y.E. #1, Olympic Gold Medal, NOT be considered a great.

Honestly, I'd actually make a push for calling her the most hardworking woman in tennis TBH. :shrug: She's not built like Venus, but she's just as mobile. She's not built like Serena, but she matches her pretty much shot for shot (except the serve). In an age where tennis is all about accentuating your natural gifts, Justine has taken her small frame, and with INCREDIBLE amounts of hard work, turned herself into one of the best players in the Open Era.

I'd hesitate in callling her an Open Era top 10, but 15 for SURE. The Wimbledon thing is a BIGGIE for me. Also, the fact that she hasn't played significant doubles is kind of thing too. I'd for SURE call her one of the top 5 clay courters of the Open Era for SURE though.

Debates can continue about the '03 US Open and '04 Aussie Open and the absence of the defending champ, and while I feel that the outcome may have been different if she were there, the fact remains that UNLIKE the other 127 players in the draw, she won 7 (main draw :p) matches and that's why she has the trophies at home.

She's OF COURSE a great. Not the greatest, not even of this era, but DEFINITELY the most hard working/dedicated/single-minded/no-frills. A great for sure.

Seriously anyone that votes no is a hater :lol:...well not a "hater" but I mean come on :lol:

Wannabe, I understand where you're coming from, but I mean, they're letting ANYONE in the HOF nowadays, at least she earned her spot.

Love her, like her, admire her, hate her, if you will, but you can't deny that she's put together one of the best careers in tennis.

I have my own personal opinions about her and what have you, but still, in terms of what goes on on the tennis court, with the court, the ball, and the racquet, she's pretty damned good. (And that's coming from a "Reetard" :o )

Great post.:cool:

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:00 PM
King has more GS singles titles, GS doubles titles and GS mixed titles, and had to go through Court and Evert to get them, not to mention, Goolagong and Bueno. BJK had to beat the best of the best for her GS singles titles. Serena hasn't had to do that. Not her fault, but she hasn't.

If you put all those players, in their prime, with today's equipment, but with the training they had, I'd take Serena in a heartbeat. But if equipment from 1980 was used, I'd take Navratilova. The sweetspot on today's rackets is the same size as the entire racket was in 1980. The sweetspot on those rackets was about the size of two adult fists. Most of today's top twenty power baseliners wouldn't be top forty players with those rackets. Every other swing would produce an error.

Serena would have won some slams 25 years ago, but I doubt she's be up to eight now. The way she played in the 1999 US Open definitely would NOT have worked with a 1980-era racket.

The only player from today I'm sure would do better 25 years ago is Hingis.

I get your point. But my opinion is, any hypothetical matchups should involve the best equipment available in the present. Like you said, modern raquets don't hurt players games- they improve it, and drastically. They just make others' games better.

I think of it like this: Batters in baseball from the dead ball era were particulalry efficient at hitting spitballs. modern players aren't. So if we were to set up a hypothetical matchup between two teams, an team fro mthe 1800's and a modern team, say, the 2007 Yankees, what rules would we use? No reasonable person would use the old set of rules which made spitballs legal. We got rid of spitballs because we felt the ywere bad for the game. And, for better or worse, tennis organizations made modern racquets legal, effectively making wooden racquets unusable in professional play.

We shouldn't impose technological limitations which we don't feel modern players should have to put up with, even in fictional matches.

Scotso
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:16 PM
I can't stand her, but she's certainly a great.

If Sabatini can be a "great" and a hall of famer, then it doesn't take much.

FERLKE
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:28 AM
I can't stand her, but she's certainly a great.

If Sabatini can be a "great" and a hall of famer, then it doesn't take much.

yeah, everybody can achieve this::o

1 Grand Slam
2 Grand Slam Finals
15 Grand Slam SF:eek:
2 MC
27 Titles

Es mejor quedarse callado en vez de decir cualquier cosa y quedar como un idiota.

Topspin2
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:34 AM
of course she is Great tennis player :worship:

treufreund
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:39 AM
I don't think I asked if J. Henin was the greatest, so you won't have to worry about that.;)

CLASSIC POST!!! Way to slash and burn!!!:worship::worship::worship:

treufreund
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:44 AM
Serena's only 1 off of that list ;)


But :o :lol: this thread is about JUSTINE :yeah:


:smash: What kind of question is that really? :scratch:


How could someone with 10 major Finals 6 major titles, over 30 tour titles, 2x Y.E. #1, Olympic Gold Medal, NOT be considered a great.

Honestly, I'd actually make a push for calling her the most hardworking woman in tennis TBH. :shrug: She's not built like Venus, but she's just as mobile. She's not built like Serena, but she matches her pretty much shot for shot (except the serve). In an age where tennis is all about accentuating your natural gifts, Justine has taken her small frame, and with INCREDIBLE amounts of hard work, turned herself into one of the best players in the Open Era.

I'd hesitate in callling her an Open Era top 10, but 15 for SURE. The Wimbledon thing is a BIGGIE for me. Also, the fact that she hasn't played significant doubles is kind of thing too. I'd for SURE call her one of the top 5 clay courters of the Open Era for SURE though.

Debates can continue about the '03 US Open and '04 Aussie Open and the absence of the defending champ, and while I feel that the outcome may have been different if she were there, the fact remains that UNLIKE the other 127 players in the draw, she won 7 (main draw :p) matches and that's why she has the trophies at home.

She's OF COURSE a great. Not the greatest, not even of this era, but DEFINITELY the most hard working/dedicated/single-minded/no-frills. A great for sure.

Seriously anyone that votes no is a hater :lol:...well not a "hater" but I mean come on :lol:

Wannabe, I understand where you're coming from, but I mean, they're letting ANYONE in the HOF nowadays, at least she earned her spot.

Love her, like her, admire her, hate her, if you will, but you can't deny that she's put together one of the best careers in tennis.

I have my own personal opinions about her and what have you, but still, in terms of what goes on on the tennis court, with the court, the ball, and the racquet, she's pretty damned good. (And that's coming from a "Reetard" :o )


The board needs more posters like you. Both Justine and Serena are unique players who make major contributions. ENJOY THEM WHILE THEY ARE STILL AROUND, FOLKS!!! (as opposed to starting threads yearning for the Seles/Capriati/Graf etc etc eras.)

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2007, 01:19 AM
I get your point. But my opinion is, any hypothetical matchups should involve the best equipment available in the present. Like you said, modern raquets don't hurt players games- they improve it, and drastically. They just make others' games better.

***

We shouldn't impose technological limitations which we don't feel modern players should have to put up with, even in fictional matches.They mask deficiencies in modern players games. Not exactly the same as making them better. More to the point, if I'm trying to determine who's better, I make the task as difficult as possible for both players. I know players from 25 years ago can excel with modern equipment. I'd like to see today's players prove they are just as versatile.

Anyway, my real point there was that there is good reason to consider BJK a greater player than Serena. To me, Serena is #6 on the Open Era list, behind BJK, and just slightly ahead of Seles.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 22nd, 2007, 02:06 AM
They mask deficiencies in modern players games. Not exactly the same as making them better. More to the point, if I'm trying to determine who's better, I make the task as difficult as possible for both players. I know players from 25 years ago can excel with modern equipment. I'd like to see today's players prove they are just as versatile.
And that's the reason IMO for the misguided opinion of some (younger?) posters that the current players would wipe the floor with the greats from the past no matter what. They assume that the current players would be able to do the same things with those older racquets that they are doing with modern equipment.

Donny
Aug 22nd, 2007, 02:51 AM
And that's the reason IMO for the misguided opinion of some (younger?) posters that the current players would wipe the floor with the greats from the past no matter what. They assume that the current players would be able to do the same things with those older racquets that they are doing with modern equipment.

Call me misguided, but when I compare player abilities across generations, I don't consider wooden raquets, only modern ones. How ever many years ago, tennis federations decided that wooden, natural gut raquets was something players (all players) shouldn't have to put up with. So if we were to have this hypothetical matchup, why should we burden the hypothetical players with raquets we don't even want to play with anymore?

We could argue that had modern players been forced to wear skirts, they'd have suffered fro mlack of mobility. Or had they been forced to wear the shoes of the 1800's, they'd suffer from more foot injuries, hindering their game. Which might be true. But I consider those handicaps, just like modern tennis officials do.

Mark Spruce
Aug 22nd, 2007, 03:22 AM
si

Volcana
Aug 22nd, 2007, 03:46 AM
Call me misguided, but when I compare player abilities across generations, I don't consider wooden raquets, only modern ones. How ever many years ago, tennis federations decided that wooden, natural gut raquets was something players (all players) shouldn't have to put up with. So if we were to have this hypothetical matchup, why should we burden the hypothetical players with raquets we don't even want to play with anymore?

We could argue that had modern players been forced to wear skirts, they'd have suffered fro mlack of mobility. Or had they been forced to wear the shoes of the 1800's, they'd suffer from more foot injuries, hindering their game. Which might be true. But I consider those handicaps, just like modern tennis officials do.a) I don't think you have any idea how modern tennis officials feel about that.
b) Tennis federations don't, and never have limited what rackets could be made of, or strings.
c) Just because you don't feel like considering something doesn't make it irrelevant.

I've played with wood rackets from the 60's, and every variation since. The difference is immense. Your arguement is exactly the same as saying that knockouts in mma using 4 ounce gloves is somehow the same as a knockout using 16 ounce gloves in boxing. It may not make a difference to you but it makes a difference to the puncher, and the person getting hit.

CJ07
Aug 22nd, 2007, 03:51 AM
And that's the reason IMO for the misguided opinion of some (younger?) posters that the current players would wipe the floor with the greats from the past no matter what. They assume that the current players would be able to do the same things with those older racquets that they are doing with modern equipment.

I definitely agree. I also think players miss the fact that it has to do more with talent than anything else. Chris Evert is more talented than say, Jelena Jankovic. If you gave Chrissie today's equipment, gave her a top level coach and a year to train and adjust her game she'd be in the top five right now :shrug:

Kworb
Aug 22nd, 2007, 10:03 AM
But nowadays there are also many more women playing professional tennis full time than back then. That automatically means that there was less competition in the old days and it was easier to dominate/rack up Slams if you happened to be very talented. The game was far less physical so players didn't get injured as often. In short, there really is no objective way to compare generations. Greats are those players who stand out when they were active, and Justine certainly stands out.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 22nd, 2007, 10:20 AM
But nowadays there are also many more women playing professional tennis full time than back then. That automatically means that there was less competition in the old days and it was easier to dominate/rack up Slams if you happened to be very talented. The game was far less physical so players didn't get injured as often. In short, there really is no objective way to compare generations. Greats are those players who stand out when they were active, and Justine certainly stands out.
Absolutely, although it's always a major achievement to be among the best in the world at anything, no matter when you're competing. But I agree that there's no objective way to compare generations. You qualify as a great player because of what you've done in your own era, not because of the subjective opinions from fans concerning how you would have done against earlier or later greats.

Thanx4nothin
Aug 22nd, 2007, 11:42 AM
She's a second tier great, grouped with Venus and Hingis. The top tier includes King, Evert, Court, Graf, Navritolova, Serena, Seles, etc.

So yes, she's great, but not one of the greatest.

;)