PDA

View Full Version : Seles' 92, Hingis' 97, Williams' 02, and Henin's 07: Which was best?


LudwigDvorak
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Some interesting notes:
- Hingis and Seles were the two to make the finals of all four, but...
- Williams and Henin weren't able to compete in Australia
- Henin didn't make the finals of all three she competed in unlike the others
- Williams had the least titles won
- Hingis' W/L ratio would be 93% if we exclude Fed Cup
- Seles only lost top 10 players
- Only Williams won three in a row
- Henin beat at least one top 10 player in every event she played aside from two (Paris Indoors and Zurich)

Seles’ 1992:

W - Melbourne, Essen, Indian Wells, Houston, Barcelona, Paris, Flushing Meadows, Tokyo, Oakland, New York
F - Rome, Wimbledon, Los Angeles, Montreal
QF - Miami

W/L: 70-5 (93%)
v. top 10: 20-4

Losses:
l. to #6 Capriati 62 76(5) Miami QF
l. to #4 Sabatini 75 64 Rome F
l. to #2 Graf 62 61 Wimbledon F
l. to #4 Navratilova 64 62 LA SF
l. to #5 Sanchez-Vicario 63 46 64 Montreal F

Slams: 3
Titles: 10

---

Hingis’ 1997:

W - Sydney, Melbourne, Tokyo, Paris [I], Miami, Daniel Island, Wimbledon, Stanford, San Diego, Flushing Meadows, Filderstadt, Philadelphia
F - Paris
SF - Los Angeles, Leipzig
QF - Zurich, New York

W/L: 75-5 (94%)
v. top 10: 17-4

Losses:
l. to #9 Majoli 64 62 Paris F
l. to #7 Davenport 62 46 64 LA SF
l. to #6 Coetzer 64 46 76(3)
l. to #19 Raymond 46 62 75 Zurich QF
l. to #7 Pierce 63 26 75 New York QF

Slams: 3
Titles: 12

---

Williams’ 2002:
W - Scottsdale, Miami, Rome, Paris, Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows, Tokyo, Leipzig
F - Berlin, New York
SF - Sydney
QF - Charleston, Los Angeles

W/L: 56-5 (92%)
v. top 10: 17-2

Losses:
l. to #13 Shaughnessy 54 ret. Sydney SF
l. to #30 Schnyder 26 64 75 Charleston QF
l. to #8 Henin 62 16 76(5) Berlin F
l. to #21 Rubin 62 46 75 LA QF
l. to #6 Clijsters 75 63 YEC F

Slams: 3
Titles: 8

--

Henin’s 2007:
W - Dubai, Doha, Warsaw, Paris, Eastbourne, Toronto, Flushing Meadows, Stuttgart, Zurich, Madrid
F - Miami
SF - Paris [I], Berlin, Wimbledon

Losses:
l. to #32 Safarova 64 76(5) Paris [I] SF
l. to #18 Williams 06 75 63 Miami F
l. to #4 Kuznetsova 64 57 64 Berlin SF
l. to #19 Bartoli 16 75 61 Wimbledon SF

W/L: 63-4 (94%)
v. top 10: 22-1

Slams: 2
Titles: 10

The Daviator
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:04 PM
Hingis, then Seles, then Serena, then Henin.

No amount of impressive stats makes 2 Slams better than 3.

guapogreg08
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:05 PM
[QUOTE=LudwigDvorak;12242485]Some interesting notes:
- Hingis and Seles were the two to make the finals of all four, but...
- Williams and Henin weren't able to compete in Australia
- Henin didn't make the finals of all three she competed in unlike the others
- Williams had the least titles won
- Hingis' W/L ratio would be 93% if we exclude Fed Cup
- Seles only lost top 10 players
- Only Williams won three in a row
- Henin beat at least one top 10 player in every event she played aside from one


not true. didnt beat any top 10 en route to losing to safarova in paris and didnt beat any top 10 in zurich

LudwigDvorak
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:05 PM
Of course, DISCUSS why each year was best in your opinion. I think all have valid arguments and reasons.

LudwigDvorak
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:06 PM
not true. didnt beat any top 10 en route to losing to safarova in paris and didnt beat any top 10 in zurich

Thank you. I noticed the Zurich one but I forgot again. Fixed.

HenryMag.
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:07 PM
If Hingis wouldn't ruin a bit her year after USO with 3 losses by 75 and 76 in the 3rd set, she would totally win this poll...

But I vote for her anyway.

Dodoboy.
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:08 PM
Venus 2nd summer of 2000?

ilovethewilliams
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:08 PM
I say put all of them togather to play each other and Williams would win.

Kart
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Hingis.

Much as I love Monica, Martina looked like she was toying with her opposition most of the year.

Serena and Justine's seasons are lame in comparison - no offence to their fans.

Bartosh
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:16 PM
Serena than Seles than Martina....

The Dawntreader
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:17 PM
Hingis's consistency in '97 was just amazing. Came the closet to anyone in recent years to replicating Steffi's Grand Slam. I mean 12 titles, including 3 majors is just amazing:worship:

Seles's '92 was impressive too, but i would only put it below Hingis due to her heavy defeat to Graf at Wimbledon. The only real emission of her year.

Serena's 2002 was amazing too. Won 14 consecutive sets in winning wimbledon and the Us Open. That's incredible:worship:

Wolverines08
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:18 PM
Serena then Monica

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:21 PM
This is a toughie but I picked Serena.

I'm penalizing Seles because she made a boo boo in 1991 which effected her shot in playing the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.
If she would have won that, I would have given her the best year out of the four.

I'm penalizing Justine for not playing the Australian.
I understand that divorce can be tough but players have played through death of family members, coaches, and done well, she made that choice, and so I penalize her for it.
To me it wasn't a champion quality she showed.
Seles playing after her father died in the 1998 French Open final, that is a champion qaulity.

Hingis.
There's nothing to penalize her for. She dominated.
She played four different players in slam finals, beat three, and got close to beating the fourth.
The problem is, I don't feel that they were her biggest rival of 1997.
Steffi Graf was and it happened to be her worse year on tour for a while.

Serena played her biggest rival and won.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Too tough to decide.

But I would prefer to have won the three biggest Slams (Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) during the same season so I pick Serena's year.
Besides, she's the only one not to lose a match at Grand Slams. Monica got trashed at Wimbledon final, Hingis was heavily beaten in Paris. Henin's 2007 doesn't belong the conversation as she won *only* 2 Slams.

petkoan
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:37 PM
Hingis.

Much as I love Monica, Martina looked like she was toying with her opposition most of the year.

Serena and Justine's seasons are lame in comparison - no offence to their fans.



Same here.:bounce:

Havok
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:42 PM
Even though Henin had an amazing 2007, she's be the lowest ranked of the four. Serena's 2002 was also amazing, but she only played a handful of events and didn't win as much as the others did over the course of their respective dominating years since she played far less than they did. Still an impressive year, though.

This poll comes down to Seles and Hingis. Tough to decide on this one. They both made the finals of all of the 4 slams, and lost one of them (the ones that have always gotten away from them throughout their entire careers). Seles had some more competition during her 1992 year than Hingis did in her 1997 year, though Hingis went undefeated from the start of the year all the way to the finals of Roland Garros. That's just sick in itself no matter what kind of competition she faced. Plus add the fact that Martina was alsoplaying full time doubles and participated in many events makes it all the more impressive. I'd have to give the nod to Hingis, but ever so slightly.

Havok
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:43 PM
:spit::spit: Can't believe Serena's currently leading this poll, and beating out Seles' 1992 season! Williams fans.

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Hingis.

Martina looked like she was toying with her opposition most of the year.


She only had the opportunity to toy with her opponents because Coetzer beat Graf in the first two slams out of the year.

Hingis just didn't have the shots to annoy Graf enough.

Dodoboy.
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:45 PM
the results now are quite accurate

Dodoboy.
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Part of dominance is where you lose.
Yes Serena did lose at some events but dominance isn't about WINNING everything because you are going to lose. Being dominant should entail holding your nerve at the biggest hurdles (GRAND SLAMS) and that is what Serena did.

LudwigDvorak
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:53 PM
Henin's 2007 doesn't belong the conversation as she won *only* 2 Slams.

:secret: One reason I made this thread. Although that's not entirely true, what I just said. Despite only two slams she was absolutely stellar in everything else. But it does appear to me that every five years it's not QUITE as impressive as the previous five year increment. What will happen in 2012?

I think Seles. She lost only to the best, literally, and beat all of them she lost to elsewhere in the year. So good.

Kworb
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Hingis 1997 > Seles 1992 > Serena 2002 > Henin 2007

Monica_Rules
Jan 6th, 2008, 04:56 PM
Its between Martina and Monica. The thing that might push it in Monicas favour is she had tougher competition that Martina did in 1997.

sarciness
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Hingis 1997 > Seles 1992 > Serena 2002 > Henin 2007

My sentiments exactly.

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:04 PM
:spit::spit: Can't believe Serena's currently leading this poll, and beating out Seles' 1992 season! Williams fans.

She did dominate that year but it was Jennifer Capriati who won the gold that year at the Olympics and people remember that as well.

roxi
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:04 PM
Hingis 1997 = Seles 1992 = Serena 2002 = Henin 2007!!!!!!!!
Great years for great tennis players!!!!!!!!

josved
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Hingis, forever! :bounce:

Princeza
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Hingis of course.

Kart
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:08 PM
She only had the opportunity to toy with her opponents because Coetzer beat Graf in the first two slams out of the year.

Hingis just didn't have the shots to annoy Graf enough.
I agree Steffi would have given Martina a run for her money.

However it's not Martina's fault that Coetzer defeated Steffi (convincingly) and it's not as if there was a lack of ability around - Monica, Novotna, ASV, Martinez ... all these players were not exactly average yet a 16 year Hingis made them all look so at times.

Ryan
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:24 PM
I think it's Hingis, followed by Monica, then Serena then finally Justine.


Like Kart said, Hingis couldn't help it that Graf was injured and she dominated IMO more in the 1997 season than any of the other seasons in question. Some might say there was a weaker field, but that's just speculation - Davenport, Seles, ASV, Martinez, Pierce, Coetzer and Majoli were all excellent players in 1997 and people dont seem to realize the game was different back then. Not everyone bashed the ball like the top 50 does now, and that doesn't mean that they were bad players by any means. Hingis simply crushed all her opposition; she only had TWO losses up until after the US Open, and won 10 titles! That's absolutely insane in any era, weak or not. I think she clearly lost steam at the end and it prevented her from having an even more dominant year.

Monica's is a close second, and I dont give it to her because she had a slightly worse w/l %, didn't have a win streak as high, won fewer titles and none of them really were "better" than Martina's.

Serena is a clear third because she didn't win nearly as many matches, didn't have as many titles and didn't beat more top 10 players than Monica or Martina. Just not as dominant.

Justine's year was pretty amazing, but the 2 slams does hold her back. If she won 3 I'd rank it up with Serena's and everything would be much closer.

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:30 PM
I agree Steffi would have given Martina a run for her money.

However it's not Martina's fault that Coetzer defeated Steffi (convincingly) and it's not as if there was a lack of ability around - Monica, Novotna, ASV, Martinez ... all these players were not exactly average yet a 16 year Hingis made them all look so at times.

Monica won one slam after her stabbing.
Novotna did not win a slam at the time.
Sanchez Vicario was a half-step slower.
Martinez was still trying to figure out how she beat the best grass court player ever.

These are the players that make Hingis the most dominant out of the four in these four specific years?

Ryan
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Monica won one slam after her stabbing.
Novotna did not win a slam at the time.
Sanchez Vicario was a half-step slower.
Martinez was still trying to figure out how she beat the best grass court player ever.

These are the players that make Hingis the most dominant out of the four in these four specific years?


Her competition IMO is secondary to the sheer amount of titles, matches, and tournaments won. You're comments about ASV and Martinez are jokes.


Serena beat:


an over-the-hill Hingis
sophomore slumps Kim and Justine
Capriati, who didn't win a single title after the AO 2002 for what, 2 years?
Davenport, who returned from a near year-long injury

Oh, and Venus. That's about it.

spiritedenergy
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:42 PM
Seles '92 by far.:hearts:

Kart
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:44 PM
These are the players that make Hingis the most dominant out of the four in these four specific years?
As opposed to whom exactly giving Serena the edge over her ?

Novotna and ASV were grand slam winners the following year as well I note.

danieln1
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:51 PM
Martina of course, because she beat a lot of quality players that year

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:51 PM
As opposed to whom exactly giving Serena the edge over her ?

Novotna and ASV were grand slam winners the following year as well I note.

So was Justine in the following year after Serena dominated.

Uranium
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Henin's doesn't compare
Other 3 won 3/4 slams

faboozadoo15
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Seles. She lost only to the best players, players who won majors in their careers. She also beat each of those players elsewhere during 1992.

Hingis's 1997 is very close.

Serena's 2002 and Justine's 2007 hardly belong in the conversation.

madamtennis
Jan 6th, 2008, 05:59 PM
voted for Serena.winning three slams in a row is amazing,but Seles and Hingis were also brilliant.Henin has simply nothing to do here, 3 slams-better than 2 slams and thats all about it.

Cp6uja
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Seles 1992... season 1992 is in the midle of Graf era, when Navratilova is still TOP5, Sabatini and Sanchez also close to theys peaks and Capriati played like real young upcoming star - but Seles dominate! She choke Wimbledon final and not played Olympics (because Serbian part of ex-Yugoslavia have UN sanctions that year)... but even with that i give her advantage.

bandabou
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:09 PM
Seles. She lost only to the best players, players who won majors in their careers. She also beat each of those players elsewhere during 1992.

Hingis's 1997 is very close.

Serena's 2002 and Justine's 2007 hardly belong in the conversation.

Wimbledon baby!

Sonf@
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:15 PM
Seles. She won three majors plus the YEC, something the others (except for Henin, who only managed to win two of the big ones) couldn't do. sometimes the year end championships is sooo underated when talking about statistics, but let's not forget that just the 16 better players of a particular year (at least until 2002) would make the cut. given the fact that you usually have to beat at most 4 top 16 players to win a grand slam (if you are seeded higher, of course) and that normally there'll be some surprising loses that lets you avoid some of them, I'd rank the yec as one of the most, if not the most competitive tournament on the wta calendar.

more competition also for seles: graf, navratilova, capriati, asv, conchita, novotna, sabatini, mj fernandez and many more. all of them but martina n. were still playing in 1997, and in most of cases they had already reached her peak (novotna could be a very interesting case). not to take any credit from hingis, but i bet that seles found it more difficult.

we could say that serena's competition was more difficult. players now are faster, hit deeper and stronger and blablabla. but so does/did she. and now it's power what counts the most. you can see top 20 players that hit the ball as if there was no other answer and still win matches with forty or even more unforced errors. you might like to check some of seles statistics of any of her 1992 matches.

so in order:

1-Seles (4 GS Finals plus the YEC)
2-Hingis (4 GS Finals)
3-Serena (3 GS Finals plus also a runner up spot at the YEC)
4-Henin (2 GS Finals plus the YEC)

Dave.
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:23 PM
The earlier 2 (Seles and Hingis) are much more impressive because they did it in a much higher quality era of tennis with loads of all-time greats there (Graf, Sanchez-Vicario etc.). The depth of quality on the tour lat year is laughable compared to 1992 or 1997.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:23 PM
Seles. She won three majors plus the YEC, something the others (except for Henin, who only managed to win two of the big ones) couldn't do. sometimes the year end championships is sooo underated when talking about statistics, but let's not forget that just the 16 better players of a particular year (at least until 2002) would make the cut. given the fact that you usually have to beat at most 4 top 16 players to win a grand slam (if you are seeded higher, of course) and that normally there'll be some surprising loses that lets you avoid some of them, I'd rank the yec as one of the most, if not the most competitive tournament on the wta calendar.

Wimbledon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEC
And Serena also won Miami by defeating three top-ranked players.

Sonf@
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:28 PM
Wimbledon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEC
And Serena also won Miami by defeating three top-ranked players.


AO, FO, WB final, USO, YEC >>>>>>>>>>>> FO, WB, USO and YEC final :p

starin
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:33 PM
seeing as winning Wimbledon and RG back to back is really tough and something very few player (male or female) have ever done I'd say that is pretty impressive. And she didn't lose a single a slam match and she beat the defending champion in all 3 slams. I'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:39 PM
The earlier 2 (Seles and Hingis) are much more impressive because they did it in a much higher quality era of tennis with loads of all-time greats there (Graf, Sanchez-Vicario etc.). The depth of quality on the tour lat year is laughable compared to 1992 or 1997.

:bs:

Lindsay was still slamless, so was Jana.
Martinez and Pierce both were just clawing their way back to the Top-10. Sanchez was balancing on the brink of falling out of Top-10. At the same time the likes of Habsudova, Schultz, and Spirea managed to reach Top-10. Coetzer broke into Top-3 without winning a Tier II or above title (she reached only one Tier II final that year).

En route to each of her GS titles Hingis beat only two Top-20 players (#10 Spirlea, #17 Fernandez at AO, #3 Novotna and #19 Appelmans at Wimbledon, #6 Davenport and #11 Sanchez at USO). She failed to win a GS where she had to face four Top-20 players in a row (RG).

-VSR-
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:42 PM
Serena. She won three slams in a row, including Wimbledon. She won Miami, made the YEC final, was #1 and didn't lose a set at Wimbledon/US Open.

morbidangle
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:46 PM
Seles 92.
Hingis' competition was pretty weak compared to the Seles era. Same for Serena. Justine is fourth coz 3 slams> 2.

Nicolás89
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:48 PM
what about Graf'95?. :)

Max565
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:50 PM
Martina... Weak era or not, 11 titles, including 3 Slams and she was only a match away from the Calendar Grand Slam. It was also amazing how she still managed to get to the finals of RG.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:51 PM
seeing as winning Wimbledon and RG back to back is really tough and something very few player (male or female) have ever done I'd say that is pretty impressive. And she didn't lose a single a slam match and she beat the defending champion in all 3 slams. I'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

Exactly. It's an accomplishment that is often being overlooked.
In the Open era only Court, Goolagong, Evert, Navartilova, Graf and Serena won both Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same season.

LudwigDvorak
Jan 6th, 2008, 06:56 PM
How many in the Open Era won three out of four in a season? Doesn't matter which three, and you can include 4/4 (Graf) too, but I know AO has an asterik by its side.

serenus_2k8
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Lol at comparing Henin!!! :lol::lol: :tape:

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:03 PM
How many in the Open Era won three out of four in a season? Doesn't matter which three, and you can include 4/4 (Graf) too, but I know AO has an asterik by its side.

Court, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Serena. BJK won three in 1967 as well as AO-1968.

hingis-seles
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:17 PM
Court, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Serena. BJK won three in 1967 as well as AO-1968.

Graf, Hingis, Seles and Serena all won AO the next year after winning 3 Slams in their dominant year. Infact, Graf did it in 1988-89 and 1993-94.

BJK would be put in pre-Open era along with Court though, since the Open era didn't begin till the 1968 US Open. Not that that means anything.

Lulu.
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Hands down Serena.

kiwifan
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:37 PM
Winning the French and Wimbledon in the same year is the ultimate combination, short of winning a Slam.

Seles, no Wimbledon

Henin, no Wimbledon

Hingis, no French

So the best...

...Serena Williams :banana:

égalité
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Hingis. Whoever said she was toying with her competiton that year is exactly right. No one has come close to that level of dominance since. And she missed two months with an injury. She would've almost certainly had the calendar year slam (and 15 or 16 titles) if she hadn't gotten injured before RG.

sweetpeas
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:53 PM
Serena!!!!!!!!!!!:wavey:

Serena played her biggest rival and won.
Serena's 2002 was amazing too. Won 14 consecutive sets in winning wimbledon and the Us Open. That's incredible

So true!!!!!!!!!!:wavey::bounce::worship::cool::D:):w avey:

Tennisstar86
Jan 6th, 2008, 07:58 PM
You know whats kinda ere and frightning about them is that after that year 92 year seles got stab... after Serena's 02 year she got injured and her sister was killed. after Hingis 97 year her career started to spiral downwards just when we thought she'd rule the tour for years.....Things dont bode well for henin in 08 and thereafter if the trend continues...

Ryan
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:02 PM
People saying Serena's season is the best cannot be serious. She didn't face better competition than Seles, won the LEAST amount of titles of the four, won the LEAST amount of matches, and Hingis and Monica both won 3 slams as well. The RG/Wim doubles is special, but not that much when compared to two other people winning 3 slams in the same year.

Tennisstar86
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:08 PM
People saying Serena's season is the best cannot be serious. She didn't face better competition than Seles, won the LEAST amount of titles of the four, won the LEAST amount of matches, and Hingis and Monica both won 3 slams as well. The RG/Wim doubles is special, but not that much when compared to two other people winning 3 slams in the same year.

true, I didnt vote cause i think they're all great years...except henins 07 as it shouldnt even be in the mix since she only won 2.....

But you can also think theres added pressure by serena to win the third since she had won two in a row, cause once Seles and hingis lost one there was no pressure to go on and win 4........not to mention how Serena steamrolled through the us open... black cat suit and all was just stunning....

LudwigDvorak
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:13 PM
true, I didnt vote cause i think they're all great years...except henins 07 as it shouldnt even be in the mix since she only won 2.....

But you can also think theres added pressure by serena to win the third since she had won two in a row, cause once Seles and hingis lost one there was no pressure to go on and win 4........not to mention how Serena steamrolled through the us open... black cat suit and all was just stunning....

I alluded to it earlier, but I added Henin's 07 because of all the attention it received. I've seen many tennis experts and WTAW experts ( :o ) say this was one of the best years any WTA player has had and that it rivaled Hingis' 1997.

Then I posted earlier about how Sharapova would probably never have Serena's 02 or Hingis' 97, and I noticed the small trend that's happening every five years, and Henin fit the ball for 2007.

Basically, it's just really surprising how much praise Henin's year got when it's not even one of the six or seven best seasons a WTA player has had. But I didn't make this thread to diss Henin's spectacular year, of course.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:23 PM
Winning 32 straight sets at majors is pretty :eek:

The FO/Wimbledon double is probably one of the hardest things to accomplish in tennis (apart from the Calendar Slam). Lots of players have come close, but only 1 was able to ACTUALLY complete it: Serena.

Also, in the big titles she won (Tier I + GS), she defeated the defending champ (except Rome - Dokic, who she beat later in the year at the YEC 7-6(1) 6-0):
Miami - d. V. Williams (SF) 6-2 6-2
RG - d. J. Capriati (SF) 3-6 7-6(2) 6-2
Wimb - d. V. Williams (F) 7-6(3) 6-3
USO - d. V. Williams (F) 6-4 6-3

Also. She started the year @ #10, and finished it @ #1, and she was undefeated against the players that were #1 that year.

Of her 5 losses that year:
1 was a retirement before the completion of the first set
2 were 7-5 in the third
1 was 7-6 in the third
1 was a straight set loss.

Of her 56 wins:
20% of them were wins over top 5 players (including each of the top 3 players in a row at Miami, and the top in a row at RG)
34% of them were wins where she lost no more than 4 games

She bageled 10 different players (including Former #1 Hingis)

Yeah, she played less events than each of the other 3 players, but :shrug: doesn't that prove domination more than the other players?

The answer is OBVIOUSLY Serena.


:secret: Well not OBVIOUSLY, but I mean Seles and Hingis both had great years, but in terms of the big ones, Serena edges them out. I understand that Justine had a career year this year, but I don't even think she belongs in the conversation.

~{X}~
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:34 PM
During the period from January 1991 to February 1993, Seles won 22 titles and reached 33 finals out of the 34 tournaments she played. She compiled a 159-12 win-loss record (92.9% winning percentage), including a 55-1 win-loss record in Grand Slam tournaments.

I'd say that would make her 1992 pretty impressive as it seems she reached the final in every tournament except one that she played within a 2 year period.

RJWCapriati
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Seles 92

thrust
Jan 6th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Seles, Williams, Hingis, Henin. Seles probably had the toughest competition, then Serena, then Justine. I just don^t think Hingis competition in 97 was as tough as the others.

sammy01
Jan 6th, 2008, 09:17 PM
it has to be seles by far! she had her amazing year in '92 wilst the greatest ever player in many peoples eyes was in her prime (graf). she won 3 slams YEC and was ru at wimbledon. she played 16 events and reached 16 finals. as the poster futher up pointed out she also had and amazing '91 and '93 untill she was stabbed.

Matt01
Jan 6th, 2008, 10:33 PM
For me, it's Seles.


Hands down Serena.


Totally love the "Hands down"-comment :lol: :rolleyes:

Expat
Jan 6th, 2008, 10:55 PM
seles serena henin hingis

jackbauer
Jan 6th, 2008, 11:23 PM
Hingis !!!!!!!!!!!! :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

Nicolás89
Jan 6th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Winning 32 straight sets at majors is pretty :eek:

It is.


The FO/Wimbledon double is probably one of the hardest things to accomplish in tennis (apart from the Calendar Slam). Lots of players have come close, but only 1 was able to ACTUALLY complete it: Serena.

No, for me it is just winning two slams.


Also, in the big titles she won (Tier I + GS), she defeated the defending champ (except Rome - Dokic, who she beat later in the year at the YEC 7-6(1) 6-0):
Miami - d. V. Williams (SF) 6-2 6-2
RG - d. J. Capriati (SF) 3-6 7-6(2) 6-2
Wimb - d. V. Williams (F) 7-6(3) 6-3
USO - d. V. Williams (F) 6-4 6-3

Thats not dominance since players defending their titles is pretty rare.


Also. She started the year @ #10, and finished it @ #1, and she was undefeated against the players that were #1 that year.

She started #6.


Of her 5 losses that year:
1 was a retirement before the completion of the first set
2 were 7-5 in the third
1 was 7-6 in the third
1 was a straight set loss.

2 of her losses were against players outside the top 20.
Seles loses were all agaisnt top 10 players, same for Hingis except her defeat against Raymond (top 19)


Of her 56 wins:
20% of them were wins over top 5 players (including each of the top 3 players in a row at Miami, and the top in a row at RG)
34% of them were wins where she lost no more than 4 games

Serena defeated a top 10, 16 times.
Seles 19.
and Hingis 17 times.
Of course, Seles and Hingis couln't defeat any number one player since they were the top one all year.
In 2002 were 3 differents top 1's at different times of the year.


She bageled 10 different players (including Former #1 Hingis)

Seles bageled 20 different players.


Yeah, she played less events than each of the other 3 players, but :shrug: doesn't that prove domination more than the other players?

Not if you have the same amount of loses than the the other two. For ex. Graf only had 2 defeats on 1995 and played less tournaments than Serena on 2002, thats domination.


The answer is OBVIOUSLY Serena.

I don't think is that clear.

Lucemferre
Jan 6th, 2008, 11:59 PM
Serena is leading the poll :o So many clueless kids :rolleyes:

kiwifan
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Originally Posted by mrserenawilliams http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=12244032#post12244032)
The FO/Wimbledon double is probably one of the hardest things to accomplish in tennis (apart from the Calendar Slam). Lots of players have come close, but only 1 was able to ACTUALLY complete it: Serena.


Margaret Smith-Court, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf and Serena Williams...

Those who claim it isn't a big deal don't know women's tennis. ;)

faboozadoo15
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:26 AM
Wimbledon baby!

Meghan Shaughnessy and Chanda Fucking Rubin, baby!

faboozadoo15
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Exactly. It's an accomplishment that is often being overlooked.
In the Open era only Court, Goolagong, Evert, Navartilova, Graf and Serena won both Wimbledon and Roland Garros in the same season.

That's not exactly a short list. Check to see how many women have won RG and the US Open in the same season. Or women who have won AO and RG in the same seasn. They'd all be short lists. Winning any two majors in the same year is somewhat rary and have only been done so many times.

Brooks.
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:36 AM
Meghan Shaughnessy and Chanda Fucking Rubin, baby!

the shaughnessy match was a ret. and the injury caused her to miss the AO so you can't really use that against Serena

I will never understand how Rubin beat her that year...especially b/c it was between Wimbledon and the US which were her two most dominant slams in her career

fluke i guess...similar to Justine's loss at Wimbledon...at least Serena didn't have a fluke loss in a slam though!

faboozadoo15
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:42 AM
So what, Serena also lost to Schnyder, Henin and Clijsters before any of them won a major.

Seles lost her only matches to hall- of- famers.

Brooks.
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:44 AM
Hingis. Whoever said she was toying with her competiton that year is exactly right. No one has come close to that level of dominance since. And she missed two months with an injury. She would've almost certainly had the calendar year slam (and 15 or 16 titles) if she hadn't gotten injured before RG.

the fact that a 16 year old Hingis could "toy" with her competition in 1997 says more about the lack of depth than it does about Hingis' level of play

sorry but that's the truth..and you'll notice that she never had a year even close to 1997 for the rest of her career..not even close

Nicolás89
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:45 AM
Margaret Smith-Court, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf and Serena Williams...

Those who claim it isn't a big deal don't know women's tennis. ;)

It is a big deal but it isn't a determinative factor when comparing other players year/career.
It is what it is, two slams or two consecutive slams if you want.

Brooks.
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:46 AM
So what, Serena also lost to Schnyder, Henin and Clijsters before any of them won a major.

Seles lost her only matches to hall- of- famers.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here anyways..b/c Seles lost to top 10 players she had a better year

seems like a weak argument to me :yawn:

Tennisstar86
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:50 AM
the shaughnessy match was a ret. and the injury caused her to miss the AO so you can't really use that against Serena

I will never understand how Rubin beat her that year...especially b/c it was between Wimbledon and the US which were her two most dominant slams in her career

fluke i guess...similar to Justine's loss at Wimbledon...at least Serena didn't have a fluke loss in a slam though!

Maybe because Rubin was a good solid player who had a career riddled with injury? and Serena while she was a dominant force on the tour really only managed to have 1 good year on tour and sparactic results and is viewed as the end all be all whereas other plaers have held their best for longer periods...

Seles: 91-93
Hingis: 97-00
Venus: 00-03
Henin: 06-?

And of course Graf....
And those are just the recent players. Yes Serena had a great year however, theres other players consistantly made finals and semifinals in slams during this time period which is why a lost to Rubin by Serena really isnt that shocking at all....

ceiling_fan
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:09 AM
hey, i just noticed that its every 5 years!

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:12 AM
That's not exactly a short list. Check to see how many women have won RG and the US Open in the same season. Or women who have won AO and RG in the same seasn. They'd all be short lists. Winning any two majors in the same year is somewhat rary and have only been done so many times.

Wimbledon.
That's what separates great season from great season.
Monica was destroyed by her main rival in Wimbledon final. Serena defeated her main rival in Wimbledon final as well as in two other GS finals.

Tennisstar86
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:14 AM
hey, i just noticed that its every 5 years!

yeah, i noted that and each time the follow-up year was a great decline from the previous and since henin has he lowest zone to fall from 08 doesnt look to great for her following the trend....

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:23 AM
Monica is the real GOAT

She has my vote

Adamatp
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:43 AM
Seles - Hingis - Williams (although # 2 and 3 spots could go either way with me) - Henin. I am quite old and remember all these years clearly and I am basing it on the aura of invincibility that these players had during their peak year. Simply put, you would watch Monica play in '92 and wonder how she would ever lose....she was astonishing at her best.

Also, nice to see that most posters have been fairly objective in their opinions. I am a HUGE Henin fan, but agree that her 2007 does not belong in his discussion.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:50 AM
Too tough to decide.

But I would prefer to have won the three biggest Slams (Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) during the same season so I pick Serena's year.
Besides, she's the only one not to lose a match at Grand Slams. Monica got trashed at Wimbledon final, Hingis was heavily beaten in Paris. Henin's 2007 doesn't belong the conversation as she won *only* 2 Slams.

agreed :)

G1Player2
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:56 AM
the shaughnessy match was a ret. and the injury caused her to miss the AO so you can't really use that against Serena

I will never understand how Rubin beat her that year...especially b/c it was between Wimbledon and the US which were her two most dominant slams in her career

fluke i guess...similar to Justine's loss at Wimbledon...at least Serena didn't have a fluke loss in a slam though!

Well, Serena choked it away a little. She was up 4-1 in the final set. But, you have to remember, it wasn't really a fluke, because Rubin went on to win the event betaing Lindsay Davenport in the final, and later, at the US Open that year, she almost beat Venus in the 4th round. Chanda Rubin had a great second half to the year.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jan 7th, 2008, 02:23 AM
All 4 achievements are pale in comparison to a German's incredible season in 1988...

serenaforever
Jan 7th, 2008, 02:41 AM
I don't think you can pick just one.

All were fantastic seasons; you could make an argument for all of them. All were great in their own ways. all the players dominated during their respective seasons.

iWill
Jan 7th, 2008, 03:04 AM
People saying Serena's season is the best cannot be serious. She didn't face better competition than Seles, won the LEAST amount of titles of the four, won the LEAST amount of matches, and Hingis and Monica both won 3 slams as well. The RG/Wim doubles is special, but not that much when compared to two other people winning 3 slams in the same year.

She faced Venus who was the second best player on tour easily at the time. IMO her three straight was the most impressive because if Serena hadn't been playing as well as she was Venus would have won all those slams and there is no doubt about that. So for her to triumph three times in a row in 02 over her main and best rival makes it more impressive to me at least.

She also won Wimbledon and the USO without dropping a set pretty damn impressive. Its a shame she isn't a tourney whore cuz she could have probably added a few more titles that year.

AcesHigh
Jan 7th, 2008, 03:41 AM
Very tough. The French Open-Wimbledon double I think is overrated on the women's side because they play the same game on both clay and grass pretty much these days although it is a hard change.

I think Serena had the hardest competition in the slams. Seles had to face Graf of course, but she only faced her twice and beat her at RG but then got blown away at Wimbledon. She had to face Navratilova, but I'm not sure, maybe someone can tell me, I think that was one of Nav's last years?

Anyway, I think Seles had the best year closely followed by Serena. Hingis belongs in teh conversation but her competition was not really close. Henin obviously is only here becasue of the 5 year pattern IMO and her year needs to be compared to Venus's and others.

Tennisstar86
Jan 7th, 2008, 04:04 AM
She faced Venus who was the second best player on tour easily at the time. IMO her three straight was the most impressive because if Serena hadn't been playing as well as she was Venus would have won all those slams and there is no doubt about that. So for her to triumph three times in a row in 02 over her main and best rival makes it more impressive to me at least.

She also won Wimbledon and the USO without dropping a set pretty damn impressive. Its a shame she isn't a tourney whore cuz she could have probably added a few more titles that year.

If anything that just proves how underrated Venus is IMO...not so much gives Serena the "edge" as you beat whoevers in the draw and the best two of the tourny make the final or at least the semi.... so beating Venus doesnt make her 02 great as it was clear Venus also suffered some mental issues in 02 when facing her....

LDVTennis
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:54 PM
Monica was destroyed by her main rival in Wimbledon final. Serena defeated her main rival in Wimbledon final as well as in two other GS finals.

:D

bandabou
Jan 7th, 2008, 02:56 PM
Meghan Shaughnessy and Chanda Fucking Rubin, baby!

At wimbledon??

hingis-seles
Jan 7th, 2008, 04:45 PM
Okay, let's start with process of elimination (POE).

* Henin won 2 Slams as opposed to the other three, so she's automatically #4.

* Serena only reached 3 GS singles finals as opposed to Martina and Monica (who also won 3 but reached the final of all 4 in addition). Serena's a clear #3.

That leaves Hingis and Seles to battle it out for top honors. Seles won the YEC in addition and had to beat the likes of Navratilova, peak Graf, Capriati, Sanchez-Vicario and Sabatini. Hingis won the most titles and was only 16 and just made everyone else look pedestrian. Hingis had to deal with Novotna, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport, Pierce, and Venus Williams (and don't give me crap about her being too inexperienced - the woman reached a GS final, for crying out loud!).

It's a toss up between Seles and Hingis, but their years are a level above Serena and Justine's since neither one of those girls reached all 4 GS finals.

Anyone even considering Serena is clearly biased or deluded. Wimbledon and RG in the same year is special? The women play the same game across different surfaces. On the men's side it's a bigi deal...the women's, not so much.

Also, the last time someone won RG and Wimbledon in the same season before Serena was Steffi (in 95 and 96). The last time a player won AO and RG in the same season before Jennifer in '01 was Monica (in 91 and 92). We could make short lists for any 2 Slams to make them seem special.

And for the brigade that's crying that Hingis' competition was too weak, do we have the same complaint for Steffi's competition in 93-95 when Monica was out? Also, what would we then make of Serena's competition? Venus and Jennifer. Who else? Kim and Justine were still works in progress. Amelie Mauresmo was only just beginning to come into her own. Oh yeah, 2002 was the year of great depth, when Daniela Hantuchova reached multiple GS quarterfinals, and was ranked in the Top 5. Wow. Now, that's depth! :lol:

tojja
Jan 7th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Hingis :lol:

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 7th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Okay, let's start with process of elimination (POE).

* Henin won 2 Slams as opposed to the other three, so she's automatically #4.

* Serena only reached 3 GS singles finals as opposed to Martina and Monica (who also won 3 but reached the final of all 4 in addition). Serena's a clear #3.

That leaves Hingis and Seles to battle it out for top honors. Seles won the YEC in addition and had to beat the likes of Navratilova, peak Graf, Capriati, Sanchez-Vicario and Sabatini. Hingis won the most titles and was only 16 and just made everyone else look pedestrian. Hingis had to deal with Novotna, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport, Pierce, and Venus Williams (and don't give me crap about her being too inexperienced - the woman reached a GS final, for crying out loud!).

It's a toss up between Seles and Hingis, but their years are a level above Serena and Justine's since neither one of those girls reached all 4 GS finals.

Anyone even considering Serena is clearly biased or deluded. Wimbledon and RG in the same year is special? The women play the same game across different surfaces. On the men's side it's a bigi deal...the women's, not so much.

Also, the last time someone won RG and Wimbledon in the same season before Serena was Steffi (in 95 and 96). The last time a player won AO and RG in the same season before Jennifer in '01 was Monica (in 91 and 92). We could make short lists for any 2 Slams to make them seem special.

And for the brigade that's crying that Hingis' competition was too weak, do we have the same complaint for Steffi's competition in 93-95 when Monica was out? Also, what would we then make of Serena's competition? Venus and Jennifer. Who else? Kim and Justine were still works in progress. Amelie Mauresmo was only just beginning to come into her own. Oh yeah, 2002 was the year of great depth, when Daniela Hantuchova reached multiple GS quarterfinals, and was ranked in the Top 5. Wow. Now, that's depth! :lol:

Serena could not reach four slam finals as she did miss AO because of unjury. It's not like she bombed out of AO in the early rounds.
And Serena dethroned defending champions at three other Slams.
And Wimbledon is the Slam to win, like it or not.
And the triplet RG+WB+USO easily beats any other slams triplet.

And finally, Hantuchova was not ranked in Top-5 in 2002.

serenus_2k8
Jan 7th, 2008, 05:27 PM
If anything that just proves how underrated Venus is IMO...not so much gives Serena the "edge" as you beat whoevers in the draw and the best two of the tourny make the final or at least the semi.... so beating Venus doesnt make her 02 great as it was clear Venus also suffered some mental issues in 02 when facing her....

Your post confused me...can you just clarify what you mean?


Anyone even considering Serena is clearly biased or deluded. Wimbledon and RG in the same year is special? The women play the same game across different surfaces. On the men's side it's a bigi deal...the women's, not so much.

Says the person called hingis-seles who believes hingis and seles are the clear 1 and 2? :tape:

Ryan
Jan 7th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Yeah, people saying that Serena's season is #1 because she beat her biggest rival in Venus is plain stupid. Aside from Venus there were no other top players playing well, no amazingly deep competition pool that people seem to think existed. You can say Hingis didn't defeat a plethora of top 10 players to win her slams, which is true, but they weren't players like Szavay or Peer, both of whom are top 20 now. Hingis beat Pierce and Fernandez in the Finals and SF's, which isn't bad if you ask me. When someone beat Serena while she was ranked out of the top 10 it was still a big win, and Pierce's inconsistency is legendary. Not to mention that EVERY player Hingis beat to win the AO that year was top 50 - in fact, Hingis beat:

Raymond, Schett, Spirlea, Mary Joe, Pierce, Kournikova, ASV, Seles, Kournikova again, Novotna, ASV again, Davenport, and Venus in the Slams during 1997.

Serena beat:

Pierce, Capriati, Venus, Rubin, Hantuchova, Venus, Mauresmo, Bedanova, Hantuchova again, Davenport and Venus for the third time in 2002 slams.

In fact, Serena and Hingis both beat 5 top 10 players in the slams the played. Hingis had 9 wins over the top 20, Serena had 8. Serena had 14 wins over the top 50, Hingis had 20. No, Hingis didn't beat a #1 player, but thats because she was #1 nearly the entire year.

And even when you look back to 1992, Seles' competition outside of Graf was really not much deeper than in 1997. She beat ASV, Fernandez, Tauziat, Navratilova, Sabatini and Capriati in her slams that year. ASV only had 1 slam at that time, Navratilova was on the decline, and since when were pre-drugs Capriati, one slam wonder Sabatini and Fernandez any better than the top 10 players of today, or of 1997? When you look at the stats, the supposed "weak era" of 1997 propagated by Graf fans is really fiction.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 7th, 2008, 06:00 PM
Yeah, people saying that Serena's season is #1 because she beat her biggest rival in Venus is plain stupid. Aside from Venus there were no other top players playing well, no amazingly deep competition pool that people seem to think existed. You can say Hingis didn't defeat a plethora of top 10 players to win her slams, which is true, but they weren't players like Szavay or Peer, both of whom are top 20 now. Hingis beat Pierce and Fernandez in the Finals and SF's, which isn't bad if you ask me. When someone beat Serena while she was ranked out of the top 10 it was still a big win, and Pierce's inconsistency is legendary. Not to mention that EVERY player Hingis beat to win the AO that year was top 50 - in fact, Hingis beat:

Raymond, Schett, Spirlea, Mary Joe, Pierce, Kournikova, ASV, Seles, Kournikova again, Novotna, ASV again, Davenport, and Venus in the Slams during 1997.

Serena beat:

Pierce, Capriati, Venus, Rubin, Hantuchova, Venus, Mauresmo, Bedanova, Hantuchova again, Davenport and Venus for the third time in 2002 slams.

In fact, Serena and Hingis both beat 5 top 10 players in the slams the played. Hingis had 9 wins over the top 20, Serena had 8. Serena had 14 wins over the top 50, Hingis had 20. No, Hingis didn't beat a #1 player, but thats because she was #1 nearly the entire year.

And even when you look back to 1992, Seles' competition outside of Graf was really not much deeper than in 1997. She beat ASV, Fernandez, Tauziat, Navratilova, Sabatini and Capriati in her slams that year. ASV only had 1 slam at that time, Navratilova was on the decline, and since when were pre-drugs Capriati, one slam wonder Sabatini and Fernandez any better than the top 10 players of today, or of 1997? When you look at the stats, the supposed "weak era" of 1997 propagated by Graf fans is really fiction.

Raymond, Schett, Spirlea, Kournikova, MJF-97??? :spit: :haha:
You cannot be serious.
Davenport was slamless, Novotna was slamless, Venus was #66 at the USO so she had achieved nothing before. And you have the nerve to imply that Sanchez and Sabatini had won 'only' one slam, Navratilova was on decline in 1992 and so on?

As for Hingis v Serena, yes Serena defeated 5 top-tenners in winning her 3 slams. But Hingis defeated 3 top-10 players to win her 3 slams :shrug:

AcesHigh
Jan 7th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Raymond, Schett, Spirlea, Kournikova, MJF-97??? :spit: :haha:
You cannot be serious.
Davenport was slamless, Novotna was slamless, Venus was #66 at the USO so she had achieved nothing before. And you have the nerve to imply that Sanchez and Sabatini had won 'only' one slam, Navratilova was on decline in 1992 and so on?

As for Hingis v Serena, yes Serena defeated 5 top-tenners in winning her 3 slams. But Hingis defeated 3 top-10 players to win her 3 slams :shrug:

:worship:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 7th, 2008, 06:16 PM
Raymond, Schett, Spirlea, Kournikova, MJF-97??? :spit: :haha:
You cannot be serious.
Davenport was slamless, Novotna was slamless, Venus was #66 at the USO so she had achieved nothing before. And you have the nerve to imply that Sanchez and Sabatini had won 'only' one slam, Navratilova was on decline in 1992 and so on?

As for Hingis v Serena, yes Serena defeated 5 top-tenners in winning her 3 slams. But Hingis defeated 3 top-10 players to win her 3 slams :shrug:

hmm i tend to agree with your logic since you aren't exactly serena's biggest fan :)

hingis-seles
Jan 7th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Serena could not reach four slam finals as she did miss AO because of unjury. It's not like she bombed out of AO in the early rounds.
And Serena dethroned defending champions at three other Slams.
And Wimbledon is the Slam to win, like it or not.
And the triplet RG+WB+USO easily beats any other slams triplet.

And finally, Hantuchova was not ranked in Top-5 in 2002.

Just because Serena wasn't physically fit to compete in all 4 Slams, is no reason to penalize those players (Hingis and Seles), who were. It's as simple as that: Serena didn't reach all 4 Slam finals. Whether she competed in all 4 is irrelevant. We are after all, comparing 2002 seasons, and Serena's inability to be healthy for all 4 Slams reflects poorly on her more than anything else. If we're making excuses for Serena's shortcomings, why don't we start making excuses for the others as well, such as Henin's divorce or Seles' grunting drama at Wimbledon or Hingis' horse injury which forced her to miss 2 months?

What's the big deal about dethroning the defending champion at the Slams? Seles successfully defended all 3 Slams she won in '91, during her '92 season. There's more pressure defending Slams than winning them the first time around. Also, in Hingis' case, the defending champion skipped the AO, lost early at RG and skipped Wimbledon and US Open. Hingis remained undefeated against the '96 Slam champs during her 1997 season.

Wimbledon is the Slam to win? RG/Wim/US is the triplet to beat? According to whom? Can you back those statements up? Any credible sources. Some prefer RG, some prefer Wim, some prefer AO and some prefer US. Serena herself has said that she preferred winning the US Open and Venus was the one who wanted to win Wimbledon. It depends on personal preferrence.

Hantuchova was Top 5 in early 2003, then. My mistake. But, the fact remains, she was a perennial GS quarterfinalist and Top 8 player. That, along with a crippled Hingis and Davenport on the sidelines, is conveniently overlooked when discussing Serena's "great" competition. IIRC, even Anna Smashnova qualified for the YEC in 2002. :help:

hingis-seles
Jan 7th, 2008, 10:03 PM
Raymond, Schett, Spirlea, Kournikova, MJF-97??? :spit: :haha:
You cannot be serious.
Davenport was slamless, Novotna was slamless, Venus was #66 at the USO so she had achieved nothing before. And you have the nerve to imply that Sanchez and Sabatini had won 'only' one slam, Navratilova was on decline in 1992 and so on?

As for Hingis v Serena, yes Serena defeated 5 top-tenners in winning her 3 slams. But Hingis defeated 3 top-10 players to win her 3 slams :shrug:

The Raymond and Schett you speak of are the same women who bounced Venus out of GS events, albeit later on in their careers. Schett pulled off the upset smack in the middle of Venus' peak. And then you have the nerve to state Venus, alone, as "great competition".

Davenport was a year away from a GS singles title and the #1 ranking. Moreover, she had already scored a win over Hingis in LA in the lead up to the US Open. Novotna was a year away from nearly securing the #1 ranking and less than a year away from a Wimbledon title. Novotna also won the YEC in 97 and had spent time with Davenport as #2 in 1997.

If Davenport, Novotna, and MJF were "weak" competition for Hingis, how is it that they were considered better competition for Steffi? What great competition was Steffi defeating in 94-96? The competition couldn't have suddenly become weak only for 1997, then miraculously picked up again in 1998. Or is that honestly what you're trying to say?

Helen Lawson
Jan 7th, 2008, 10:19 PM
I voted for Martina, I remember, the girl just won so easily and so often in 1997! In retrospect, I guess it would be Monica, all four major finals, wins 3, wins YEC. Serena though makes the clay to grass transition successfully, which at least commentators say all the time is so hard (and so rarely accomplished).

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 7th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Wimbledon is the Slam to win? RG/Wim/US is the triplet to beat? According to whom?
according to any person who knows a thing or two about tennis history.

The Raymond and Schett you speak of are the same women who bounced Venus out of GS events, albeit later on in their careers. Schett pulled off the upset smack in the middle of Venus' peak. And then you have the nerve to state Venus, alone, as "great competition".
What great competition was Steffi defeating in 94-96? The competition couldn't have suddenly become weak only for 1997, then miraculously picked up again in 1998. Or is that honestly what you're trying to say?

Where and when did I describe competition Serena had to overcome as a great one? Quote plese! All I said Serena defeated her main rival in three GS finals in 2002 which was 100% correct I believe.
Another task for you: where and when did I mention what kind of oppponents Graf met in 1994-96? All I said Graf defeated Seles in Wimbledon final in 1992 which was 100% correct as well. I've never compared Monica-92, Martina-97 and Serena-02 to Graf-94-96.

And of course a Raymond's win over Venus in 2004 has so MUCH to do with discussing Hingis' 1997 season... :tape: :rolleyes: :lol:

switz
Jan 7th, 2008, 10:54 PM
yes you certainly have to take into account who they were playing

Seles played against all time greats and beat most (ie Graf)
Hingis - somehow beating Pierce, a choking Novotna and a very raw Venus Williams and losing to Majoli doesn't seem so impressive
Serena - I think the level she played at that year was the highest tennis has ever seen. Doesn't make her year the most impressive necessarily but remember she did win 4 straight slams
Henin - an amazing year but again beating Ivanovic and Kuznetsova and losing to Bartoli takes something away for me. She can only beat what's put in front of her but Serena and Venus weren't exactly consistent this year. Still deserved number 1 no doubt though.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 7th, 2008, 10:58 PM
I just think that if "it's the same game" on grass and clay, why is Serena the last person to do it since Graf?

pepsi
Jan 7th, 2008, 11:10 PM
Hingis 97

Winning 3 slams trumps winning only 2 slams. Winning Wimbledon trumps not winning Wimbledon. And reaching the final of the one you didn't win is as close as you get to the Grand Slam.

Tennisstar86
Jan 7th, 2008, 11:11 PM
Your post confused me...can you just clarify what you mean?



Says the person called hingis-seles who believes hingis and seles are the clear 1 and 2? :tape:

When i say Venus is underrated i mean in the since that if serena had not been there Venus would have 11 grand slam titles right now instead of 6, whereas because she only has 6 many people try and argue that Hingis has had a better career with her other titles etc....AND Serena is soooo much better than Venus; however, you take away those 5 finals and Serena's total goes waaay down...

Not to mention the fact that whereas Serena beat her biggest rival, Venus clearly underachieved in those finals save for the AO 03 and the Wimbledon 03 (which she almost won while injured)

I dont know to me Serena beating Venus in 02 really wasnt that big a deal because it wasnt like Venus played well in any of those matches.. (her biggest "rival" or not...even though id go as far as to say CApriati was a bigger "rival" than Venus...

Kart
Jan 7th, 2008, 11:21 PM
Is it worth pointing out that the original post was asking about each player's whole season, not just their record in the slams ?

Whoever pointed out that Monica won the YEC as well - thereby putting up a top notch performance from the beginning of the season to the end - has me reconsidering what I posted before.

LDVTennis
Jan 8th, 2008, 12:37 AM
according to any person who knows a thing or two about tennis history.




:lick:

hwanmig
Jan 8th, 2008, 01:34 AM
It's really between Monica and Martina. I pick Martina coz she practically was a pre-teen at that time but still trashed her opposition. Not surprised to see Serena leading:tape:.

And those who keep saying RG-Wimby are the hardest slams to both win in a year, your right. But your also the same people who keep bashing RG because Henin wins it all the time and it's on clay. Get Real!

DemWilliamsGulls
Jan 8th, 2008, 02:16 AM
Venus and Serena made tennis interesting with their power game, fashion and for the simple fact that they were minority siblings dominating the sport in singles AND doubles at #1 and #2 in the world....Gotta love it....they are not finished yet though...granted everyone will have their time to shine (Sharapova, Mauresmo and now Henin) but when my girls turn it back up....WATCH OUT WTA lol

thiskidhasit
Jan 8th, 2008, 02:20 AM
I also think you guys are forgetting - MARTINA WAS FREAKING 16 YEARS OLD! Are you kidding me? We'll probably never see someone be THAT dominant at such a young age ever on the tour again. It was incredible.

sammy01
Jan 8th, 2008, 02:31 AM
i think the rg-wimbledon being hard to achieve is a fallacy. its hard to win back to back slams period. serena hasn't done it since she won her 4 straight, henin who has won 7 slams has only ever won back to back slams once. davenport didn't. in the last 17 slams (4 1/4 years) no one has won back to back slams.

Tennisstar86
Jan 8th, 2008, 05:47 PM
I also think you guys are forgetting - MARTINA WAS FREAKING 16 YEARS OLD! Are you kidding me? We'll probably never see someone be THAT dominant at such a young age ever on the tour again. It was incredible.

This is a 5 year pattern... MArtina won her first 2 majors at 16 and then the third at 17....

Seles won her first major at 16 and then won 3 more the following year at 17 and then 3 more the following year at 18...... Martina's "domination at 16" points more to how weak the tour was then considering she ONLY held on while she was 16 really....

Dominating at 16 wasnt that big a deal... Seles had already done it....

Nicolás89
Jan 8th, 2008, 06:08 PM
This is a 5 year pattern... MArtina won her first 2 majors at 16 and then the third at 17....

Seles won her first major at 16 and then won 3 more the following year at 17 and then 3 more the following year at 18...... Martina's "domination at 16" points more to how weak the tour was then considering she ONLY held on while she was 16 really....

Dominating at 16 wasnt that big a deal... Seles had already done it....

You are kind of right, but you all have to remember, we are disscusing the domination itself, NOT the competition Hingis, Seles or Williams had on their dominant years.

sammy01
Jan 8th, 2008, 06:32 PM
You are kind of right, but you all have to remember, we are disscusing the domination itself, NOT the competition Hingis, Seles or Williams had on their dominant years.

yes but surely domination is more impressive if your dominating the best of all time.

i have no idea why anyone would vote anyone other than seles on this. her '92 season was amazing as was her '91 and what she played of '93. if you want domination seles reached 10 straight slam finals that she played from '91 to '96, how many more that would have been had she not been stabbed who knows. of them 10 she won 8.

Nicolás89
Jan 8th, 2008, 06:33 PM
Point aside, whoever is claiming how rare is to win RG and Wimbledon on a season year, have to know that is not the rarest combination of all, if not it's winning AO and RG on a season year, only Court (2 times) Graf (2) Capriati (1) AND Seles (2) have achieved this goal. The French-Wimbledon double had have been done a lot more, Court (once) Evonne Goolagong (1) BJK (1) Evert (1) Navratilova (2) Graf (4) Williams (1). Logically, the AO-RG double is the hardest to win.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 8th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Point aside, whoever is claiming how rare is to win RG and Wimbledon on a season year, have to know that is not the rarest combination of all, if not it's winning AO and RG on a season year, only Court (2 times) Graf (2) Capriati (1) AND Seles (2) have achieved this goal. The French-Wimbledon double had have been done a lot more, Court (once) Evonne Goolagong (1) BJK (1) Evert (1) Navratilova (2) Graf (4) Williams (1). Logically, the AO-RG double is the hardest to win.

It's because A LOT of top-players hardly bothered to show up at AO :ras:

Ryan
Jan 8th, 2008, 08:58 PM
It's because A LOT of top-players hardly bothered to show up at AO :ras:


Looking at the RG winners during the "weak" AO era, most of them played and did well at the AO so there's no reason they couldn't have completed the double. The RG draws were also especially weak during the WTT era, so if the top players were there more often the RG-Wimbledon double could have been completed more as well.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 8th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Looking at the RG winners during the "weak" AO era, most of them played and did well at the AO so there's no reason they couldn't have completed the double. The RG draws were also especially weak during the WTT era, so if the top players were there more often the RG-Wimbledon double could have been completed more as well.

Spare me your bullshit, Hingis-obsessed maniac...

King 1972 - W RG, DNP AO
Evert 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983 - W RG, DNP AO
Jausovec 1977 - W RG, DNP AO
Ruzici 1978 - W RG, DNP AO
1986 - AO not held
Graf 1987, 1995, 1996 - W RG, DNP AO
Sanchez 1989 - W RG, DNP AO
Seles 1990 - W RG, DNP AO
Serena 2002 - W RG, DNP AO
Henin 2005, 2007 - W RG, DNP AO
15 Roland Garros winners didn't play AO the same season.

At the same time the only RG champion who skipped Wimbledon in the Open era was Monica Seles in 1991.

sammy01
Jan 8th, 2008, 09:27 PM
Spare me your bullshit, Hingis-obsessed maniac...

King 1972 - W RG, DNP AO
Evert 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983 - W RG, DNP AO
Jausovec 1977 - W RG, DNP AO
Ruzici 1978 - W RG, DNP AO
1986 - AO not held
Graf 1987, 1995, 1996 - W RG, DNP AO
Sanchez 1989 - W RG, DNP AO
Seles 1990 - W RG, DNP AO
Serena 2002 - W RG, DNP AO
Henin 2005, 2007 - W RG, DNP AO
15 Roland Garros winners didn't play AO the same season.

At the same time the only RG champion who skipped Wimbledon in the Open era was Monica Seles in 1991.

dont you think the last 5 on your list is because of injury not because they dont value the oz open? also theres 4/5 months after the oz open to get over an injury untill rg, theres only 1 month between rg and wimbledon so generaly if your fit for one your fit for the other, i bet there are many players in history that have missed both wimbledon and rg.

AcesHigh
Jan 8th, 2008, 09:40 PM
RG-Wimbledon is the hardest double in tennis. Anyone who cant see that doesnt know the sport. You don't even need stats..it's simple logic.

906forehandlo
Jan 8th, 2008, 09:52 PM
My personal opinion on this comparison is Seles' year in 1992 was greater, although I voted for Serena in 2002. I believe that both of those years in particular were two of the more iconic years in tennis. Seles was nearly unstoppable in 1992, winning three slams while Serena was amazing in 2002 with all of her victories. To be quite frank, Henin won 5 tier II events with little to no head opposition. Kuznetsova is good, if a little overrated, but on hard courts she doesnt have it against the bigger players. Jankovic fell apart in her clay matches with Henin and Alona Bondarenko still has alot to learn and simply wasnt ready in Warsaw, the majority of these being Tier II events. Graf is amazing and I idolize her, but at the end of the day, one question must be answered: What years in tennis are most memberable to us? For me it was Serena Williams and her 56-5 record, 3 slam titles including her Wimbledon doubles title and not to mention the Catsuit that I-and most of the members of this thread- remember the most.

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 8th, 2008, 09:57 PM
Spare me your bullshit, Hingis-obsessed maniac...

King 1972 - W RG, DNP AO
Evert 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983 - W RG, DNP AO
Jausovec 1977 - W RG, DNP AO
Ruzici 1978 - W RG, DNP AO
1986 - AO not held
Graf 1987, 1995, 1996 - W RG, DNP AO
Sanchez 1989 - W RG, DNP AO
Seles 1990 - W RG, DNP AO
Serena 2002 - W RG, DNP AO
Henin 2005, 2007 - W RG, DNP AO
15 Roland Garros winners didn't play AO the same season.

At the same time the only RG champion who skipped Wimbledon in the Open era was Monica Seles in 1991.

Not to mention in 1977-1985 Australian Open was the last GS of the season so players could not win AO+RG in a row... And in 1977-1980 as well as in 1983 RG winners finished their GS season after USO.

hingis-seles
Jan 8th, 2008, 10:29 PM
according to any person who knows a thing or two about tennis history.

Yes, because your stating it makes it true. Just as I thought. Trying to voice a personal opinion through inane statements.

Point aside, whoever is claiming how rare is to win RG and Wimbledon on a season year, have to know that is not the rarest combination of all, if not it's winning AO and RG on a season year, only Court (2 times) Graf (2) Capriati (1) AND Seles (2) have achieved this goal. The French-Wimbledon double had have been done a lot more, Court (once) Evonne Goolagong (1) BJK (1) Evert (1) Navratilova (2) Graf (4) Williams (1). Logically, the AO-RG double is the hardest to win.

Thank you. As I had mentioned earlier, I thought as much that AO-RG was a harder combo to win than RG-Wim.

Where and when did I describe competition Serena had to overcome as a great one? Quote plese! All I said Serena defeated her main rival in three GS finals in 2002 which was 100% correct I believe.
Another task for you: where and when did I mention what kind of oppponents Graf met in 1994-96? All I said Graf defeated Seles in Wimbledon final in 1992 which was 100% correct as well. I've never compared Monica-92, Martina-97 and Serena-02 to Graf-94-96.

And of course a Raymond's win over Venus in 2004 has so MUCH to do with discussing Hingis' 1997 season... :tape: :rolleyes: :lol:


All these points were in relation the the discussion of competition, not the season itself. You claimed that Hingis had weak competition in her era, and therefore, Serena's season was the most dominant. When I asked for consistency across your logic in defining the strength and depth of competition, you're trying to act confused. If you believe Hingis' competition in 1997 is so weak, then surely those same players that Graf faced and two of whom who went on to beat Venus in Slams were just as weak. Right?

Oh, and in case you forget you discussed their competition, here's the links to a couple of your posts:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=12251237&postcount=103

http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=12251027&postcount=100

crazillo
Jan 8th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Hingis 1997 IMO.

Tennisstar86
Jan 8th, 2008, 11:06 PM
Yes, because your stating it makes it true. Just as I thought. Trying to voice a personal opinion through inane statements.



Thank you. As I had mentioned earlier, I thought as much that AO-RG was a harder combo to win than RG-Wim.



The RG-WIM double is "harder" to win because of the fact that RG and Wimbledon pretty much take place in a span of a month, so rather than having to put together 2 weeks of great tennis you have to do it for 4-5 weeks straight.... anyone with half a brain knows that.... where as in between AO and RG you had months to find your game... lose it...and find it again...

AnnaK_4ever
Jan 9th, 2008, 12:55 AM
Yes, because your stating it makes it true. Just as I thought. Trying to voice a personal opinion through inane statements.



Thank you. As I had mentioned earlier, I thought as much that AO-RG was a harder combo to win than RG-Wim.




All these points were in relation the the discussion of competition, not the season itself. You claimed that Hingis had weak competition in her era, and therefore, Serena's season was the most dominant. When I asked for consistency across your logic in defining the strength and depth of competition, you're trying to act confused. If you believe Hingis' competition in 1997 is so weak, then surely those same players that Graf faced and two of whom who went on to beat Venus in Slams were just as weak. Right?

Oh, and in case you forget you discussed their competition, here's the links to a couple of your posts:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=12251237&postcount=103

http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=12251027&postcount=100

LIE!
I NEVER said Hingis' competition was the weakest and this makes Serena's season the most impressive. Again, find the quote, you lier! Replying to the post that stated Hingis' opponents were probably the toughest I basically said they were NOT BETTER than the competition Seles and Serena faced. And those two links you provided show it.
And leave Graf alone, for god sake! Graf' best seasons have nothing to do with this thread like I've already said.

In my very first post here I said Monica's 92, Martina's 97 and Serena's 2002 seasons ALL were extremely impressive. But the fact Serena went undefeated at Grand Slam play that year and won RG+WB+USO as well as Miami made me choose her season as the best.
It was you and your paranoic allies like Ryan who began to compare level of competition all of them had to deal with.

Nicolás89
Jan 9th, 2008, 01:25 AM
Spare me your bullshit, Hingis-obsessed maniac...

King 1972 - W RG, DNP AO
Evert 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983 - W RG, DNP AO
Jausovec 1977 - W RG, DNP AO
Ruzici 1978 - W RG, DNP AO
1986 - AO not held
Graf 1987, 1995, 1996 - W RG, DNP AO
Sanchez 1989 - W RG, DNP AO
Seles 1990 - W RG, DNP AO
Serena 2002 - W RG, DNP AO
Henin 2005, 2007 - W RG, DNP AO
15 Roland Garros winners didn't play AO the same season.

At the same time the only RG champion who skipped Wimbledon in the Open era was Monica Seles in 1991.

* I'm talking about winning a double combo (AO-RG, RG-US, Wimb-US etc.), not talking about winning two slams in a row, I already proved winning AO-RG in a season is the most difficult and RARE double combination to win.

Coming back to your post, you shouldn't stop only there.

Googalong 1974 - W AO, DNP RG
Evert 1974 - won the RG-Wimby double yet could not win the final of the AO that year.
Googalong 1975 - W AO, DNP RG
Googalong 1976 - W AO, DNP RG
Googalong 1977 - W AO, DNP RG
From 1982 to 1985, happened that either Evert won the AO and Navratilova the french or Navratilova won the AO and Evert the french, neither could win the AO-RG double, but Navratilova did won the RG-Wimby double twice.
Seles 1993 - W AO, DNP RG
S. Williams 2005 - W AO, DNP RG

some players either made the RG-Wimby double but not AO-RG double, won AO and came almost winning RG although winning Wimbledon, or some AO winners did not played RG.