PDA

View Full Version : How Long Until The Next GREAT Player?


CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:14 AM
As Sharapova's future looks uncertain and the Williams sisters in their last few years, I can't help but wonder - when is there going to be the next great player?

Now, to be fair, Sharapova certainly cannot be called a great player - neither can Venus.
Serena can only be called a great player if we call Monica Seles a great player, and I think thats pretty valid. The Evert - Navratilova - Graf dominance of the 1970s-1990s makes it difficult to judge appropriately.

Anyway, so when is the next one a coming? We already know it won't be any of the current up and coming crop. If they were truly "great" they would've gotten to at least a slam semi by now.

So it looks like it be awhile...so when?

And what will they bring to the table that hasn't been seen before?

Just for reference when I say great, I mean on the leagues of Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, S. Williams*

*hate all you want, but she belongs there.

supergrunt
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:17 AM
de brito gots the swagga

Amalgamate
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:20 AM
It's really hard to say. When defining how long until the next great player, do you mean yea they start showing tendencies of dominance? Or when they have a year of domination? Either way, I think it is a few years until someone after Serena or someone at the top of the game right now starts to dominate the tour...It is impossible to say.

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:21 AM
How long until we see a girl that looks like she has the potential to be the next best thing.

Sharapova had the following that she would be a very good player, and she surely has been. However, I find it highly unlikely that she would win 9+ slams. I don't think anyone has suggested she would either.

Then again, some said Anna Kournikova might be the next Graf...so I might be wrong.

iGOAT
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:25 AM
till Szavay gets good :D:p (I wish :sobbing:)

Amalgamate
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:26 AM
till Szavay gets good :D:p (I wish :sobbing:)

:confused: What happened to her...She was so promising for a while.

mckyle.
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:32 AM
She woke up.

LoveFifteen
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:32 AM
As soon as the WTA gets rid of that damn Capriati-inspired age rule and allows Alexus Jones to play!!!

Amalgamate
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:33 AM
As soon as the WTA gets rid of that damn Capriati-inspired age rule and allows Alexus Jones to play!!!

:hearts: Alexus!

iGOAT
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:34 AM
:confused: What happened to her...She was so promising for a while.
pressure

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:34 AM
As soon as the WTA gets rid of that damn Capriati-inspired age rule and allows Alexus Jones to play!!!
:lol:

What happened to her? Same with Monique Viele?

LoveFifteen
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:45 AM
:lol:

What happened to her? Same with Monique Viele?

The same thing that happens to 99.9999% of all the "next Hingis" and "next Serena" ... :haha:

=========

In serious response to your question, I have no idea when the next great player will come, but there are times when my hope is fading. This up-and-coming generation of players is hack-tastic. I wish I had appreciated Justine more while she was playing, and to be honest, the Williams sisters are a gift from God to the WTA. The thought of watching Slam finals between Kuznetsova & Safina makes me ill.

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:50 AM
The same thing that happens to 99.9999% of all the "next Hingis" and "next Serena" ... :haha:

=========

In serious response to your question, I have no idea when the next great player will come, but there are times when my hope is fading. This up-and-coming generation of players is hack-tastic. I wish I had appreciated Justine more while she was playing, and to be honest, the Williams sisters are a gift from God to the WTA. The thought of watching Slam finals between Kuznetsova & Safina makes me ill.
I hear you. Its really unfortunate the way that often happens.

I think Venus has the potential to win 2 more slams before she hangs it up to put her in that category. I really can't see th Sharapova-Ivanovic-Jankovic types winning close to double digits, particularly because Sharapova looks like she might not make it past 25 and because the other two, while very good, are very beatable...particularly in the big stages.

It might be awhile.

sunsfuns
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:54 AM
Is that (no one winning 9+ slams) really such a problem? Many great ATP players (McEnroy, Edberg, Courier, Wilander) didn't win that many either...

IMO 5 is enough to be called a great player...

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:59 AM
Is that (no one winning 9+ slams) really such a problem? Many great ATP players (McEnroy, Edberg, Courier, Wilander) didn't win that many either...

IMO 5 is enough to be called a great player...
Mens tennis is very different (and I wouldn't call Courier a "great" player, very good, but not great). In that league, yes 5 would suffice. However, women's depth isn't as strong as men's depth. Although Nadal-Federer is kind of throwing that maintsay out the door.

Like I said, Martina Hingis is a very good player, but not a great one.

The reason I say that is because Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles and Serena (and potentially Venus, which would do it justice as "The Williams Sisters") brought a new element to the game. Martina Hingis did as well, but it didn't last long with success.

Whoever is the next great player would have to introduce a new element to the game...that'd be the only way they could win that many slams.

OsloErik
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:00 AM
What do we call GREAT, though? I mean, Serena had what, 60 consecutive weeks of being the far-and-away best player in the world. Hingis had about 60 as well, Seles and Graf way more...what level of being the best and having the slams and titles to back it up do we consider great?

That said, I think it'll be awhile. Very few full-grown players can keep up with the grind of the tour today. The only young player I've seen lately with the cocky attitude you need is de Brito, and she has a terrible serve. You need at least a serviceable serve to be the best player for long.

I think there are a couple levels of greatness. There's Evert-Graf-Navratilova-(Court?) level, and King level, and Seles-Goolagong-Serena-(Venus?) level...

OsloErik
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:03 AM
The reason I say that is because Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles and Serena (and potentially Venus, which would do it justice as "The Williams Sisters") brought a new element to the game. Martina Hingis did as well, but it didn't last long with success.

Whoever is the next great player would have to introduce a new element to the game...that'd be the only way they could win that many slams.

So...baseline focused, serve focused, power, power off both sides/return focused, and power off both sides with movement? Hard to predict what would be the next incarnation of the game. Like, power and movement and 98% accuracy? Hard to tell who would fit that bill who plays nowadays.

sunsfuns
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:09 AM
That said, I think it'll be awhile. Very few full-grown players can keep up with the grind of the tour today. The only young player I've seen lately with the cocky attitude you need is de Brito, and she has a terrible serve. You need at least a serviceable serve to be the best player for long.

I think she is also too small (hence the mediocre serve). There are some exceptions, but usually you need to be bigger than that...

Dave.
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:10 AM
Slams on their own are not what make players great, it's their whole careers that do. I agree with the OP that there aren't any outstanding young players, but whether or not they have reached a slam SF doesn't mean they aren't great. If a player were to go on a tear and win a number of big titles in a row, they would also look like a potential "great".

Venus is of course a great player. As are Henin, Davenport, Hingis, ASV etc. (and likely Sharapova in a few more years). Players that got to the top and remained there, dominated and made their mark on a certain era. There are different levels, but to say any of these players are not greats is wrong. Navratilova, Graf and Evert are in a league of their own, Seles and Serena do not belong there.

Getting round to the question, well we had Henin on a roll for 2 years and who knows where she could have placed herself had she kept on for another few years. The top of the game is struggling right now, but of all the players in the elite I think Ivanovic and Sharapova will be the ones to become greats.

LoveFifteen
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:19 AM
I don't think being a great player is just about how many Slams you have won. It also has to do with how you play the game. If Sharapova and the Williams sisters retired today, one of the Serbs might start winning a lot more Slams, but their tennis is not magical. It doesn't have that quality that says "I am watching a great".

A tennis great cannot help but be in legendary matches, even when they lose that legendary match.

The WTA is in a tragic state. We've gone from US Open semis between Hingis and Venus to US Open semis between Kuznetsova and Chakvetadze. How tragic! :sobbing:

Direwolf
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:22 AM
i just heard
COCO LOCO is
in town...

anyhoo...
VENUS after winning 4 slams this year...

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 07:47 AM
I don't think being a great player is just about how many Slams you have won. It also has to do with how you play the game. If Sharapova and the Williams sisters retired today, one of the Serbs might start winning a lot more Slams, but their tennis is not magical. It doesn't have that quality that says "I am watching a great".

A tennis great cannot help but be in legendary matches, even when they lose that legendary match.

The WTA is in a tragic state. We've gone from US Open semis between Hingis and Venus to US Open semis between Kuznetsova and Chakvetadze. How tragic! :sobbing:
I understand, but if Ivanovic wins 9 slams either shes doing something really really right or the field really hit the fan.

To win that many you have to be truly innovative

starin
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:33 AM
What do we call GREAT, though? I mean, Serena had what, 60 consecutive weeks of being the far-and-away best player in the world. Hingis had about 60 as well, Seles and Graf way more...what level of being the best and having the slams and titles to back it up do we consider great?

That said, I think it'll be awhile. Very few full-grown players can keep up with the grind of the tour today. The only young player I've seen lately with the cocky attitude you need is de Brito, and she has a terrible serve. You need at least a serviceable serve to be the best player for long.

I think there are a couple levels of greatness. There's Evert-Graf-Navratilova-(Court?) level, and King level, and Seles-Goolagong-Serena-(Venus?) level...

I feel the same way about Brito. She has the groundies, the attitude but her serve, especially her 2nd, is just so woefully poor. But having said that she is bound to improve her serve and even w/ her poor serve she pushed Kuz and Serena to 3 sets and took out Radwanska.

IMO the next great player will come w/in the next 3 years. These things tend to go in cycles. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone yet. I would think the next level would be to improve on Serena/Venus like they did on Seles. Or perhaps WS are an aberration like Graf. Serve + Movement + Power + consistency. That's what I'm looking for and I haven't seen it.

DragonFlame
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:31 AM
I consider the williams sisters and henin greats. Anyone who's won 5 and more slams should be considered that way. That list is very short anyways.

I consider the boundry to be around there. For example, capriati and davenport haven't done enough in my oppinion to be called greats. Maria could be one but she has to win more in order to get there. I consider her a potentially great player. Hingis is on the boundry, but she's done so much besides winning the 5 slams she has that she deserves to be called a great. Especially considering the age at which she did it.

And about future great players, i consider caroline wozniaki a future multiple grandslamwinner. So lets see how she develops!

mboyle
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:19 AM
Mens tennis is very different (and I wouldn't call Courier a "great" player, very good, but not great). In that league, yes 5 would suffice. However, women's depth isn't as strong as men's depth. Although Nadal-Federer is kind of throwing that maintsay out the door.

Like I said, Martina Hingis is a very good player, but not a great one.

The reason I say that is because Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles and Serena (and potentially Venus, which would do it justice as "The Williams Sisters") brought a new element to the game. Martina Hingis did as well, but it didn't last long with success.

Whoever is the next great player would have to introduce a new element to the game...that'd be the only way they could win that many slams.

Martina Hingis is absolutely a great player, all time great. She won 12 grand slam titles and was ranked no. 1 for 209 weeks in singles and I forget how many weeks in doubles, plus reached all four slam finals in a season, winning three.

Slams are not the end all of tennis. Being no. 1 and being consistent matters as well. Graf, Evert and Nav are great not only because they won the slams but also because they were consistent throughout the year.

To answer the question, the latest crop of prospects (namely Laura Robson and Michelle Larcher de Brito) looks promising. They are still young enough to have time on their side. Sharapova by the way could still win 9+ slams.

mboyle
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:22 AM
I think there are a couple levels of greatness. There's Evert-Graf-Navratilova-(Court?) level, and King level, and Seles-Goolagong-Serena-(Venus?) level...


I'd put Seles with King. Seles dominated for three years. I'd also include Hingis and Henin with Goolagong, Serena and Venus.

Hardiansf
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:23 AM
I consider the williams sisters and henin greats. Anyone who's won 5 and more slams should be considered that way. That list is very short anyways.

I consider the boundry to be around there. For example, capriati and davenport haven't done enough in my oppinion to be called greats. Maria could be one but she has to win more in order to get there. I consider her a potentially great player. Hingis is on the boundry, but she's done so much besides winning the 5 slams she has that she deserves to be called a great. Especially considering the age at which she did it.

And about future great players, i consider caroline wozniaki a future multiple grandslamwinner. So lets see how she develops!

Agreed, besides Williams Sisters and Henin, Hingis should be consider great player too. She's done so much other than win 5 slams.
The next great player... maybe we could see her 3 years from now. I just don't see a WOW factor from this current young generation, yet.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:26 AM
Sharapova still has a chance to be a tennis great, she is good on 3/4 surfaces and already has a had a very good career so far.

Russianboy
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:31 AM
sharapova has a lot more years to be one of the greatest.
im sure when serena was 21, she wasnt called one of the greatest players either

bandabou
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:47 AM
I'd put Seles with King. Seles dominated for three years. I'd also include Hingis and Henin with Goolagong, Serena and Venus.

Hingis in the same group as Serena? 4 majors is a HUGE gap, no?

Slutiana
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Don't worry, Tatiana is back soon for good. :)

Olórin
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:55 AM
Well I think when we are 'in' the next generation, Venus, Serena are gone, the serbs are old, we will have a new outstanding player or two and we will see that as the game progresses winning nearly 20 Grand Slams just isn't feasible anymore.

I think people will come to look back on Serena's, Henin's 7-9(+?) Grand Slams as very valuable indeed. I forsee skilled number ones of the future striving for for that seventh slam, the competition at the top will just be so fierce (one would hope).

Lucemferre
Jan 6th, 2009, 12:32 PM
Serena is the last-and only fifth in history- player to hold all four majors at once. She is by far the greatest player since Seles, arguably since Graf. There have been other greats in her generation such as Venus,Martina and Justine but she is the greatest among them. Sharapova is the greatest player of the new generation, right now she is Serena's heiress. If she can keep that title -be the greatest of her generation- the answer is Sharapova.

How long is the maximum amount of time between two greats in history? Since Evert-first major in 74...Navrat-78...Graf-87....Seles-90....Hingis-97.....Serena-99...Venus-00....Henin-03....Sharapova-04.

You can see the lack of greats in Graf era. She came almost 10 years after Navratilova and her only competition till Hingis got stabbed :spit: You can clearly see how overrated she is.

Golden generation is 80-83 girls. So many great players in the same era. You can see how great Serena is by looking at her competition. She even had a chance to beat down Graf :drool: Still going strong.... :worship:

shap_half
Jan 6th, 2009, 02:52 PM
I don't even think Sharapova is really a different generation from Serena/Venus/Justine. Since Maria won her first Slam, Venus and Serena have both won 3 slams (same as Maria) and Justine won 4 slams (one more than Maria).

DA FOREHAND
Jan 6th, 2009, 02:58 PM
I don't think Sharapova has qualified as a "great" player just yet.

DA FOREHAND
Jan 6th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Don't worry, Tatiana is back soon for good. :)

that picture of Dokic in your siggy....Someone please revoke her hottie status.:sad:

2Black
Jan 6th, 2009, 03:02 PM
This Year - Asha Rolle (Esther Rolle's grandbaby from GoodTimes) :lol:

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 03:26 PM
As someone said, I think Serena is the only one even close to be considered a truly distinguished "great" player. She has won all four majors at least once, has won everything in doubles, etc. etc. She is clearly the best person of this generation, and likely will be after they all retire. Although Seles and Serena aren't Evert-Navratilova-Graf level, they're realistically as close as we're going to get and they still separate themselves comfortably from their contemporaries.

So while Sharapova is clearly the best of her generation, it remains to be seen whether she could be the next great. If you compare her to Evert-Navratilova-Graf-Seles-Serena, she doesn't fit the pattern of raising the game to a new level. All of those players did. Sharapova is just a Seles clone, basically. A very good one at that, but she hasn't added anything new. Steffi Graf said Serena would be the best player of all time back in 1999 before she even won a slam, no one is saying that about Sharapova. Its not a knock on her, but she doesn't really do anything that others haven't before her.

Can she win 6+ slams and win the French Open? Its certainly possible. She hasn't shown the ability to be healthy for long stretches of time, which is worrisome. Also, her best tennis seems to come in spurts rather than in long periods (derailed by injuries, however). If Venus and Justine with their better talent couldn't do it though, I doubt she will.

LDVTennis
Jan 6th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Serena is the last-and only fifth in history- player to hold all four majors at once. She is by far the greatest player since Seles, arguably since Graf. There have been other greats in her generation such as Venus,Martina and Justine but she is the greatest among them. Sharapova is the greatest player of the new generation, right now she is Serena's heiress. If she can keep that title -be the greatest of her generation- the answer is Sharapova.

How long is the maximum amount of time between two greats in history? Since Evert-first major in 74...Navrat-78...Graf-87....Seles-90....Hingis-97.....Serena-99...Venus-00....Henin-03....Sharapova-04.

You can see the lack of greats in Graf era. She came almost 10 years after Navratilova and her only competition till Hingis got stabbed :spit: You can clearly see how overrated she is.

Golden generation is 80-83 girls. So many great players in the same era. You can see how great Serena is by looking at her competition. She even had a chance to beat down Graf :drool: Still going strong.... :worship:


You think Maria ("I am one shoulder injury away from oblivion") Sharapova is the next great player. Yet, you think Graf is overrated.

Ok, whatever... I'm not worried because it is not the consensus of those writing tennis history. Here is the consensus --- http://www.chrisevert.net/flink.html. Steve Flink on the the subject of Chris Evert and who was the best singles player ever. It wasn't Chris Evert and the author of the article is hardly impressed with Sharapova. That is the consensus. What you have to say is not.

wally1
Jan 6th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Both Serena and Venus Williams will certainly go down as great players. With Sharapova it's too early to tell.

Looking to the future I'd have doubts over de Brito and Wozniacki. I've only seen de Brito play once (in a Wim qualies match when she lost to Foretz) so admittedly not a lot to go on, and while her focus and intensity were extraordinary, she didn't seem to me to have many weapons to her actual game, and her serve was very ordinary.

Maybe Robson could become a great player as she seems to have many of the attributes (and is feisty too), but still way too early to tell.

Lucemferre
Jan 6th, 2009, 05:44 PM
You think Maria ("I am one shoulder injury away from oblivion") Sharapova is the next great player. Yet, you think Graf is overrated.

Ok, whatever... I'm not worried because it is not the consensus of those writing tennis history. Here is the consensus --- http://www.chrisevert.net/flink.html. Steve Flink on the the subject of Chris Evert and who was the best singles player ever. It wasn't Chris Evert and the author of the article is hardly impressed with Sharapova. That is the consensus. What you have to say is not.

Who is your candidate? :rolleyes: Sharapova is the most accomplished player under 22. I don't think Maria is great yet but she is the closest in under22 generation.

Graf is overrated. She is an alltime great and nobody can say otherwise bu she is overrated. Your opinion won't change it. Her era even lacked "lack of competition" :spit:

Volcana
Jan 6th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Now, to be fair, Sharapova certainly cannot be called a great player - neither can Venus.Since 'great' is a fuzzy term at best, I won't disagree with you about Venus. What I will say is that, depending on how you rank doubles, Venus has had, so fa, somewhere between the 11th and 15th best careers in the history of women's tennis.

But if your definition of 'great player' is Court, Wills Moody, Nav, King, Graf, Evert, Lenglen, Serena, Seles and Connolly, well Venus isn't quite in that class. But she's not done either. So ....

My prediction is that the next 'great player' will be ... Venus Williams.

The Daviator
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:02 PM
Give these players time, did anyone think Henin would turn into the legend she became in 2002? When she was losing to Hantuchova in Slams and getting knocked all over the court?

The Serbs have the potential to be very special, we'll just have to wait and see.

homogenius
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:07 PM
Don't worry, Tatiana is back soon for good. :)

:worship:

danieln1
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:12 PM
When Brie picks her game and head together, then we can see a GREAT player arriving!

Volcana
Jan 6th, 2009, 06:17 PM
If the thread starter's definition of 'great player' IS Court, Wills Moody, Nav, King, Graf, Evert, Lenglen, Serena, Seles and Connolly, then none of the other players named in this thead come close.

Martina Hingis did not have a career to compare with, for example, Billie Jean King. Neither did ASV, Davenport, Goolagong, Sharapova or Henin. 'Great player' is just words. Look at it this way. The top seven players all time are pretty much inarguable, allowing for eras. #8, #9 and #10 are Serena, Maureen Connolly and Monica Seles, in some order.

So when does the next player come along who's BETTER than Serena-Connolly-Seles, or who at least has comparable career stats?

DA FOREHAND
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Give these players time, did anyone think Henin would turn into the legend she became in 2002? When she was losing to Hantuchova in Slams and getting knocked all over the court?

The Serbs have the potential to be very special, we'll just have to wait and see.

Justine is not a legend. SORRY to be the bearer of bad news for ya.

Funny she started and ended her career the same way being knocked all over the court.

sunsfuns
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Justine is not a legend. SORRY to be the bearer of bad news for ya.

Sure she is. Everyone who wins that many GS is, whether we like her or not...

hellas719
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:08 PM
In a few years, it will be......
DESPINA PAPAMICHAIL:worship:

(I wish)

DA FOREHAND
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Sure she is. Everyone who wins that many GS is, whether we like her or not...

I suppose if your standards are even lower than the hall of fame... She didn't have enough longevity to be a legend.

sunsfuns
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:11 PM
I suppose if your standards are even lower than the hall of fame... She didn't have enough longevity to be a legend.

Longevity is overrated. It's all about winning enough GS (at least 5 I would say) and being undoubtedly the strongest player for at least a year. There have been less than 20 such players in Open era...

P.S. What does the hall of fame have to do with it? Justine will be there 5 years after playing her last match as normal in such cases...

DA FOREHAND
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:14 PM
Nope

DragonFlame
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:58 PM
justine is definetly an all-time great, wether you like it or not.:rolleyes: Any person with a brain would confirm that.

OsloErik
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Sure she is. Everyone who wins that many GS is, whether we like her or not...

Well, I'd argue she's a great player, but I have trouble calling her a legend. Legend implies there was something very remarkable about your career, and Henin's doesn't exactly fit the bill. Hingis was so young breaking through, and that makes her a legend. The Williams sisters being sisters contributes to them being legends (doesn't augment their greatness, IMHO, but certainly enhances their legendary status). Seles's career being stunted by something outside her control, Steffi Graf winning the golden slam, Navratilova lasting so long, Evert reaching all those semifinals (what, only 4 times she didn't make a semifinal?)...those are legendary things. What exactly about Henin is the intangible aspect that makes her a legend? She didn't really accomplish anything unique in terms of her circumstances. Even Capriati has the intangible of being a 12 year old professional or whatever it was, and the burnout/rising from the ashes element. I can't find anything particular in Henin's career that makes her a legend. It's not comparable to, say, Borg who left the game while still head-and-shoulders better than everyone on clay and probably the 2nd best player everywhere else. It's just kind of a conventional career for a top player. A lot more slams than many top players, to be sure, but not exactly one of those things where you look back and think "wow, that really was something extraordinary".

Help me out, what do you think makes her a legend? I can be persuaded on this; it's not set in stone.

OsloErik
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:04 PM
justine is definetly an all-time great, wether you like it or not.:rolleyes: Any person with a brain would confirm that.

He's not arguing that she's not a great player, he's arguing that she's not a legend. Legend has a different connotation, no?

sunsfuns
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Well, I'd argue she's a great player, but I have trouble calling her a legend. Legend implies there was something very remarkable about your career, and Henin's doesn't exactly fit the bill. Hingis was so young breaking through, and that makes her a legend. The Williams sisters being sisters contributes to them being legends (doesn't augment their greatness, IMHO, but certainly enhances their legendary status). Seles's career being stunted by something outside her control, Steffi Graf winning the golden slam, Navratilova lasting so long, Evert reaching all those semifinals (what, only 4 times she didn't make a semifinal?)...those are legendary things. What exactly about Henin is the intangible aspect that makes her a legend? She didn't really accomplish anything unique in terms of her circumstances. Even Capriati has the intangible of being a 12 year old professional or whatever it was, and the burnout/rising from the ashes element. I can't find anything particular in Henin's career that makes her a legend. It's not comparable to, say, Borg who left the game while still head-and-shoulders better than everyone on clay and probably the 2nd best player everywhere else. It's just kind of a conventional career for a top player. A lot more slams than many top players, to be sure, but not exactly one of those things where you look back and think "wow, that really was something extraordinary".

I wasn't defining "legend" like that... It was thinking merely about on-court accomplishments. Less than 10 players have won that many GS's in the open era.

As far as impact on the game you are right - it's probably smaller than for most others with similar GS success.

terjw
Jan 6th, 2009, 10:42 PM
I think to be included in the top tier of great players - you must first have multiple slams. Something like 2 per year over say a 5 year period. But also - you should be undisputed #1 with the #1 ranking for most of the time over 4-5 years. And it's not an excuse to say you dom't play much. We are talking about greatness. Justine was #1 by a huge margin in 2007 and only played 14 tournaments. So there can be no shoulda, woulda if you aren't #1 to be in this group.

So this limits it down to players of the calibre of Sampras & Federer in recent times. On the women's side - Evert, Nav, Graf of course - but is there anyone in modern times.

With Serena. - she only kept up that top tier greatness for one year. She was actually exceeding it all for a year in 2002 and first half of 2003. But didn't sustain it. Since then has not even been the best player of her contempories averaging just under 1 slam per year and only getting to #1 briefly for a few weeks last year. That doesn't compare to Federer or Sampras.

So Serena gets into the next tier along with Justine.

If the men can have a Sampras and Federer in the modern era - I don't see why people are assuming that won't happen with the women and we don't get someone better than Serena and Justine over a prolonged period of time. Someone who wins multiple slams and is the #1 and undisputed best player year in year out.

The only reason I can see against that happening is injuries. All the women are far more prone to injuries than the men.

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:53 PM
I think to be included in the top tier of great players - you must first have multiple slams. Something like 2 per year over say a 5 year period. But also - you should be undisputed #1 with the #1 ranking for most of the time over 4-5 years. And it's not an excuse to say you dom't play much. We are talking about greatness. Justine was #1 by a huge margin in 2007 and only played 14 tournaments. So there can be no shoulda, woulda if you aren't #1 to be in this group.

So this limits it down to players of the calibre of Sampras & Federer in recent times. On the women's side - Evert, Nav, Graf of course - but is there anyone in modern times.

With Serena. - she only kept up that top tier greatness for one year. She was actually exceeding it all for a year in 2002 and first half of 2003. But didn't sustain it. Since then has not even been the best player of her contempories averaging just under 1 slam per year and only getting to #1 briefly for a few weeks last year. That doesn't compare to Federer or Sampras.

So Serena gets into the next tier along with Justine.

If the men can have a Sampras and Federer in the modern era - I don't see why people are assuming that won't happen with the women and we don't get someone better than Serena and Justine over a prolonged period of time. Someone who wins multiple slams and is the #1 and undisputed best player year in year out.

The only reason I can see against that happening is injuries. All the women are far more prone to injuries than the men.
Well, you could say the same thing about Monica Seles. However, you can't take her achievements away from her.

Serena Williams has won everything that is worth winning. I'm not sure what else you can ask of her. Her career isn't even over yet and she has the potential to break double digits for the first time since Graf.

No one else can come close to that. Can Venus do it? Maybe. But she is a whole career's worth of slams away from that benchmark and she isn't getting any younger.

CJ07
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:54 PM
If the thread starter's definition of 'great player' IS Court, Wills Moody, Nav, King, Graf, Evert, Lenglen, Serena, Seles and Connolly, then none of the other players named in this thead come close.

Martina Hingis did not have a career to compare with, for example, Billie Jean King. Neither did ASV, Davenport, Goolagong, Sharapova or Henin. 'Great player' is just words. Look at it this way. The top seven players all time are pretty much inarguable, allowing for eras. #8, #9 and #10 are Serena, Maureen Connolly and Monica Seles, in some order.

So when does the next player come along who's BETTER than Serena-Connolly-Seles, or who at least has comparable career stats?
Thats my definition. That is a good way to put it.

goldenlox
Jan 7th, 2009, 12:08 AM
The sport is different than when Court and King played.
The modern rackets and string mean you swing harder more often, there's more injuries. There's also a lot more money, and players with millions who are constantly fighting injuries often decide to retire early.
I don't know if anyone is coming along to win 15-20 majors in the near future. They would have to be very lucky with their health and be very competitive.

Volcana
Jan 7th, 2009, 01:20 AM
The sport is different than when Court and King played. The modern rackets and string mean you swing harder more often, there's more injuries.The sport IS different. Court and King played most of their slams on grass, the trickiest of surfaces, and because they played serve-and-volley, they had to run forward and back, as well as side to side. Also, wooden rackets meant longer points. There were no 'heat rules'.

More injuries now? Not really. It's just that when there was less money in the sport, players tended to retire for the sport. BJK was always injured. There's a good arguement to be made the spot was harder then. But the early round matches were cake for the elite players.
I don't know if anyone is coming along to win 15-20 majors in the near future. They would have to be very lucky with their health and be very competitive.But ten slams, for a truly elite player, is possible. Graf did it, and she retired only nine years ago. Ten slams singles titles is something only eight players in the history of women's tennis have achieved. (The one most people forget is Molla Mallory.)

I think becoming one of the top ten all time players is totally within reach for the modern player. Serena has done it, and her career isn't even over yet.

CJ07
Jan 7th, 2009, 02:00 AM
Very well said.

Peterk07
Jan 7th, 2009, 02:26 AM
I can't really describe what makes a player to be a legend. It is not the number of slam titles for sure. For example, Nastase is a legend for me, despite the fact that he only won 2 slam titles. But his oncourt behaviour, his personality made him legendary. Agassi was a great player two, as Sampras was too. But - for me - Curier or Lendl wasn't. They were excellent players but not great ones.

Amongst the ladies, I didn't call Venus a great player till last year's Wimbledon. But winning 5 wimbly titles makes her a legend for sure.

As for finding a new legend, I think if we want to see domination and/or many slam titles, we have to wait for long. WTA tennis is walking on the men's path. The field gets deeper and deeper every year, players are being raised to be tennis professionals, they are athletic, the are 100% focusing on their carreer. So, one has to be exceptionally talented and at the same time has to have great mental, physical capabilities to dominate the field as their ancessors did once. These kind of players don't born every year. We are privileged to see two of these kind of players playing week by week amongst the men, but I doubt Fed and Rafa will have immediate followers once they retire...

DA FOREHAND
Jan 7th, 2009, 03:32 AM
So we have a consensus Justine very good player...No legend.

bandabou
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:37 AM
I think to be included in the top tier of great players - you must first have multiple slams. Something like 2 per year over say a 5 year period. But also - you should be undisputed #1 with the #1 ranking for most of the time over 4-5 years. And it's not an excuse to say you dom't play much. We are talking about greatness. Justine was #1 by a huge margin in 2007 and only played 14 tournaments. So there can be no shoulda, woulda if you aren't #1 to be in this group.

So this limits it down to players of the calibre of Sampras & Federer in recent times. On the women's side - Evert, Nav, Graf of course - but is there anyone in modern times.

With Serena. - she only kept up that top tier greatness for one year. She was actually exceeding it all for a year in 2002 and first half of 2003. But didn't sustain it. Since then has not even been the best player of her contempories averaging just under 1 slam per year and only getting to #1 briefly for a few weeks last year. That doesn't compare to Federer or Sampras.

So Serena gets into the next tier along with Justine.

If the men can have a Sampras and Federer in the modern era - I don't see why people are assuming that won't happen with the women and we don't get someone better than Serena and Justine over a prolonged period of time. Someone who wins multiple slams and is the #1 and undisputed best player year in year out.

The only reason I can see against that happening is injuries. All the women are far more prone to injuries than the men.

Wimbledon, Wimbledon...plus career slam. That alone should put Serena above Justine, no?

OsloErik
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:38 AM
Wimbledon, Wimbledon...plus career slam. That alone should put Serena above Justine, no?

Above in the numerical list, but is there a tier-of-greatness gap between the two? Maybe. Especially since Serena's still got a good 4-5 years or more to add titles and slams. But how many tiers for greatness do we make? I'd say four or five, but that's such a subjective thing.

I personally put Henin and Hingis together. Hingis's doubles bumps her to Henin's tier level, with Venus and Serena on the same Tier.

So...(and sorry LDV and others, but anything much beyond Court and I don't really care)
Tier I: Graf, Evert, Navratilova, Court
Tier II: BJK...
Tier III: Seles, Venus, Serena, Goolagong
Tier IV: Hingis, Henin
Tier V: everyone else, I suppose, who has 2+ slams or is Conchita Martinez, Kim Clijsters, Jana Novotna, or Gabriela Sabatini, all of whome are too good to be thought of as one-slam wonders.

But of course it's pretty simple to merge II through IV, and just stipulate a ranking of the different champions. It comes down to personal choice, really.

Dave.
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:47 AM
Above in the numerical list, but is there a tier-of-greatness gap between the two? Maybe. Especially since Serena's still got a good 4-5 years or more to add titles and slams. But how many tiers for greatness do we make? I'd say four or five, but that's such a subjective thing.

I personally put Henin and Hingis together. Hingis's doubles bumps her to Henin's tier level, with Venus and Serena on the same Tier.

So...(and sorry LDV and others, but anything much beyond Court and I don't really care)
Tier I: Graf, Evert, Navratilova, Court
Tier II: BJK...
Tier III: Seles, Venus, Serena, Goolagong
Tier IV: Hingis, Henin
Tier V: everyone else, I suppose, who has 2+ slams or is Conchita Martinez, Kim Clijsters, Jana Novotna, or Gabriela Sabatini, all of whome are too good to be thought of as one-slam wonders.

But of course it's pretty simple to merge II through IV, and just stipulate a ranking of the different champions. It comes down to personal choice, really.

I agree that the best way to do this sort of thing is by tiering them. With your groups, I would put Venus and Lindsay in Tier IV but I otherwise agree with the rest (for singles accomplishments only). IMO, if you're going to use doubles accomplishments then you need to add in all of the great doubles players, not just the ones who were good in singles too.

But yeah, it's really down to personal choice.

OsloErik
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:55 AM
I agree that the best way to do this sort of thing is by tiering them. With your groups, I would put Venus and Lindsay in Tier IV but I otherwise agree with the rest (for singles accomplishments only). IMO, if you're going to use doubles accomplishments then you need to add in all of the great doubles players, not just the ones who were good in singles too.

But yeah, it's really down to personal choice.

I think you must have at least a singles slam to figure into the discussion at all, and preferably more, regardless of how good you were at doubles. Singles really is the most important event. I discount the Suarez/Ruano-Pascual and Shriver and Fernandez accomplishments because I really do think they need to have a significant singles career to qualify for entering one of the tiers.

I also think that if we add Davenport to Tier IV, we have to add Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, especially since one of the big things Davenport has to separate her from Capriati and, I suppose, Sharapova is her doubles career.

Calypso
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:17 AM
Above in the numerical list, but is there a tier-of-greatness gap between the two? Maybe. Especially since Serena's still got a good 4-5 years or more to add titles and slams. But how many tiers for greatness do we make? I'd say four or five, but that's such a subjective thing.

I personally put Henin and Hingis together. Hingis's doubles bumps her to Henin's tier level, with Venus and Serena on the same Tier.

So...(and sorry LDV and others, but anything much beyond Court and I don't really care)
Tier I: Graf, Evert, Navratilova, Court
Tier II: BJK...
Tier III: Seles, Venus, Serena, Goolagong
Tier IV: Hingis, Henin
Tier V: everyone else, I suppose, who has 2+ slams or is Conchita Martinez, Kim Clijsters, Jana Novotna, or Gabriela Sabatini, all of whome are too good to be thought of as one-slam wonders.

But of course it's pretty simple to merge II through IV, and just stipulate a ranking of the different champions. It comes down to personal choice, really.

Nice 'tiers-of-greatness'!

But I think what the WTA needs right now is the next legend, a la Graf, Navratilova, Seles. Someone who will be there from January to December, at or near the top of the rankings and regularly turning in stellar performances, preferably against a rival of similar ability. Similar to the Nadal-Federer-Murray bewitching rivalries on the ATP at present.

*Sigh*, its probably too much to ask for at the moment. Injuries are far too common and early retirements the norm.

bandabou
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Above in the numerical list, but is there a tier-of-greatness gap between the two? Maybe. Especially since Serena's still got a good 4-5 years or more to add titles and slams. But how many tiers for greatness do we make? I'd say four or five, but that's such a subjective thing.

I personally put Henin and Hingis together. Hingis's doubles bumps her to Henin's tier level, with Venus and Serena on the same Tier.

So...(and sorry LDV and others, but anything much beyond Court and I don't really care)
Tier I: Graf, Evert, Navratilova, Court
Tier II: BJK...
Tier III: Seles, Venus, Serena, Goolagong
Tier IV: Hingis, Henin
Tier V: everyone else, I suppose, who has 2+ slams or is Conchita Martinez, Kim Clijsters, Jana Novotna, or Gabriela Sabatini, all of whome are too good to be thought of as one-slam wonders.

But of course it's pretty simple to merge II through IV, and just stipulate a ranking of the different champions. It comes down to personal choice, really.

Pretty good list.. (although your pal LDV wouldn't be much pleased to see you rating players such as Serena, Venus, Seles, higher than a certain Mandlikova girl)

and it becomes even more interesting if Serena somehow manages to hit double digits in singles majors.

Dave.
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:39 AM
I think you must have at least a singles slam to figure into the discussion at all, and preferably more, regardless of how good you were at doubles. Singles really is the most important event. I discount the Suarez/Ruano-Pascual and Shriver and Fernandez accomplishments because I really do think they need to have a significant singles career to qualify for entering one of the tiers.

I also think that if we add Davenport to Tier IV, we have to add Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, especially since one of the big things Davenport has to separate her from Capriati and, I suppose, Sharapova is her doubles career.

Oh of course ASV would be there too. Her and Davenport would be placed above Capriati and Sharapova purely by singles accomplishments. Just look at the difference in their slam records, titles/finals, time in top 5 and top 10 etc.

The singles and doubles thing is where I disagree with you. Even if they aren't given equal recognition I think it needs some importance. For instance, I wouldn't exclude someone like Zvereva - a long-time top 10 player, quarterfinalist at all slams, just because she didn't win her RG Final. When you look at her doubles career (arguably the 2nd best of all time after Nav), it just seems wrong that someone like Majoli (1 slam) could be considered greater than her in a list where doubles is being used as a tie-breaker in some cases. That's how I see it anyway.

moby
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:52 AM
Help me out, what do you think makes her a legend? I can be persuaded on this; it's not set in stone.She showed that the single hander was still viable in modern women's tennis, which for many years have been dominated by double-handers.

She debunked the myth that short players could no longer compete at the highest level of the game. Many thought Hingis would be the last 5'7 champion. Henin was 5'6.

Personal drama in her life. Everytime she was knocked down by adversities in her life, she came back stronger on the tennis court.

moby
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:54 AM
Above in the numerical list, but is there a tier-of-greatness gap between the two? Maybe. Especially since Serena's still got a good 4-5 years or more to add titles and slams. But how many tiers for greatness do we make? I'd say four or five, but that's such a subjective thing.

I personally put Henin and Hingis together. Hingis's doubles bumps her to Henin's tier level, with Venus and Serena on the same Tier.

So...(and sorry LDV and others, but anything much beyond Court and I don't really care)
Tier I: Graf, Evert, Navratilova, Court
Tier II: BJK...
Tier III: Seles, Venus, Serena, Goolagong
Tier IV: Hingis, Henin
Tier V: everyone else, I suppose, who has 2+ slams or is Conchita Martinez, Kim Clijsters, Jana Novotna, or Gabriela Sabatini, all of whome are too good to be thought of as one-slam wonders.I disagree with Venus being above Henin. I'd put them on roughly the same level. Either both are in Tier III, or both are in Tier IV.

OsloErik
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:16 PM
She showed that the single hander was still viable in modern women's tennis, which for many years have been dominated by double-handers.

She debunked the myth that short players could no longer compete at the highest level of the game. Many thought Hingis would be the last 5'7 champion. Henin was 5'6.

Personal drama in her life. Everytime she was knocked down by adversities in her life, she came back stronger on the tennis court.

1. But there are many other players who use one hand. I believe there's been a one-hander in the top 10 at all times since the dawn of time except this season. Mauresmo was a top 10er for two seasons before Henin emerged, and Graf won her final slam less than 10 years ago.

2. I've nere really cared about this height thing. 5'6'' isn't tall, obviously, but we're not talking about Amanda Coetzer or Tatiana Panova here. And as you've pointed out, Hingis was 5'7''. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario was 5'6.5''. It's not as if Henin emerged from a tour where nobody under 5'10 had won anything in decades.

3. Who doesn't have personal drama in tennis? Her story isn't particularly unique. Sad at times, but not really unique.

I just have trouble seeing what it is that makes Henin have an aura of legendary rather than great. She didn't have an intangible about her, and it's very hard to see much unique about her rise or story. The closest thing I can think of would be her clay court dominance, but even that is a little wishy-washy.

raffles
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:23 PM
The public did not warm to Henin on any personal level I don't think. I might be because the tour and/or media didn't promote her enough. Maybe it was because in this era she didn't fit in with the glamourous image the WTA wanted to project, maybe she got lost amoung all the other bigger personalities on the tour. Her results are stellar but this something about Justine that is missing and I think it's not to do with her results.

CJ07
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:24 PM
I would rate Henin above Venus right now, however Venus will likely win another Wimbledon before she retires and that discussion would then be moot.

DA FOREHAND
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:29 PM
wishy washy and a little overrated.

hingis-seles
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Henin > Venus, unless Venus wins another 2-3 Slams, or her next Slam is AO or RG.

CJ07
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:37 PM
I agree that Henin > Venus. However if Venus wins another major, then that discussion should be moot.

Venus would have the better career with 8 slams.

CoolDude7
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:45 PM
*dead* venus career is far ahead of justine already when her career ends..

they count everything including doubles at the end of a career

justine has 7 total slams+ No double slams

Venus= 7 total slams + what 7 double slams

When your career is over they count everything, they don't exclude doubles

However, these are the same people that say Justine is greater than serena

NO NEED IN ME MAKING THIS POINT

Mashafaaaaan
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:48 PM
*dead* venus career is far ahead of justine already when her career ends..

they count everything including doubles at the end of a career

justine has 7 total slams+ No double slams

Venus= 7 total slams + what 7 double slams

When your career is over they count everything, they don't exclude doubles

However, these are the same people that say Justine is greater than serena

NO NEED IN ME MAKING THIS POINT

What do u mean "they", who are those folks. And anyway Henin is better than Vee, not Serena, I agree, but Venus, yes she is.

Volcana
Jan 7th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Funny thing abolut Henin. Her accomplishments have some Goolagong about them. (They won the same number of slam singles titles, but that's not what I meant.)


Evonne Goolagong suffered, not from failing to be the best player, but from failing to achieve as much as the great players around her. Henin may have been the best player inthe sport from 2004 to 2007. (It's arguable, but not my point.) But at her best, she didn't accomplish what Serena, or Graf, or Seles did. Much like Goolagong never equaled the best of Court, King or Evert.


She fails, in other words, against subjective standards. How fair is that?

SharapovaFan16
Jan 7th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Who are these people that only count SLAMS when defining greatness? Idiots I tell ya!

terjw
Jan 7th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Well, you could say the same thing about Monica Seles. However, you can't take her achievements away from her.

Serena Williams has won everything that is worth winning. I'm not sure what else you can ask of her. Her career isn't even over yet and she has the potential to break double digits for the first time since Graf.

No one else can come close to that. Can Venus do it? Maybe. But she is a whole career's worth of slams away from that benchmark and she isn't getting any younger.

You're not sure what else I can ask of her? Quite easy:

To be truly great - I don't think it's too much to ask someone to be #1 and demonstrate they are #1 year in year out - say 4-5 years. After all if you're not the best against the players you are playing against - how can you be in the greatest of all time list.

With Federer and Sampras - there was no question they were the best year in year out - not just for 1 year and then picking up a slam a year most years but not the best player.

Best players since 2002:-

2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Justine was the best player - just.
2004 - difficult to say - Sharapova? - anyway definitely not Serena.
2005 - Kim
2006 - Justine - but you could make a case for Momo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - arguable. I and the ITF and the rankings go for Jelena.

So all these years she's not even the best of the current players. If that's great - it certainly comes with an asterisk. And I think it's lowering the standards of what true greatness is not to ask for more.

So - for this thread - can we get a player in the future who reaches the level of greatness I'm thinking of and is the best player year in year out - not just for one year.

CoolDude7
Jan 7th, 2009, 07:06 PM
What do u mean "they", who are those folks. And anyway Henin is better than Vee, not Serena, I agree, but Venus, yes she is.

There have been many Serena vs Justine threads... even though serena has career slam in SINGLES and DOUBLES + mixed doubles slams....the same people still say she is greater than serena....

Same thing with Venus esp considering they have the same number of slams but JUSTINE has 0 slams outside of singles... Venus has A CAREER SLAM IN DOUBLES + 2 mixed doubles..

There isn't anything to debate at the moment.
Serena
Venus
Hen
Martina

However, Hen can always make a comeback and win the French so it's far from over.

CJ07
Jan 7th, 2009, 08:41 PM
You're not sure what else I can ask of her? Quite easy:

To be truly great - I don't think it's too much to ask someone to be #1 and demonstrate they are #1 year in year out - say 4-5 years. After all if you're not the best against the players you are playing against - how can you be in the greatest of all time list.

With Federer and Sampras - there was no question they were the best year in year out - not just for 1 year and then picking up a slam a year most years but not the best player.

Best players since 2002:-

2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Justine was the best player - just.
2004 - difficult to say - Sharapova? - anyway definitely not Serena.
2005 - Kim
2006 - Justine - but you could make a case for Momo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - arguable. I and the ITF and the rankings go for Jelena.

So all these years she's not even the best of the current players. If that's great - it certainly comes with an asterisk. And I think it's lowering the standards of what true greatness is not to ask for more.

So - for this thread - can we get a player in the future who reaches the level of greatness I'm thinking of and is the best player year in year out - not just for one year.

Monica Seles was "only" #1 for two years. Yes she had the stabbing, however even if her career trailed off after that, you can't discount the fact that she won 8 out of 11 slams at one point. Helen Wills Moody had a similar situation. A win is a win is a win and if you've won everything it really is all that matters.

I do agree with you that Serena's career has been fairly spread out as she has won her slams over a roughly 10 year period (which is an amazing feat if you ask me...only Evert, Navratilova and Graf I believe have achieved that), while Henin won all her slams over a 5 year period. Henin was certainly the better player in 2007 when she beat Serena all those times, but lets be real here.

Serena Jameka Williams has won everything there is to win in tennis. There is nothing you, Justine Henin or any other individual can do to change that. No one in her generation can lay the same claim, nor can anyone but 4 players in the history of modern women's tennis. You can say what you want and create any benchmark that you want, but the fact of the matter is that Serena Williams has accomplished more than all but four women in modern history. Period.

Lucemferre
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:07 PM
You're not sure what else I can ask of her? Quite easy:

To be truly great - I don't think it's too much to ask someone to be #1 and demonstrate they are #1 year in year out - say 4-5 years. After all if you're not the best against the players you are playing against - how can you be in the greatest of all time list.

With Federer and Sampras - there was no question they were the best year in year out - not just for 1 year and then picking up a slam a year most years but not the best player.

Best players since 2002:-

2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Justine was the best player - just.
2004 - difficult to say - Sharapova? - anyway definitely not Serena.
2005 - Kim
2006 - Justine - but you could make a case for Momo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - arguable. I and the ITF and the rankings go for Jelena.

So all these years she's not even the best of the current players. If that's great - it certainly comes with an asterisk. And I think it's lowering the standards of what true greatness is not to ask for more.

So - for this thread - can we get a player in the future who reaches the level of greatness I'm thinking of and is the best player year in year out - not just for one year.

You just lost all credibility.

Olórin
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Serena Jameka Williams has won everything there is to win in tennis. There is nothing you, Justine Henin or any other individual can do to change that. No one in her generation can lay the same claim, nor can anyone but 4 players in the history of modern women's tennis. You can say what you want and create any benchmark that you want, but the fact of the matter is that Serena Williams has accomplished more than all but four women in modern history. Period.

Definitely agree with you here. I think the fact that Serena dominated tennis for an extended period of time (Mar 02 - June 03), even if it wasn't for as an extended as Martina Navratilova in the 80's, is what matters. The fact that she dominated at all is what counts. The fact she has the accomplishments of such a select group, the fact she has delivered such astounding performances, are what makes her a great. She's always been a small exception to the rules.

However, Serena isn't in the Navratilova-Graf-Evert-Court league. But she is hardly miles off. She's a tier below them. Since her period of dominance she has delivered occassional performances and slam wins to remind us that she plays one of the best brands of tennis and probably the most devastating tennis in history. She's a different kind of great, a different kind of champion. She's more like a supernova that explodes in spectacular fashion every now and then, whereas someone like Steffi was more like the sun, shining brightly all the time. I think another period of dominance and multiple-slam season would do wonders for her case as a great among greats though.

Olórin
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:19 PM
I would say, and this is how it will be remembered:
2000 - Venus
2001 - Venus with Capriati a junior co-number one.
2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Serena when she was playing, Justine overall for the full season.
2004 - Mix of about 8-10 players one of which was Serena.
2005 - Lindsay or Kim.
2006 - Justine or Mauresmo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - Serena and Venus.

Galsen
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:24 PM
I would say, and this is how it will be remembered:
2000 - Venus
2001 - Venus with Capriati a junior co-number one.
2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Serena when she was playing, Justine overall for the full season.
2004 - Mix of about 8-10 players one of which was Serena.
2005 - Lindsay or Kim.
2006 - Justine or Mauresmo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - Serena and Venus.

I agree with 2003 and the rest

bandabou
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:15 PM
You're not sure what else I can ask of her? Quite easy:

To be truly great - I don't think it's too much to ask someone to be #1 and demonstrate they are #1 year in year out - say 4-5 years. After all if you're not the best against the players you are playing against - how can you be in the greatest of all time list.

With Federer and Sampras - there was no question they were the best year in year out - not just for 1 year and then picking up a slam a year most years but not the best player.

Best players since 2002:-

2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Justine was the best player - just.
2004 - difficult to say - Sharapova? - anyway definitely not Serena.
2005 - Kim
2006 - Justine - but you could make a case for Momo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - arguable. I and the ITF and the rankings go for Jelena.

So all these years she's not even the best of the current players. If that's great - it certainly comes with an asterisk. And I think it's lowering the standards of what true greatness is not to ask for more.

So - for this thread - can we get a player in the future who reaches the level of greatness I'm thinking of and is the best player year in year out - not just for one year.

again you're confusing being CONSISTENT with being dominating. Serena's 2002-2003 eclipses everything Justine has done. During that stretch she won 5 out of 6 majors, 4 in a row,career slam...wimbledon back to back, etc...one of a select few to win two + majors in back to back years ( in fact..if not for her surgery, might as well have won 3 majors in back to back years!).

Contrast to Justine..yeah she was consistent, ended no.1 more often..but she didn't even win wimbledon ( ONLY one final!!!). CONSISTENT, dominating for certain stretches ( '07 u.s.open)..but TOTAL dominance a la Serena? Nope.

Slutiana
Jan 7th, 2009, 10:36 PM
You're not sure what else I can ask of her? Quite easy:

To be truly great - I don't think it's too much to ask someone to be #1 and demonstrate they are #1 year in year out - say 4-5 years. After all if you're not the best against the players you are playing against - how can you be in the greatest of all time list.

With Federer and Sampras - there was no question they were the best year in year out - not just for 1 year and then picking up a slam a year most years but not the best player.

Best players since 2002:-
2000 - VENUS
2001 - Venus or Capriati.
2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Justine was the best player - just.
2004 - difficult to say - Sharapova? - anyway definitely not Serena.
2005 - Kim
2006 - Justine - but you could make a case for Momo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - Venus/Serena/Jelena.
LOL. Thats just terrible, you can't manipulate stats like that... I wonder why your criteria was "since 2002", its because they two years beforehand were venus... I edited it for you ;). :wavey:

LoveFifteen
Jan 7th, 2009, 11:58 PM
I think it is too simplistic to measure greatness by the number of Slam singles titles that you've won. In any case, I find the discussions about rating players' careers as great or legendary somewhat tedious. Who cares?

The important thing is that the up-and-coming generation of players seems to be devoid of true greats. There is no one on the horizon who comes close to Serena, Venus, Henin or Hingis. That should really worry us, tennis fans!

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 04:47 AM
I think it is too simplistic to measure greatness by the number of Slam singles titles that you've won. In any case, I find the discussions about rating players' careers as great or legendary somewhat tedious. Who cares?

The important thing is that the up-and-coming generation of players seems to be devoid of true greats. There is no one on the horizon who comes close to Serena, Venus, Henin or Hingis. That should really worry us, tennis fans!

Yep...but there's still some time left.

OsloErik
Jan 8th, 2009, 06:05 AM
Contrast to Justine..yeah she was consistent, ended no.1 more often..but she didn't even win wimbledon ( ONLY one final!!!). CONSISTENT, dominating for certain stretches ( '07 u.s.open)..but TOTAL dominance a la Serena? Nope.

Edit: she made two finals at Wimbledon.

But to comment on the bulk of the post: in some ways, you can think of Henin's 2007 as Serena's 2003. But Serena had a near-perfect season before 2003. Henin's 2006 was consistent but certainly not particularly great, and Henin's 2008 was barely even an experience. There's no period of time where Henin was the #1 by a mile and slam favorite everywhere. The closest occasion would be Australia '08, and we know how that turned out. Serena spent four straight slams (US Open '02 through Wimbledon '03) as both the pre-tournament favorite at every slam AND the top player in the world by about a 20% margin.

Good thread, Bandy.

pascal77
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:06 AM
Clearly Hingis was a great tennis player, one hundred percent. she was probably the most talented players in the world. her tactics were something beyond the comprehension of us normal persons. The wisdom she showed on the court greatly dwarfed those tall and strong girls who only knew to bash the ball from the baseline.

mboyle
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:47 AM
Hingis in the same group as Serena? 4 majors is a HUGE gap, no?

So is a 150 week difference in time at no. 1.

mboyle
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:50 AM
again you're confusing being CONSISTENT with being dominating. Serena's 2002-2003 eclipses everything Justine has done. During that stretch she won 5 out of 6 majors, 4 in a row,career slam...wimbledon back to back, etc...one of a select few to win two + majors in back to back years ( in fact..if not for her surgery, might as well have won 3 majors in back to back years!).

Contrast to Justine..yeah she was consistent, ended no.1 more often..but she didn't even win wimbledon ( ONLY one final!!!). CONSISTENT, dominating for certain stretches ( '07 u.s.open)..but TOTAL dominance a la Serena? Nope.

Justine actually had a better record in 2007 than Serena did in 2002.

petkoan
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:09 AM
I hope players are checking this forum from time to time. They must be laughing their asses off :-D. It is so funny how you all define legends, good players and so on. It is really entertaining to read. You all are the legends of this forum. Some of you tier 1, tier 2, hahahah, but overall it is hilarious!

Olórin
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Justine actually had a better record in 2007 than Serena did in 2002.

'better' 'record'

Blanket words covering up the fact that you're not even actually saying anything.

I think his point was that Serena was consistently more dominant and played more dominating tennis throughout the entire year. Argue with that if you will.

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Edit: she made two finals at Wimbledon.

But to comment on the bulk of the post: in some ways, you can think of Henin's 2007 as Serena's 2003. But Serena had a near-perfect season before 2003. Henin's 2006 was consistent but certainly not particularly great, and Henin's 2008 was barely even an experience. There's no period of time where Henin was the #1 by a mile and slam favorite everywhere. The closest occasion would be Australia '08, and we know how that turned out. Serena spent four straight slams (US Open '02 through Wimbledon '03) as both the pre-tournament favorite at every slam AND the top player in the world by about a 20% margin.

Good thread, Bandy.

Well said... Serena's run is soooo underrated. For a player with 9 majors already, Serena's career sure is underrated.

Lucemferre
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:42 AM
So is a 150 week difference in time at no. 1.

She spent so much time at the top without a major title. Ranking comes after the majors anyways. Hingis is not in the same league with serena. Serena has almost twice as many majors. You can keep deluding yourself if you want though.

Lucemferre
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Justine actually had a better record in 2007 than Serena did in 2002.

:spit:

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:48 AM
Justine actually had a better record in 2007 than Serena did in 2002.

Statistically...again, you're talking CONSISTENCY. Serena (when she played)won almost everything there was to win in 2002.
THREE majors in a row ( out of three played)..the last two without even dropping a set!
won Miami
won Rome
finals of YEC,
final Berlin..

That's DOMINANCE! Justine's 2007 is more comparable with Serena's 2003 imo. Justine was good, but Serena showed that at hear peak she could do more damage.

pascal77
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:50 AM
The thing is we should have different rankings by different standards, but none of standards could be the ultimate one by which to measure which player is the greatest, greater or less great.Obviously,compared with Hingis or Henin, Serena was much better by the standard of slam singles, Serena took the slams very efficiently. She grabbed 9 slams out of 12 finals she entered. Comparatively, Hingis, if i am not mistaken, was the finalists of slams for 12 times, but it was a shame that she only won 5 of them.In her heyday, to be one of finalists or semifianlists was simply a walk in the park, but she simply failed to size those opportunities to step up her slams.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:50 AM
i think bandy covered everything i wanted to reply and say :lol:

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:52 AM
So is a 150 week difference in time at no. 1.

:lol: Well..after the ' 99 season, that practically became a joke no?
Hey..Jankovic clearly showed that if a play lot (without even winning big), you CAN become no.1.
Soooo...

pascal77
Jan 8th, 2009, 12:07 PM
:lol: Well..after the ' 99 season, that practically became a joke no?
Hey..Jankovic clearly showed that if a play lot (without even winning big), you CAN become no.1.
Soooo...

Hingis didnt win any slams after 99 season, but in 2000, she was at her best. If you take a close look at the opponents she lost to in the four slams, you can find all these three opponents(davenport, venus, Pierce) were the final winners,and Hingis was the only one that can took one set from the latter two in the slams(Venus and pierce)Her percentage of winning in 2000 was above 90, that was still very amazing.she absolutely deserved number one for her consistency and high percentage of winning.

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 12:35 PM
Hingis didnt win any slams after 99 season, but in 2000, she was at her best. If you take a close look at the opponents she lost to in the four slams, you can find all these three opponents(davenport, venus, Pierce) were the final winners,and Hingis was the only one that can took one set from the latter two in the slams(Venus and pierce)Her percentage of winning in 2000 was above 90, that was still very amazing.she absolutely deserved number one for her consistency and high percentage of winning.

Uhum..probably the best year of a non-major winner...ever?!

CrossCourt~Rally
Jan 8th, 2009, 12:41 PM
Aslong as it takes CoCo to get her net game going :lol:;)

goldenlox
Jan 8th, 2009, 01:26 PM
The only young player I see now with a chance to be great is Sharapova. She has enough game and mental toughness. She needs to stay healthy.

There might be a 12 or 13 year old somewhere in the world who will become a clear #1, 6 or 7 years from now.
Who knows. Eventually there will be some girl who's just better than her peers.

shap_half
Jan 8th, 2009, 04:05 PM
Statistically...again, you're talking CONSISTENCY. Serena (when she played)won almost everything there was to win in 2002.
THREE majors in a row ( out of three played)..the last two without even dropping a set!
won Miami
won Rome
finals of YEC,
final Berlin..

That's DOMINANCE! Justine's 2007 is more comparable with Serena's 2003 imo. Justine was good, but Serena showed that at hear peak she could do more damage.

Justine when she played won everything there was to win in 2007. Sure she completely fell apart at Wimbledon, but doesn't suggest she couldn't do more damage than Serena.

IMO Justine 07 is waaaay better than Serena's 03 and just slightly less impressive than Serena's 02. And if you don't think Justine's wins in Paris and NY in 07 were dominating and convincing, I really don't know what else to call them.

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Justine when she played won everything there was to win in 2007. Sure she completely fell apart at Wimbledon, but doesn't suggest she couldn't do more damage than Serena.

IMO Justine 07 is waaaay better than Serena's 03 and just slightly less impressive than Serena's 02. And if you don't think Justine's wins in Paris and NY in 07 were dominating and convincing, I really don't know what else to call them.

"She completely fell apart at Wimbledon"... that alone makes Justine's '07 more than just slightly less impressive than Serena's 02 no? With Serena there was NO falling apart on the truly big stages. Even in '03 she played only 6, 7 months and bagged 2 out of 3 majors, defending her WIMBLEDON title..Justine's 07 is comparable with Serena's 03.. RG + u.s. Open vs Oz open (completing career slam AND winning four in a row) + defending Wimbledon ( only a select few have done that)... ok, Justine gets the edge with YEC.

Surely Justine was dominating at RG and U.S open 07, but is that as dominating as winning FOUR in a row? I don't think so.

DragonFlame
Jan 8th, 2009, 07:52 PM
I would say, and this is how it will be remembered:
2000 - Venus
2001 - Venus with Capriati a junior co-number one.
2002 - Serena by a mile.
2003 - Serena when she was playing, Justine overall for the full season.
2004 - Mix of about 8-10 players one of which was Serena.
2005 - Lindsay or Kim.
2006 - Justine or Mauresmo.
2007 - Justine by a mile.
2008 - Serena and Venus.


If you´re doing this player of the year according to how it should be remembered, do it concrete. Not halfway. Your analysis of 2004 is deluded and fogging things up, why did you even mention serena there anyways. :rolleyes: she was not even close to being the player of 2004. 2006 between justine and amelie is not close as well. Justine easily trumps that.
Another note, if you want to make it fair, in these things health issues do not count. It's all about accomplishments.


Here a complete factual answer, according to 1. slams(+yec/olympics),2. year-end no.1 ranking, 3. other titles,4. win/loss, 5. greatness historical accomplishments.

2000 Venus W.
2001 Venus W.
2002 Serena W.
2003 Henin
2004 Henin
2005 Clijsters
2006 Henin
2007 Henin
2008 Serena W.

Statistical explanations for some races:
2000 venus beats Hingis, 2 slams + olympics + 2 other titles+91%win/loss beats no.1 ranking + Yectitle + 8 other titles+88%win/loss)

2001 venus beats Capriati, 2 slams + 4 other titles beats 2 slams + 1 other title)

2005 Clijsters beats Davenport (1 slam + 8 other titles + 88% win/loss beats no.1 ranking + 6 other titles + 86% win/loss)

2006 Henin beats Mauresmo BY FAR (1 slam + YECtitle + no.1 ranking + reaching all slamfinals + 4 other titles beats 2 slams + 2 other titles

Now the 2 hard cases, definetly close but if you look at the cold hearted facts you can see who wins it:

2004:

Henin: 1 slam + Olympics + 3 other titles(1 tier1, 2 tier2) + 90% win/loss
Sharapova: 1 slam + YECtitle + 3 other titles(2 tier3, 1 tier4) + 78% win/loss
Davenport: no.1 ranking + 7 other titles(2 tier1, 4 tier2, 1 tier3) + 88% win/loss

Winner: justine. Sharapova falls off because justine did better in the side accomplishments. Davenport falls off because she didn't win any major titles, the no.1 ranking and a few extra tier2 titles don't make up for 2/6 big titles the other 2 have.
For people that wonder about myskina and kuznetsova(the other slamwinners), they fall off compared to these 3. I checked their accomplishments as well.

2008:

Serena: 1slam + 3 other titles(2 tier1, 1 tier2) + 85% win/loss
Venus: 1slam + YECtitle + 1 other title(1 tier2) + 78% win/loss
Jankovic: no.1 ranking + 4 other titles(2 tier1, 2tier2) + 77% win/loss

winner: serena it's close between her and venus but in my oppinion she edges it because she won those extra titles and has a way better win/loss record. Also, i just can't see the best player of the year with such a low win/loss record of 78%.-_- That would definetly be the lowest it's EVER been.

Last note: i think this just shows how good Henin was. If we look at the major points she was definetly heaps ahead of her competitors in her last 5 seasons.(not counting 2008)

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Last note: i think this just shows how good Henin was. If we look at the major points she was definetly heaps ahead of her competitors in her last 5 seasons.(not counting 2008)

Yep...she was certainly consistent. not dominant ultra dominant, but consistent.

DragonFlame
Jan 8th, 2009, 09:33 PM
Yep...she was certainly consistent. not dominant ultra dominant, but consistent.

If you´re the best player 4 out of 5 years in a row and retire i wouldn´t call it just consistent anymore. That´s definetly domination. Not to the same short-term extend graf and serena had in their respective 'grandslams' but if we're looking long-term she's definetly up there with the best of them. That definetly isn´t an easy accomplishment and not many players can say that.
And justine IS one of only 9 women that held 3 slams at the same time.(03-04) So she's definetly up there. Venus hasn't done it.

But really, it´s a shame she retired at age 25. I think pretty much everyone here thought she would be playing till like 28/30 and retire with at least double digits in slams.
Which nutcase retires as the no.1 player in the world, 2-time grandslamholder, YECdefender and Olympictitle holder anyways, justine is definetly a crazy one. :lol:

bandabou
Jan 8th, 2009, 09:39 PM
If you´re the best player 4 out of 5 years in a row and retire i wouldn´t call it just consistent anymore. That´s definetly domination. Not to the same short-term extend graf and serena had in their respective 'grandslams' but if we're looking long-term she's definetly up there with the best of them. That definetly isn´t an easy accomplishment and not many players can say that.
And justine IS one of only 9 women that held 3 slams at the same time.(03-04) So she's definetly up there. Venus hasn't done it.

But really, it´s a shame she retired at age 25. I think pretty much everyone here thought she would be playing till like 28/30 and retire with at least double digits in slams.
Which nutcase retires as the no.1 player in the world, 2-time grandslamholder, YECdefender and Olympictitle holder anyways, justine is definetly a crazy one. :lol:

:lol: Jujuuuuu....

DragonFlame
Jan 8th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Funny thing abolut Henin. Her accomplishments have some Goolagong about them. (They won the same number of slam singles titles, but that's not what I meant.)


Evonne Goolagong suffered, not from failing to be the best player, but from failing to achieve as much as the great players around her. Henin may have been the best player inthe sport from 2004 to 2007. (It's arguable, but not my point.) But at her best, she didn't accomplish what Serena, or Graf, or Seles did. Much like Goolagong never equaled the best of Court, King or Evert.


She fails, in other words, against subjective standards. How fair is that?

I don't think justine failed when she played, far from it. She was definetly up there, the only thing that separates her from the others is that she retired early at an age of 25 while those others all played to well in their 30's. If justine played 2-3 more seasons she could have double digit slams.(and it seems likely even considering she won a slam EVERY year since 2003)

That doesn't compare with Goolagong at all. Goolagong had a pretty much long-stretched career, retired at 29(i think?) and she was in the fase when the australian open field was comparably weaker then the other slams wasn't she. That's the slam she won 4 times... Henin's legacy is greater then that.

Volcana
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:03 PM
So is a 150 week difference in time at no. 1.Weeks at #1 is basically a bogus stat, because the methods useds to determine who was number #1 keep changing. Now, if you picked ONE system, and went back and re-calculated all the rankings based on that, you might have something.


Take Gabriella Sabatini for example. If memory serves, she never held the #1 ranking. She would have, under some of the other ranking systems used.


The other reaon why people use the slams as a measure more than anything else is that they allow you to look much father back in the history of tennis. You can compare Maria Bueno to Martina Hingis, without having to deal with stuff like number of tournaments available to be played, number of tournaments actually played, convenience of international travel, the impact of sexism, and which ranking system, if any, was used.


Also, to pick an analogy form another sport, the Chicago Bears American football, for four years, had far and away the best regular season record in American football. They won one champion. The San Francisco 49ers, of roughly the same period, were not as good in the regular season. But they won four championships.


Tennis is like that. Some players rack up the wins in non-slam events, but when the big tournaments come around, they come up small. Roger Federer is not compared to Pete Sampras based on weeks-at-#1, or wins in Tier I events. It's all about the slams.

Cp6uja
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:34 PM
Three slams during career with couple weeks at #1 is enough for me to call some player "GREAT". Who says that former WTA #1 Davenport or Capriati with 3 GS titles (+ OG golds) are not "enough" great players? I dont want discuss with all who says that even Venus or Hingis are not great players!? Maria won three different slams at 21 - thats enough for me. Mauresmo, Pierce and Clijsters was close... but fall. Of currently active players i expect of Ana to reach at least three slam titles (probably already before 2011), and players like JJ or Sveta or Safina also have chances to finish career with 3+ titles if continue with improvements.

Talking already about current teen/kids sensations like De Brito or Robson is too early and not seriously. Theirs level of play is fantastic for under-16 girls but we still must to wait... remember what happen with Vaidisova, Karantantcheva, Golovin... which reach TOP100 so early.

Mashafaaaaan
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Three slams during career with couple weeks at #1 is enough for me to call some player "GREAT". Who says that former WTA #1 Davenport or Capriati with 3 GS titles (+ OG golds) are not "enough" great players? I dont want discuss with all who says that even Venus or Hingis are not great players!? Maria won three different slams at 21 - thats enough for me. Mauresmo, Pierce and Clijsters was close... but fall. Of currently active players i expect of Ana to reach at least three slam titles (probably already before 2011), and players like JJ or Sveta or Safina also have chances to finish career with 3+ titles if continue with improvements.

Talking already about current teen/kids sensations like De Brito or Robson is too early and not seriously. Theirs level of play is fantastic for under-16 girls but we still must to wait... remember what happen with Vaidisova, Karantantcheva, Golovin... which reach TOP100 so early.

At 20.:drool:

3Dcool
Jan 8th, 2009, 10:49 PM
She's here already, Her name is Agnieszka Radwanska. You'll see it during 2009. She is a very special and tallented player. She proved it non-stop, and will keep on proving.

Lucemferre
Jan 8th, 2009, 11:16 PM
She's here already, Her name is Agnieszka Radwanska. You'll see it during 2009. She is a very special and tallented player. She proved it non-stop, and will keep on proving.

OP asks the next great not average.

raffles
Jan 9th, 2009, 12:04 AM
The only thing special about Radwanska is her ability to give obnixous interviews.

DragonFlame
Jan 9th, 2009, 12:16 AM
The only thing special about Radwanska is her ability to give obnixous interviews.

Don't forget her drawing talent! :(

CJ07
Jan 9th, 2009, 01:22 AM
This topic has gotten derailed into a Justine vs. Serena debate, but that isn't the question.

I seriously don't think any player born before 1992 will be a "great" player by the Graf-Navratilova-Evert-Seles benchmark. We heard about Hingis when she was 10, Venus when she was 11, Kournikova when she was 10, etc. Sharapova was discovered at 5 as a talent by Navratilova.

I haven't heard anything about that yet. And while the next generation of Russians have potential, they're not nearly as good as the ones who came before them. It looks like the next generation will be several years of 2004 - lots of players who can win, none of whom really standout (leaving Sharapova out of that equation).

LoveFifteen
Jan 9th, 2009, 01:36 AM
Hingis's 2000 year was an incredible year. She won 5 Tier I tournaments and the YEC. Yes, she didn't win a Slam, but she lost to the winner in each one.

Her doubles achievements alone are "legendary" considering she was a singles player that wasn't 100% focused on doubles.

In any case, Serena is (and should be) remembered as the greatest of that generation, but I am almost embarrassed for us tennis fans squabbling over whether Henin, Serena, Venus or Hingis were great or legendary.

Do you guys not see that the next generation is truly an abomination and that women's tennis could be entering a Dark Age when the Williams sisters retire?

zlove
Jan 9th, 2009, 02:40 AM
Hingis's 2000 year was an incredible year. She won 5 Tier I tournaments and the YEC. Yes, she didn't win a Slam, but she lost to the winner in each one.

Her doubles achievements alone are "legendary" considering she was a singles player that wasn't 100% focused on doubles.

In any case, Serena is (and should be) remembered as the greatest of that generation, but I am almost embarrassed for us tennis fans squabbling over whether Henin, Serena, Venus or Hingis were great or legendary.

Do you guys not see that the next generation is truly an abomination and that women's tennis could be entering a Dark Age when the Williams sisters retire?

completely agree

raffles
Jan 9th, 2009, 06:39 AM
Don't forget her drawing talent! :(
How could I forget. I bet JJ has that beautiful portrait hanging on her wall at home.

Corswandt
Jan 11th, 2009, 12:11 PM
From the Brisbane final thread. I think this thread is a more appropriate place to discuss this.

For all the people who say this younger generation is unexceptional, I think you need look no further than Azarenka, Wozniacki, Radwanska, and even Cibulkova, Szavay, and Cornet and see that they really are a very talented and fairly different group of players. What strikes me the most is that most of these younger players who are emerging right now are very good movers. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to bring it and knock some good, solid top 10ers out or whether they have to wait for age and injury to knock them out instead.

This sounds like a press release.

Like that Romanian chick once said: "Not bad"? I don't want shit that's "not bad", I want shit that's good.

And that's the problem. We don't need consistent mediocrity. We don't need any more useless solid top 10ers (we already have plenty of those). We don't need winners by default. We need contenders for major titles, we need players who can beat the best when they play their best, and we need them now. The void at the very top we currently have is untenable, unless you feel it's good for the game to have Serena winning Slams until she needs a trailer to carry her own ass, or Venus still serving her way to Wimbledon titles while complaining of arthritis.

Right now, I think that the "ambush" players such as Kleybanova or Cirstea, which have the game to beat anyone but are evidently incapable of consistent success for all sorts of reasons (obesity and crazyness respectively for the players mentioned), are more interesting than any of the players you mentioned. Radwanska would have been a multiple Slam winner - had she reached her peak in 1972. La Borz is the bubbly version of Shahar Peer. Azarenka is a slower, less versatile Zvonareva. Cibulkova can become an upset artist, but has limited potential for obvious reasons. Szavay's shit hot streak of the summer of 07 was a fluke. Cornet sux. None of them strikes you as a future world beater. Some people mistakenly saw it in Vaidisova, which just about shows how desperate everyone is for someone new to shake things up.

Ciarán
Jan 11th, 2009, 12:16 PM
2010 - Paszek

JarkaFish
Dec 30th, 2012, 11:25 PM
Well, we're nearing 2013 and still no babyGOAT. :confused:

TheLegendof
Dec 31st, 2012, 12:11 AM
Well Serena ended up becoming even greater. Good enough for me.

JarkaFish
Dec 31st, 2012, 12:18 AM
Well Serena ended up becoming even greater. Good enough for me.

She's not going to be around forever. :shrug:

moby
Dec 31st, 2012, 12:19 AM
She's not going to be around forever. :shrug:Why would she quit if she can still rake in Grand Slams past her prime against mediocre competition?

JarkaFish
Dec 31st, 2012, 12:20 AM
Why would she quit if she can still rake in Grand Slams past her prime against mediocre competition?

Good question.

machinist
Jan 26th, 2013, 05:44 PM
Laura is with us already. She has already shown what she is capable of. She pulled off the greatest upset at the AO a couple of days ago.

traralgon
Feb 10th, 2013, 07:02 PM
Laura is with us already. She has already shown what she is capable of. She pulled off the greatest upset at the AO a couple of days ago.

I agree. She could win her first slam as soon as this year I think.

Womp Up The Jamz
Feb 10th, 2013, 07:06 PM
The greatest upset? Slam this year?

What exactly are we smoking here because I could go in on some tripped out madness about now.

Passierschlag
Feb 23rd, 2013, 08:38 PM
I would agree with the assessment that Laura is the future of tennis, together with Konjuh and Shishkina.

Fighterpova
Feb 23rd, 2013, 08:50 PM
Definitely Vika. In the past 2 years she has showed amazing dominance and mental toughness. I definitely see her winning at least 2 Slams this year and around 8 overall.

Juju Nostalgique
Feb 23rd, 2013, 08:51 PM
I would agree with the assessment that Laura is the future of tennis, together with Konjuh and Shishkina.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111221131304/icarly/images/7/73/Tumblr_lwjj3q3g2a1qe3yjd.gif

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 23rd, 2013, 08:58 PM
How Long Until The Next GREAT Player?

4 years and 4 months. ;)












































.....before I admit I don't have a clue.

bbjpa
Feb 23rd, 2013, 10:45 PM
First answer was

de brito gots the swagga


:hysteric:

:explode:

LUVMIRZA
Feb 23rd, 2013, 10:50 PM
She is here already defeating another GOAT last week:worship: