PDA

View Full Version : Is Serena the best player of all time?


Pages : [1] 2

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 4th, 2010, 05:15 PM
Did she confirmed her spot as a the best female tennis player ever?

dsanders06
Jul 4th, 2010, 05:18 PM
I can't believe no'one's thought to ask this yet! :eek:

Thkmra
Jul 4th, 2010, 05:19 PM
According to John Mccenroe, she is definitely on her way..once she passes that 17, 18, 19 mark, she WILL be considered the greatest!!

bbjpa
Jul 4th, 2010, 05:22 PM
NO, best server doesn't make you best player of all time

JackFrost
Jul 4th, 2010, 05:41 PM
*yaaaaawn*

Vartan
Jul 4th, 2010, 05:53 PM
How original.

tennisbum79
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:01 PM
This thread was created for to guys to vent after Serena's emphatic victory.
Hand it seems to be working, you converging to it like flies to decomposing fruit

NO, best server doesn't make you best player of all time
*yaaaaawn*

How original.

Vartan
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:08 PM
I'm not venting about Serena's victory at all, it's just that there are 10 threads like this in the GM.

Vartan
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:08 PM
I'm not venting about Serena's victory at all, it's just that there are 10 threads like this in the GM.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:13 PM
I'm not venting about Serena's victory at all, it's just that there are 10 threads like this in the GM.

Im sorry Vartan, i just wanted to know what you guys think!:sad:

Vartan
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:15 PM
:hug: Lol, it's okay.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:18 PM
:hug: Lol, it's okay.

Thank you HONEYBEE! :hug:

narutos
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:20 PM
What's going on with Serena there is like 10 threads about her. Stop this.

croat123
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:22 PM
i put graf, navratilova and evert all above her. just imagine how many slams evert or navratilova would have if they didn't have to deal with each other :eek:

aisha
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:27 PM
No.

Veesus
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Yes.

Calypso
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:34 PM
i put graf, navratilova and evert all above her. just imagine how many slams evert or navratilova would have if they didn't have to deal with each other :eek:

Over 30 Slams :lol:

And the benefitting party's fans would rush to declare them the GOAT:rolleyes:, and proclaim how Serena must win 30 Slams to 'get in the discussion':lol:.

friendsita
Jul 4th, 2010, 06:37 PM
IMO yes she is.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 4th, 2010, 07:18 PM
Over 30 Slams :lol:

And the benefitting party's fans would rush to declare them the GOAT:rolleyes:, and proclaim how Serena must win 30 Slams to 'get in the discussion':lol:.

Yeah:lol: but still its harder nowadays than it was back then!

GAGAlady
Jul 4th, 2010, 07:29 PM
i think you have to give Serena the respect her game has earned over the years...especially the last 2-3 years she has matured alot and improved even more, her first and second serve is the best womens tennis has or probably will ever see (will see) and competition wise, shes tougher than anyone female ive ever seen play the game, to me even more than a player like Seles....who was also renowned as a tough player herself.

The only thing Graff, Nav and Evert have on Serena are overall GRAND SLAM numbers....but game-wise, she is the far superior player....i was never a big fan, but even as that you have to call it as it is and say that Serena is just that good...

mdterp01
Jul 4th, 2010, 07:33 PM
Oh my freaking god. Another one of these? Serena will not become the best player of ALL time unless she ties or surpasses Steffi's 22 major wins. And even then there are some who argue she won't unless she were to tie or surpass Court's 24. Stop asking this question. The numbers don't lie people.

LightWarrior
Jul 4th, 2010, 07:57 PM
And even then there are some who argue she won't unless she were to tie or surpass Court's 24. Stop asking this question. The numbers don't lie people.

Although she has 24 slams Margaret Court is never mentioned as the GOAT : she won half of those at AO at a time when the best players didn't bother to come to Australia. So numbers may not lie but can be misleading. ;)

BluSthil
Jul 4th, 2010, 08:08 PM
How many times are we gonna discuss this topic ? Serena has not done enough yet to secure that claim.

Another poster made an excellent statement - Are we to judge the greatness of a player by how many Grand Slams they win, or by their total resume / If by the GS's, then the WTA & the ATP might as well cancel all the other tournaments except the GS's !

When Serena wins her 18th GS, her 31st GS Doubles title, and her 10th GS mixed doubles title, then let the discussion begin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Navratalova

Tennis Records:

Former #1 Tennis Player

Billie Jean King: “Navratalova is the greatest single player, doubles and mixed doubles player who ever lived”

Tennis writer Steve Flink: named Navratalova as the second best female player of the 20th century, directly behind Steffi Graf”

Tennis Magazine: selected her as the greatest female tennis player for the years 1965 thru 2005.

Records:

18 Grand Slam singles titles
31 Grand Slam women’s doubles titles
10 Grand Slam mixed doubles titles

Navratalova reached the Wimbledon singles final 12 times, including 9 consecutive years from 1982 thru 1990.

Won the women’s singles title at Wimbledon a record 9 times.

Ties Billie Jean King’s 20 Wimbledon titles by winning the mixed doubles in 2006.

Is one of just three (3) women to have accomplished a Career Grand Slam in singles, women’s doubles, and mixed doubles (Called the Grand Slam Box Set).

Navratalova holds the open era record for most singles and doubles tournament wins (167 & 177 titles respectively).

She recorded the longest winning streak in tennis history (74 matches in a row), and three of the top six (6) longest winning streaks in women’s tennis history.

Navratalova shares the record for the most consecutive Grand Slam Singles Tournament Championships won (six (6).

She reached 11 consecutive Grand Slam Singles Finals (2nd all time).

In doubles, Navratalova & Shriver won 109 consecutive matches. They won the Calendar Year Grand Slam in 1984 as a team. They also tied the record of 20 Grand Slam Doubles titles as a team.

JackFrost
Jul 4th, 2010, 09:14 PM
I'm not venting about Serena's victory at all, it's just that there are 10 threads like this in the GM.
That.

timafi
Jul 4th, 2010, 09:15 PM
nope!

Chrissie-fan
Jul 4th, 2010, 09:59 PM
There is no such thing as a single best player of all time. Circumstances change, competition is different in each era, the equipment changes and so on. There is however a select group of tier one all time greats. Considering that because of the increased physicality of the game careers at the top are on average shorter than they used to be Serena's longevity has earned her a spot among that elite group.

SerenaSlam
Jul 4th, 2010, 10:11 PM
fanatic's having discussion over Serena while PROFESSIONALS tend to lean towards the obvious answer. She is clearly on her way. When I hear the likes of Martina and John and Bille etc speak of it happening if she can catch up in Slam count (and expecting her at this rate to do so) Then I must say the possibility for her to be considered the greatest of all time is YES inevitable.

Its Serena williams and we are on Tennisforum.com board. If she reaches every single goal that the other greats have reached they will have yet another goal or reason as to what she needs to do inorder to even have a consideration. One thing they have always done and ill give them credit for is say NO she won't. But its funny now that she is continuing to rack in the slams and anything else you can add to her resume. They continue to say NO...while the "greats" we compare them to say "yes" aka Who gives a damn about fanatic opinions from a tennis forum when we have Professionals that have lived the life serena is living and comparing their PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL experiences to her's and believe she can be the GOAT....im just sayin lol

CloudAtlas
Jul 4th, 2010, 10:14 PM
I'm surprised no-one has asked this question before.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 4th, 2010, 10:45 PM
According to John Mccenroe, she is definitely on her way..once she passes that 17, 18, 19 mark, she WILL be considered the greatest!!

Try once she passed 24 and then she can be considered the greatest. Court leads the list with 24 and the Graf at 22 get near these two and then debate reopens until then there is nothing to talk about.

At the moment Serena is one of the greatest to play the game not the greatest.

MistyGrey
Jul 4th, 2010, 11:54 PM
Not yet. But she has cemented a place inside the top 5...

Mynarco
Jul 4th, 2010, 11:58 PM
she is already the best out of her generation, and if she wants to be GOAT she needs to win most slams out of all women in the open era.

kiwialicat
Jul 5th, 2010, 01:32 AM
best of her gen without a doubt. But best player of all time, are you kidding? Better than Graf? I don't think so. Maybe one day soon but not yet.

Pat Bateman
Jul 5th, 2010, 01:36 AM
Serena isn't even the best player in her family :lol:

kiwifan
Jul 5th, 2010, 01:41 AM
define best...

...clearly she's not the most accomplished...

...but I don't think any of the all time greats really think they'd whip her on grass or hardcourts...

...physics is on the side of not just Serena but anyone who shows up after Serena's done...

...Miss Chris on Clay that might be the best match up. ;)

darrinbaker00
Jul 5th, 2010, 01:50 AM
i put graf, navratilova and evert all above her. just imagine how many slams evert or navratilova would have if they didn't have to deal with each other :eek:
Personally, I don't think either of them would have done as well without the other. When Navratilova first came to the States from Czechoslovakia, she spent just as much time in the buffet line as she did on the practice court. Once she got herself in shape, she started beating Chrissie on the regular, which motivated Chrissie to get herself in better shape. Those two really did bring out the best in each other.

ElusiveChanteuse
Jul 5th, 2010, 01:55 AM
If she can at least tie Navratilove/Evert's singles slams then you can bring up the doubles slam she has, and say she is even better than Steffi (since Steffi isn't as accomplished as Serena in doubles).:)

SM
Jul 5th, 2010, 01:58 AM
if she gets to number 22 then yes, but she hasnt got that much time left, will her body hold up?

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 5th, 2010, 02:02 AM
130 singles titles away from it

serenafan08
Jul 5th, 2010, 02:03 AM
Nope; that would be Steffi Graf, who is the only player to win each major a minimum of four times, and the only player to win the Golden Slam (all four majors plus Olympic gold). Nav has the most total titles (167), and she and Chris both have 18 majors apiece. But Steffi was probably the greatest all-court player. Serena is making a case for being mentioned in the same breath as her though; we'll see what she does in the next few years.

viruzzz
Jul 5th, 2010, 02:26 AM
Well... Maybe the "Best Serena" could won over the "Best Steffi"...
But I think Hingis without that injuries...
Injuries were so cruel with Martina :tears:

Dominic
Jul 5th, 2010, 02:47 AM
Hem no.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:46 AM
130 singles titles away from it

Its just completely impossible to win so many singles titles nowadays! Competition is much more demanding! Womens tennis have chanced in 10-20 years so much! So comparasion, with just blindly looking at these numbers is not fair at all!!!:sad:

Protoss
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:56 AM
Its just completely impossible to win so many singles titles nowadays! Competition is much more demanding! Womens tennis have chanced in 10-20 years so much! So comparasion, with just blindly looking at these numbers is not fair at all!!!:sad:
She's not tops in # of singles titles among her contemporaries though. :shrug:

Acinolbaj
Jul 5th, 2010, 09:00 AM
No.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:40 AM
She's not tops in # of singles titles among her contemporaries though. :shrug:

I know!;) But there isnt really a doubt about who has been number 1 recently! Serena still has years left, so she can surpass her contesters records (past and present)! But i dont think that she reaches to Martina Navratilovas records!:eek: WOW!

Slamniacki
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:18 AM
No.Laura Robson is.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:35 PM
No.Laura Robson is.

Laura Robson??? :confused:

Vartan
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:40 PM
Laura Robson??? :confused:

The slut.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:47 PM
The slut.

:lol: Ok that was a little mean!:devil:

Vartan
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:48 PM
I was only kidding :) I found it funny how she called others sluts and then apologized. And then we had the Schiavone photos published.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 5th, 2010, 04:54 PM
Nope; that would be Steffi Graf, who is the only player to win each major a minimum of four times, and the only player to win the Golden Slam (all four majors plus Olympic gold). Nav has the most total titles (167), and she and Chris both have 18 majors apiece. But Steffi was probably the greatest all-court player. Serena is making a case for being mentioned in the same breath as her though; we'll see what she does in the next few years.
Martina once said that she was the greatest fast court player, Chris was the greatest slow court player and Steffi was the best all-court player. Although all three were terrific on any surface there's a lot of truth in that. But that only accounts for those three all time greats. How about Court or Connolly? Or even Lenglen or Wills? They may be fossils from prehistoric times, but they were virtually unbeatable in their time which is all anyone can ever do. They could have done nothing more than they did to earn at least a mention in any ATG debate. For me Serena is a member of this select group as well. Just like Evert, Navratilova, Court and King she will (probably) continue to win slams into her 30's - a great achievement at a time when the average career gets shorter because of the increased physicality of the game.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:03 PM
I was only kidding :) I found it funny how she called others sluts and then apologized. And then we had the Schiavone photos published.

Yeah i remember that!:lol:

darrinbaker00
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:08 PM
Martina once said that she was the greatest fast court player, Chris was the greatest slow court player and Steffi was the best all-court player. Although all three were terrific on any surface there's a lot of truth in that. But that only accounts for those three all time greats. How about Court or Connolly? Or even Lenglen or Wills? They may be fossils from prehistoric times, but they were virtually unbeatable in their time which is all anyone can ever do. They could have done nothing more than they did to earn at least a mention in any ATG debate. For me Serena is a member of this select group as well. Just like Evert, Navratilova, Court and King she will (probably) continue to win slams into her 30's - a great achievement at a time when the average career gets shorter because of the increased physicality of the game.
Could you be just a little more disrespectful, please?

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:15 PM
Chrissie-fan probably didnt ment it that way!

The Kaz
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:15 PM
Not even close.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Could you be just a little more disrespectful, please?
Since I always mention them in any ATG debate I'm sure that I respect them a lot more than most posters.

Thkmra
Jul 5th, 2010, 05:20 PM
Not even close.

...:confused: I thought she was already in the top 5, with about only 5 more to go(VERY LIKELY) to catch up to Nav, and Evert..so 'not even close??:o

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 5th, 2010, 06:52 PM
...:confused: I thought she was already in the top 5, with about only 5 more to go(VERY LIKELY) to catch up to Nav, and Evert..so 'not even close??:o

True! She is not very far away!;)

metamorpha
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:17 PM
Many people believed Serena could compete in low-level ATP. :lol: So... yeah, they might indirectly believe that Serena is the greatest ever in women's tennis.

acetoace
Jul 5th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Going by today's standard of tennis, Serena is clearly the best player ever IMO. The talent, skill & prowess she has dispalyed on the court over the years justified this conclusion. Some folks here are confusing "best player of all time" with "GOAT". Both are different.

When talking of "BPOAT", it relates to prowess displayed on the court to win matches/tournaments and how that ability has evolved over the years. For example, when you juxtapose the match tapes of Serena with those of Steffi or Nav, can one honestly and reasonably conclude that Steffi or Nav be considered "best player" ever? I for one don't think so.

In other words, can Steffi or Nav at their peak, if placed in this era, be able to win as many tournaments/slams as they did in their era? I think not. Conversely, can peak Serena or fully evolved Serena, as proven by her antecedents, blow away the competition faced by Steffi & Nav if she were in that era? I say most DEFINITELY.

The way I see it, tennis was still evolving up to Steffi & Nav's time; hence, the low level of skill displayed by lesser players of that generation. Added to that, was the lack of "stiff competition". By that, I mean the hunger, fervor, determination and burning desire like the one we see displayed by current players. Needless to say there are other factors that make past eras weak.

"Real" competition in women tennis began to evolve when the likes of pre-injury Seles, Hingis, Capriati, Davenport and the Williamses came on the scene. Just go review the tapes.

Sometimes, when I take time to watch old tapes of the 80's and early 90's, I cannot help but shake my head at what I see. Some folks win matches in those days that, if they're placed against most current top players, they can only go down in straights continually. Therefore, to accumulate 13 slams in "today's" competition is a pure testament to Serena's greatness.

Folks may disagree with my take, but to me, the level of play from late 90's to date is way higher than and the physical aspect far more demanding compared to the joke that obtained proir to late 90's. Women tennis has come full-circle now for sure.

Is Serena the greatest ever? Not yet....next 3yrs will tell.

PS: Here you have it. Navratilova seems to agree with my submission.
http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-ontennis-rafaserena

acetoace
Jul 5th, 2010, 08:19 PM
i think you have to give Serena the respect her game has earned over the years...especially the last 2-3 years she has matured alot and improved even more, her first and second serve is the best womens tennis has or probably will ever see (will see) and competition wise, shes tougher than anyone female ive ever seen play the game, to me even more than a player like Seles....who was also renowned as a tough player herself.

The only thing Graff, Nav and Evert have on Serena are overall GRAND SLAM numbers....but game-wise, she is the far superior player....i was never a big fan, but even as that you have to call it as it is and say that Serena is just that good...



I just found this link. http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-ontennis-rafaserena:worship:

Navratilova seems to agree with you too.

This coming from one of the best to ever play the game.

Sund7101
Jul 5th, 2010, 08:33 PM
Going by today's standard of tennis, Serena is clearly the best player ever IMO. The talent, skill & prowess she has dispalyed on the court over the years justified this conclusion. Some folks here are confusing "best player of all time" with "GOAT". Both are different.

When talking of "BPOAT", it relates to prowess displayed on the court to win matches/tournaments and how that ability has evolved over the years. For example, when you juxtapose the match tapes of Serena with those of Steffi or Nav, can one honestly and reasonably conclude that Steffi or Nav be considered "best player" ever? I for one don't think so.

In other words, can Steffi or Nav at their peak, if placed in this era, be able to win as many tournaments/slams as they did in their era? I think not. Conversely, can peak Serena or fully evolved Serena, as proven by her antecedents, blow away the competition faced by Steffi & Nav if she were in that era? I say most DEFINITELY.

The way I see it, tennis was still evolving up to Steffi & Nav's time; hence, the low level of skill displayed by lesser players of that generation. Added to that, was the lack of "stiff competition". By that, I mean the hunger, fervor, determination and burning desire like the one we see displayed by current players. Needless to say there are other factors that make past eras weak.

"Real" competition in women tennis began to evolve when the likes of pre-injury Seles, Hingis, Capriati, Davenport and the Williamses came on the scene. Just go review the tapes.

Sometimes, when I take time to watch old tapes of the 80's and early 90's, I cannot help but shake my head at what I see. Some folks win matches in those days that, if they're placed against most current top players, they can only go down in straights continually. Therefore, to accumulate 13 slams in "today's" competition is a pure testament to Serena's greatness.

Folks may disagree with my take, but to me, the level of play from late 90's to date is way higher than and the physical aspect far more demanding compared to the joke that obtained proir to late 90's. Women tennis has come full-circle now for sure.

Is Serena the greatest ever? Not yet....next 3yrs will tell.

Great post! I agree that only time will tell, but there is no denying that Serena has brought the game to an entirely different level. Her athleticism and determination is unbelievable. Her serve is the biggest weapon that the tour has ever seen.

The depth in women's tennis is far greater now than it ever was. I wonder what the stats are like for the 80s and early 90s for players consistently making the quarters and the semis. I'm pretty sure it was the same players who were making it deep in the slams. In the 80s it was Evert, Austin, Mandikova,Goolagong,Navratilova, Sabatini, Graf, and Sanchez Vicario. And the last four still dominating the last week of the slams in the early 90s. There was no depth whatsoever.

Having said that, the depth at the top of the game right now is not like it was in the late 90s and early 2000s. There were some great players at that time at the top. Serena, Venus, Hingis, Davenport, Pierce, Capriati, Sanchez Vicario, Graf, Mauresmo, Clijsters, Henin, Seles, Novotna, and Martinez (all at that time had won a slam or were a slam finalist and all would go on to win a slam at some point in their career).

Today, however; the depth isn't that great at the top. Wozniacki, Jankovic, Zvonareva, Safina, Bartoli, Stosur,and Dementieva have all been slam finalists, but are no where near as good as the slam finalists in the late 90s and early 2000s (minus Tauziat). At that time the semis or finals were anyones game, but today I can not see Serena losing to those above players that deep in a grand slam.

Early rounds may be tougher, but I think the semis and finals are not like they used to be. Kvitova, Schiavone, Stosur, Pironkova, and Zvonareva would never make the semis in the late 90s or early 2000s because the depth was so much greater up top. I miss the drama in the late rounds like we had in the early 2000s and I miss it.

Great rivalries like Hingis/Davenport, Seles/Graf, Serena/Capriati, Kim/Justine, Venus/Davenport, Venus/Serena, they just don't exist anymore. Those are the match-ups I want to see in the 2nd week of a grand slam.

90s/early 2000s greater depth up top.

Now greater depth at the bottom.

Anyways...I think Serena can become one of the greatest ever.

metamorpha
Jul 5th, 2010, 08:53 PM
Maybe not. Reason: 1 FO. Serena is only that great in this surface?

BluSthil
Jul 5th, 2010, 09:43 PM
Going by today's standard of tennis, Serena is clearly the best player ever IMO. The talent, skill & prowess she has dispalyed on the court over the years justified this conclusion. Some folks here are confusing "best player of all time" with "GOAT". Both are different.

When talking of "BPOAT", it relates to prowess displayed on the court to win matches/tournaments and how that ability has evolved over the years. For example, when you juxtapose the match tapes of Serena with those of Steffi or Nav, can one honestly and reasonably conclude that Steffi or Nav be considered "best player" ever? I for one don't think so.

In other words, can Steffi or Nav at their peak, if placed in this era, be able to win as many tournaments/slams as they did in their era? I think not. Conversely, can peak Serena or fully evolved Serena, as proven by her antecedents, blow away the competition faced by Steffi & Nav if she were in that era? I say most DEFINITELY.

The way I see it, tennis was still evolving up to Steffi & Nav's time; hence, the low level of skill displayed by lesser players of that generation. Added to that, was the lack of "stiff competition". By that, I mean the hunger, fervor, determination and burning desire like the one we see displayed by current players. Needless to say there are other factors that make past eras weak.

"Real" competition in women tennis began to evolve when the likes of pre-injury Seles, Hingis, Capriati, Davenport and the Williamses came on the scene. Just go review the tapes.

Sometimes, when I take time to watch old tapes of the 80's and early 90's, I cannot help but shake my head at what I see. Some folks win matches in those days that, if they're placed against most current top players, they can only go down in straights continually. Therefore, to accumulate 13 slams in "today's" competition is a pure testament to Serena's greatness.

Folks may disagree with my take, but to me, the level of play from late 90's to date is way higher than and the physical aspect far more demanding compared to the joke that obtained proir to late 90's. Women tennis has come full-circle now for sure.

Is Serena the greatest ever? Not yet....next 3yrs will tell.

PS: Here you have it. Navratilova seems to agree with my submission.
http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-ontennis-rafaserena
I think it is silly to speak of the greatest of all time. We all pretty much know who is the greatest of their generation. However, each generation has it's technical improvements, conditioning upgrades, equipment improvements, better health regiments, clothing that breathes & performs better etc.

Some players such as Federer, Samprass, Agassi, Laver, Nadal, Navratalova, Graff, S. Williams,... have transcended the game more than other great players, and that's when the "bragging" begins.

I know we'll always banter about who is the greatest, but it seems so frivolous...

BluSthil
Jul 5th, 2010, 09:46 PM
I think it is silly to speak of the greatest of all time. We all pretty much know who is the greatest of their generation. However, each generation has it's technical improvements, conditioning upgrades, equipment improvements, better health regiments, clothing that breathes & performs better etc.

Some players such as Federer, Samprass, Agassi, Laver, Nadal, Navratalova, Graff, S. Williams,... have transcended the game more than other great players, and that's when the "bragging" begins.

I know we'll always banter about who is the greatest, but it seems so frivolous...

Jorn
Jul 5th, 2010, 09:46 PM
No, SW will need to win Singles and Doubles all years GS's the next 3-4 years...

AnomyBC
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:37 PM
There should seriously be a ban on all threads like this until Serena wins at least 18 slams :)

LightWarrior
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:08 PM
In the 80s it was Evert, Austin, Mandikova,Goolagong,Navratilova, Sabatini, Graf, and Sanchez Vicario. And the last four still dominating the last week of the slams in the early 90s.

Austin and Goolagong dominating in the '80s ? No. Austin won her last slam in 1981 and Goolagong in 1980. Both retired shortly after that or became irrelevant.
Sanchez won her 1st slam in 1989.

Sund7101
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:54 PM
Austin and Goolagong dominating in the '80s ? No. Austin won her last slam in 1981 and Goolagong in 1980. Both retired shortly after that or became irrelevant.
Sanchez won her 1st slam in 1989.

Yes, I was trying to think of players who had actually won slams in the 80s besides Chris, Martina, Hana, and Graf. Austin and Goolagong were in the mix at the beginning of the decade before retiring and then Sanchez came around at the end of decade. It really was the Chris and Martina show, I was just trying to think of other players who had slam success in the 80s.

GAGAlady
Jul 6th, 2010, 04:39 AM
Going by today's standard of tennis, Serena is clearly the best player ever IMO. The talent, skill & prowess she has dispalyed on the court over the years justified this conclusion. Some folks here are confusing "best player of all time" with "GOAT". Both are different.

When talking of "BPOAT", it relates to prowess displayed on the court to win matches/tournaments and how that ability has evolved over the years. For example, when you juxtapose the match tapes of Serena with those of Steffi or Nav, can one honestly and reasonably conclude that Steffi or Nav be considered "best player" ever? I for one don't think so.

In other words, can Steffi or Nav at their peak, if placed in this era, be able to win as many tournaments/slams as they did in their era? I think not. Conversely, can peak Serena or fully evolved Serena, as proven by her antecedents, blow away the competition faced by Steffi & Nav if she were in that era? I say most DEFINITELY.

The way I see it, tennis was still evolving up to Steffi & Nav's time; hence, the low level of skill displayed by lesser players of that generation. Added to that, was the lack of "stiff competition". By that, I mean the hunger, fervor, determination and burning desire like the one we see displayed by current players. Needless to say there are other factors that make past eras weak.

"Real" competition in women tennis began to evolve when the likes of pre-injury Seles, Hingis, Capriati, Davenport and the Williamses came on the scene. Just go review the tapes.

Sometimes, when I take time to watch old tapes of the 80's and early 90's, I cannot help but shake my head at what I see. Some folks win matches in those days that, if they're placed against most current top players, they can only go down in straights continually. Therefore, to accumulate 13 slams in "today's" competition is a pure testament to Serena's greatness.

Folks may disagree with my take, but to me, the level of play from late 90's to date is way higher than and the physical aspect far more demanding compared to the joke that obtained proir to late 90's. Women tennis has come full-circle now for sure.

Is Serena the greatest ever? Not yet....next 3yrs will tell.

PS: Here you have it. Navratilova seems to agree with my submission.
http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-ontennis-rafaserena


I absolutely agree 100% with this post. well said!:worship:

As Jennifer Capriati once said "the Capriati of today would have kicked the 14 year olds ass"

and that same 14 year old was beating the likes of Navratilova and Graff...

todays womens tennis is far more physical a game then in the mid nineties....womens tennis only became a power game recently...

samsam4087
Jul 6th, 2010, 04:48 AM
Definitely not. Martina Navratilova is the greatest.

kiwialicat
Jul 6th, 2010, 04:54 AM
Definitely not. Martina Navratilova is the greatest.


Well I would say it's Steffi. :) Anyway lets all agree that Serena is the greatest of her generation and leave her out of the greatest ever debate until she had actually finished her career, hmmm? Who knows, when she is done she might have proved to everyone she is, but as of right now I wouldn't consider her even close to Court, Navratilova et al

tennislover
Jul 6th, 2010, 05:13 AM
NO

tennislover
Jul 6th, 2010, 05:14 AM
Definitely not. Martina Navratilova is the greatest.

:kiss::kiss::kiss:

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 6th, 2010, 10:35 AM
Yeah Navratilova was incredible player!
I would like to see more serve and volleyers nowadays too!

StephenUK
Jul 6th, 2010, 11:01 AM
If you compare Serena with other Open era greats, she fails on all counts.

She has barely won a third of the matches Navratilova won or a quarter of the tournaments. It is even doubtful whether she will even reach Lindsay Davenport's total of 55. What's her longest winning streak? I don't think it's anywhere near Venus's 35 or Hingis's 37, let alone Martina N's 74. How can you can compare someone who wins 3-4 tournaments a year with someone who won 16 with only 1 loss?

The fact remains that Serena is a new species of tennis great - no Open era player has won so many slams whilst winning so few WTA events. Until the 1990s it was normal for the world no 1 to win 10+ events a year - in 79 both Tracy Austin AND Navratilova won 11, Navratilova won 10+ for about 6 straight years 1978-84. The fact is that a player like Chris Evert was not just about winning slams but about rarely ever losing. As Helen Lawson mentioned earlier, Evert's slam total would have been much higher, had she not skipped the Australian Open throughout most of the 70s or the French Open to play World Team Tennis.

The last player to have won 10+ events in a season was Justine Henin in 2007 and the result was burnout. As the Williams sisters have said, one of the reasons why they are still at the top of the game after over a decade is how they have managed their careers, which is another phrase for not bothering about winning the ordinary WTA events.

Williams fans may see Evert and Navratilova as haters but I think they have found it difficult to relate to Serena's way of winning slams, as it is so different to theirs. One wonders whether Serena is just a one-off or whether it will now be the norm for future No 1s to not bother with tour events and concentrate on slams. Certainly, the road map means that it is much harder to win the WTA events that the top 10 have to play in so I can't see a future no 1 ever winning 10-16 events in a season again.

So, what I am saying, is that, do you think that comparing Serena to the Open era greats of 1968-99 - Navratilova, Graf, Evert is as relevant as comparing her to Suzanne Lenglen or Helen Wills Moody? I think we should just call her the best 21st century player and leave it at that.

Pureracket
Jul 6th, 2010, 11:09 AM
If you compare Serena with other Open era greats, she fails on all counts.

:haha:

StephenUK
Jul 6th, 2010, 11:24 AM
If you compare Serena with other Open era greats, she fails on all counts.

She has barely won a third of the matches Navratilova won or a quarter of the tournaments. It is even doubtful whether she will even reach Lindsay Davenport's total of 55. What's her longest winning streak? I don't think it's anywhere near Venus's 35 or Hingis's 37, let alone Martina N's 74. How can you can compare someone who wins 3-4 tournaments a year with someone who won 16 with only 1 loss?

The fact remains that Serena is a new species of tennis great - no Open era player has won so many slams whilst winning so few WTA events. Until the 1990s it was normal for the world no 1 to win 10+ events a year - in 79 both Tracy Austin AND Navratilova won 11, Navratilova won 10+ for about 6 straight years 1978-84. The fact is that a player like Chris Evert was not just about winning slams but about rarely ever losing. As Helen Lawson mentioned earlier, Evert's slam total would have been much higher, had she not skipped the Australian Open throughout most of the 70s or the French Open to play World Team Tennis.

The last player to have won 10+ events in a season was Justine Henin in 2007 and the result was burnout. As the Williams sisters have said, one of the reasons why they are still at the top of the game after over a decade is how they have managed their careers, which is another phrase for not bothering about winning the ordinary WTA events.

Williams fans may see Evert and Navratilova as haters but I think they have found it difficult to relate to Serena's way of winning slams, as it is so different to theirs. One wonders whether Serena is just a one-off or whether it will now be the norm for future No 1s to not bother with tour events and concentrate on slams. Certainly, the road map means that it is much harder to win the WTA events that the top 10 have to play in so I can't see a future no 1 ever winning 10-16 events in a season again.

So, what I am saying, is that, do you think that comparing Serena to the Open era greats of 1968-99 - Navratilova, Graf, Evert is as relevant as comparing her to Suzanne Lenglen or Helen Wills Moody? I think we should just call her the best 21st century player and leave it at that.

Let me make it easy for you, Pureracket, or is reading more than one sentence too much of a trial for you?

Pureracket
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Let me make it easy for you, Pureracket, or is reading more than one sentence too much of a trial for you?Reading more than one sentence of your drivel is pretty draining, yea. I guess it's because your "faux logical" approach when it comes to the Sisters is so poorly veiled that I shake my head with laughter. Do you think you're the first one whose tried to post this kind of bullshit? In fact, I'm not sure you're not a poster who has been here before.

I'll thow you a bone, though(then again, maybe it's more of a monkey wrench in your operation than a bone): You say Serena "fails on all counts" to other Open era greats. Well, whose won more Slams in Australia than Serena has in the Open era? After you bullshit yourself into believing that those Slams were either "lucky" or "irrelevant," I'll have another question for you. This is going to be fun.

thrust
Jul 6th, 2010, 01:07 PM
As for being a great tennis player, there can be no doubt that Serena is one of the greatest ever. Today's game is much more physically demanding than the pre Williams era. Therefore, it will be impossible for any woman to win the number of tournaments that: Court, Navratilova, Evert or even Graf did. Serena, whom I never root for, would be a great player in any era and would hold her own against any other player in history- at least. Serena is definitely one of the very greatest of all-time. To say otherwise is either due to ignorance or personal dislike of her.

thrust
Jul 6th, 2010, 01:17 PM
Great post! I agree that only time will tell, but there is no denying that Serena has brought the game to an entirely different level. Her athleticism and determination is unbelievable. Her serve is the biggest weapon that the tour has ever seen.

The depth in women's tennis is far greater now than it ever was. I wonder what the stats are like for the 80s and early 90s for players consistently making the quarters and the semis. I'm pretty sure it was the same players who were making it deep in the slams. In the 80s it was Evert, Austin, Mandikova,Goolagong,Navratilova, Sabatini, Graf, and Sanchez Vicario. And the last four still dominating the last week of the slams in the early 90s. There was no depth whatsoever.

Having said that, the depth at the top of the game right now is not like it was in the late 90s and early 2000s. There were some great players at that time at the top. Serena, Venus, Hingis, Davenport, Pierce, Capriati, Sanchez Vicario, Graf, Mauresmo, Clijsters, Henin, Seles, Novotna, and Martinez (all at that time had won a slam or were a slam finalist and all would go on to win a slam at some point in their career).

Today, however; the depth isn't that great at the top. Wozniacki, Jankovic, Zvonareva, Safina, Bartoli, Stosur,and Dementieva have all been slam finalists, but are no where near as good as the slam finalists in the late 90s and early 2000s (minus Tauziat). At that time the semis or finals were anyones game, but today I can not see Serena losing to those above players that deep in a grand slam.

Early rounds may be tougher, but I think the semis and finals are not like they used to be. Kvitova, Schiavone, Stosur, Pironkova, and Zvonareva would never make the semis in the late 90s or early 2000s because the depth was so much greater up top. I miss the drama in the late rounds like we had in the early 2000s and I miss it.

Great rivalries like Hingis/Davenport, Seles/Graf, Serena/Capriati, Kim/Justine, Venus/Davenport, Venus/Serena, they just don't exist anymore. Those are the match-ups I want to see in the 2nd week of a grand slam.

90s/early 2000s greater depth up top.

Now greater depth at the bottom.

Anyways...I think Serena can become one of the greatest ever.

Excellent Post, very well written.

StephenUK
Jul 6th, 2010, 01:40 PM
Reading more than one sentence of your drivel is pretty draining, yea. I guess it's because your "faux logical" approach when it comes to the Sisters is so poorly veiled that I shake my head with laughter. Do you think you're the first one whose tried to post this kind of bullshit? In fact, I'm not sure you're not a poster who has been here before.

I'll thow you a bone, though(then again, maybe it's more of a monkey wrench in your operation than a bone): You say Serena "fails on all counts" to other Open era greats. Well, whose won more Slams in Australia than Serena has in the Open era? After you bullshit yourself into believing that those Slams were either "lucky" or "irrelevant," I'll have another question for you. This is going to be fun.

If you had actually read the whole passage instead of the first bit, I was actually praising Serena but you were too dumb to realise. The fact is that when it comes to all the stats usually used to compare greats, weeks at No 1, number of slams, longest winning streak, most number of tournaments won in a year, match wins, tournament wins, winning percentage, consecutive finals, consecutive grand slams won, Serena is well down in all the lists, so statistically she is not the best player! I can type them out laboriously if that is what you want me to do. What I put at the end was whether it was fair to compare her to a different era as I wondered whether such stats as Navratilova's or Graf's are still possible in the 21st century, whether Serena could have won as many slams if she had tried to win 10+ WTA events per annum a la Navratilova or whether she would have burned out by now. The jury is out on that one, so I don't think it is fair to compare her and Navratilova statistically.

You're the one without logic - your stat on Australian Opens really is a feeble riposte. If that's the best you can do, you are Anna Chakvetadze to my Serena :lol: And by the way, I am me and no-one else!

Pureracket
Jul 6th, 2010, 03:16 PM
If you had actually read the whole passage instead of the first bit, I was actually praising Serena but you were too dumb to realise. The fact is that when it comes to all the stats usually used to compare greats, weeks at No 1, number of slams, longest winning streak, most number of tournaments won in a year, match wins, tournament wins, winning percentage, consecutive finals, consecutive grand slams won, Serena is well down in all the lists, so statistically she is not the best player! I can type them out laboriously if that is what you want me to do. What I put at the end was whether it was fair to compare her to a different era as I wondered whether such stats as Navratilova's or Graf's are still possible in the 21st century, whether Serena could have won as many slams if she had tried to win 10+ WTA events per annum a la Navratilova or whether she would have burned out by now. The jury is out on that one, so I don't think it is fair to compare her and Navratilova statistically.

You're the one without logic - your stat on Australian Opens really is a feeble riposte. If that's the best you can do, you are Anna Chakvetadze to my Serena :lol: And by the way, I am me and no-one else!Ah, this post is a bit milder than your others. Nice that you have recognized your own ignorance.

Again, let me break my last post down to you in order that you may understand. It's odd that you call me dumb, yet you are not intelligent enough to address a question.

If Serena "fails on all counts" to the other greats in the Open era, what is response to the Slam record she has in Australia. (She has more Slams in Australia than anybody else in the Open era).

Mind you, she got this record in a field with 127 other women. Many of the "greats" you're referring to got their Slams when the field only had 96 women or few. You, yourself, use Slams as a factor. You say she is "way down on all the lists." Explain how how woman could have such a Slam record and still be "fail[ing] on all counts."

Like I said - fun;)

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 6th, 2010, 08:11 PM
If players like Navratilova wouldve play nowadays, wouldve they
won as many Grand Slams?

Inger67
Jul 6th, 2010, 08:29 PM
If players like Navratilova wouldve play nowadays, wouldve they
won as many Grand Slams?

What is the point of asking that question? That answer is so subjective :rolleyes:

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 6th, 2010, 08:36 PM
What is the point of asking that question? That answer is so subjective :rolleyes:

I know! But they wouldnt won as many grand slams, right!?:)

MistyGrey
Jul 6th, 2010, 08:54 PM
I know! But they wouldnt won as many grand slams, right!?:)

You will never know... How about if Serena was playing in the 70's with a wooden racket, would she be just as good? you will never know!

lizchris
Jul 6th, 2010, 08:55 PM
According to thei week's Sports Illustrated (she is on the cover), yes, she is.

Olórin
Jul 6th, 2010, 08:59 PM
You will never know... How about if Serena was playing in the 70's with a wooden racket, would she be just as good? you will never know!

True that.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 7th, 2010, 08:23 AM
You will never know... How about if Serena was playing in the 70's with a wooden racket, would she be just as good? you will never know!

Yeap! Serenas game is all about power and strenght, that wouldnt be possible with wooden racquets!

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2010, 01:18 PM
Hahahahahahahah Omg Are You Serious Asking That??? Serena The Best Player Of All Time Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha Ok Sam Stosur Is The Best Player Of All Time!! :lol: I mean how many tournaments has Serena?? 30 something?? that's a joke please :rolleyes: compared to Davenport's 55, let's not mention Graf's 102 and Navratilova's 160

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:09 PM
Yeap! Serenas game is all about power and strenght, that wouldnt be possible with wooden racquets!I guess I'm the only one whose seen the angles she uses for her CC forehand and backhand. Maybe you're confusing accuracy with power and strength. Then again, maybe you simply echo what you've heard somebody else say.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:11 PM
I guess I'm the only one whose seen the angles she uses for her CC forehand and backhand. Maybe you're confusing accuracy with power and strength. Then again, maybe you simply echo what you've heard somebody else say.

I completely agree with you! I just forgot to mention the variety in her game!

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:27 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs066.snc4/34675_406261566366_14553116366_4940346_4546619_n.j pg

The "Serena= best ever' narrative is already gaining traction amongst sports journalists and fans in America. Imagine when she retires.

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:31 PM
"In America" being the key words.

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:34 PM
Jon Wertheim is a weird random guy who only knows how to criticize players and the people doesn't give a shit about him

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:35 PM
"In America" being the key words.

How many major sports publications aren't American?

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:36 PM
How many major sports publications aren't American?

American sports publications considered Tiger Woods the best athlete of the last decade, ahead of Federer. Enough said.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:40 PM
If you compare Serena with other Open era greats, she fails on all counts.

She has barely won a third of the matches Navratilova won or a quarter of the tournaments. It is even doubtful whether she will even reach Lindsay Davenport's total of 55. What's her longest winning streak? I don't think it's anywhere near Venus's 35 or Hingis's 37, let alone Martina N's 74. How can you can compare someone who wins 3-4 tournaments a year with someone who won 16 with only 1 loss?


You do not have to be most accomplished to be best at a given sport.

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:41 PM
You do not have to be most accomplished to be best at a given sport.

:spit: Of COURSE you do. :lol: Or most accomplished in atleast one respect, anyway. In what respect will Serena ever be the most accomplished?

omoruyi
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:43 PM
American sports publications considered Tiger Woods the best athlete of the last decade, ahead of Federer. Enough said.

this is true :o~:help:~:tape:~:banghead:

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:47 PM
I agree with the Tiger Woods thing :o

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:48 PM
American sports publications considered Tiger Woods the best athlete of the last decade, ahead of Federer. Enough said.

You act as if this is absurd. Tiger won 12 majors, holding all four at once at one point, within eight years in the 2000's. The closest comparison is Nicklaus, who took fifteen years to win that many. Him and Federer are comparable, imo. Unless you just don't consider golf a sport...

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:51 PM
:spit: Of COURSE you do. :lol: Or most accomplished in atleast one respect, anyway. In what respect will Serena ever be the most accomplished?

The hell is that supposed to mean?

I follow probably four sports obsessively. Tennis, basketball, and football. During the playoffs, I watch baseball. I have for over half my life. In none of those three do I think the most accomplished player is the best.It's not just tennis. Conversely, I think Federer would have been the best even if he had never won the French or topped Sampras' slam count.

Edit: Since we're on Woods, Woods is clearly the best golfer ever, but still not in discussion for GOAT. Same rules applies to tennis imo.

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:52 PM
You act as if this is absurd. Tiger won 12 majors, holding all four at once at one point, within eight years in the 2000's. The closest comparison is Nicklaus, who took fifteen years to win that many. Him and Federer are comparable, imo. Unless you just don't consider golf a sport...

Well, let's be honest, tennis and golf aren't close to being in the same ballpark in terms of athletic ability...

But even so, Tiger won 12 majors, while Federer got 15 last decade (within six years). Obvious who has the edge. But the key advantage in the eyes of the American sports publications is that Tiger is American.

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:54 PM
The hell is that supposed to mean?

I follow probably four sports obsessively. Tennis, basketball, and football. During the playoffs, I watch baseball. I have for over half my life. In none of those three do I think the most accomplished player is the best.It's not just tennis. Conversely, I think Federer would have been the best even if he had never won the French or topped Sampras' slam count.

There clearly needs to be one tangible basis to say that someone is the best of all-time in a sport. What tangible category will Serena lead everyone else in when she retires?

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 03:58 PM
There clearly needs to be one tangible basis to say that someone is the best of all-time in a sport. What tangible category will Serena lead everyone else in when she retires?

Most Open Era Australian Open titles.

And btw:

So where does Williams rank among the best women's tennis players through the years?

"Top five," answered Navratilova, without a moment's hesitation. "It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win -- it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods. It would have been fun to play her, but at the same time, I'm glad that I didn't have to."

omoruyi
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:00 PM
I agree with the Tiger Woods thing :o

and lets not even remember lance armstrongs acclaim by the same media :weirdo: ~:explode:~:happy:

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:06 PM
Most Open Era Australian Open titles.

:spit:

And btw:

So where does Williams rank among the best women's tennis players through the years?

"Top five," answered Navratilova, without a moment's hesitation. "It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win -- it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods. It would have been fun to play her, but at the same time, I'm glad that I didn't have to."

And so where does she say Serena is the best of all-time in this quote?

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:07 PM
:spit:



And so where does she say Serena is the best of all-time in this quote?

The bolded points seems to be in conflict with your assertion that Serena HAS to be leading in some statistical category.

But regardless, I provided you with your answer.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:08 PM
"It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win -- it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods. It would have been fun to play her, but at the same time, I'm glad that I didn't have to."

That is a fair and objective judgement!:)

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:10 PM
The bolded points seems to be in conflict with your assertion that Serena HAS to be leading in some statistical category.

But regardless, I provided you with your answer.

Your "answer" would only work if you, for some reason, consider an AO win to have more merit than any of the other Slams.

Btw, Navratilova said on the BBC the other day that Serena doesn't have the numbers to be considered the best right now, but if she carries on winning two Slams a year for another five years she could be.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:12 PM
Your "answer" would only work if you, for some reason, consider an AO win to have more merit than any of the other Slams.

I never said that. I'm simply pointing out she's played better than any other pro player at the AO.

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:12 PM
I guess I'm the only one whose seen the angles she uses for her CC forehand and backhand. Maybe you're confusing accuracy with power and strength. Then again, maybe you simply echo what you've heard somebody else say.

Not sure if you play tennis, but with the strings, frames and general set up of today's racquets, it is MUCH easier to hit those angles. It's also MUCH easier to be accurate.

Donny
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:12 PM
Your "answer" would only work if you, for some reason, consider an AO win to have more merit than any of the other Slams.

Btw, Navratilova said on the BBC the other day that Serena doesn't have the numbers to be considered the best right now, but if she carries on winning two Slams a year for another five years she could be.

Link to this?

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:13 PM
And Serena would have to clear Graf by 3-5 slams to maybe be considered best of Open Era. There are just wayyy too many categories in which she is lacking.

Monzanator
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:18 PM
Hell no, Evert would walk all over her on clay and pretty sure about Martina doing likewise on grass :cool:

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:21 PM
LOL THE GAME OVERALL!!! Her game is shit she can't even move properly. If her competitive spirit was normal she would have probably won 1 or 2 Grand Slams.

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:30 PM
Not sure if you play tennis, but with the strings, frames and general set up of today's racquets, it is MUCH easier to hit those angles. It's also MUCH easier to be accurate.
Actually, I play tennis quite often. The convo(which you weren't really apart of) is about strength and power. Regardless of the technology, the angles are an example of skill. Then again, you question whether or not Serena should be selected to the Fed Cup, I don't seriously you could be trusted to be objective in a convo about her.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:32 PM
:lol: so first we should respect martina's opinion when she says a ws final is bad for the game

now she says serena is top 5 despite her numbers because of her game, since numbers don't reflect everything...now the same people are saying martina is wrong


make up your minds! :rolls:

Cakeisgood
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:37 PM
:lol: so first we should respect martina's opinion when she says a ws final is bad for the game

now she says serena is top 5 despite her numbers because of her game, since numbers don't reflect everything...now the same people are saying martina is wrong


make up your minds! :rolls:

The irony :tape:

Matt01
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:40 PM
LOL THE GAME OVERALL!!! Her game is shit she can't even move properly. If her competitive spirit was normal she would have probably won 1 or 2 Grand Slams.


There are lots of arguments to make why Serena is clearly not the best player. Too bad that your arguments don't cut it.

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:43 PM
"Top five," answered Navratilova, without a moment's hesitation. ]"It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win -- it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods[/SIZE]."

And Serena would have to clear Graf by 3-5 slams to maybe be considered best of Open Era. There are just wayyy too many categories in which she is lacking.
Says who?:rolleyes: It is interesting how the goal post gets moved further along as Serena gets closer .... Anyway for those who think what Martina says is the gospel that is her take presently so how are you going to spin that.:lol:

AcesHigh
Jul 7th, 2010, 04:52 PM
Actually, I play tennis quite often. The convo(which you weren't really apart of) is about strength and power. Regardless of the technology, the angles are an example of skill. Then again, you question whether or not Serena should be selected to the Fed Cup, I don't seriously you could be trusted to be objective in a convo about her.

And you are trusted to be objective? :spit: Give me a break.
And I still stand by my decision to ask get Venus to commit over Serena who has shown in the past little concern for Fed Cup and a penchant for abandoning commitments at the last minute.

And the point I am making is b/c it is so much easier to impart spin on the ball, creating angles have required less skill as time goes forward. In the second half of her career, Serena has used more placement and angles but she still is nowhere near Graf, Seles, Evert, etc in that category.. her game still depends on a more bludgeoning blistering approach, but there is nothing wrong with that.
Some still regard Sampras as GOAT, but where would he be without the strength of his serve and forehand?

pierce85
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:04 PM
"It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win -- it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods. It would have been fun to play her, but at the same time, I'm glad that I didn't have to."

That is a fair and objective judgement!:)

Have i just discovered the latest account of serenidad? I mean a maria fan defending serena so passionately, there's something fishy about this

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:08 PM
And you are trusted to be objective? :spit: Give me a break.
And I still stand by my decision to ask get Venus to commit over Serena who has shown in the past little concern for Fed Cup and a penchant for abandoning commitments at the last minute.

And the point I am making is b/c it is so much easier to impart spin on the ball, creating angles have required less skill as time goes forward. In the second half of her career, Serena has used more placement and angles but she still is nowhere near Graf, Seles, Evert, etc in that category.. her game still depends on a more bludgeoning blistering approach, but there is nothing wrong with that.
Some still regard Sampras as GOAT, but where would he be without the strength of his serve and forehand?I actually support a player. You spend most of your time with disparaging posts and starting silly threads about asking the friggin' #1 player in the world to support her team. :haha: Your playground politics regarding that thread is legendary. You probably should seriously consider deleting it. You look bad there.
You've actually put forth Graf and Seles as your examples of "skill" against Serena and you've combined your argument with string technology. You're kidding, right? Serena, when she first came onto the scene, was generally relegated to ballbasher status when she first came onto the scene. Umm...guess wh her role models were? Graf and Seles were. String technology or not. Graf and Seles, more often than not, hit the cover off the ball. The weren't angles as much as they were down your throat. I loved it.

Serena's game is not that, though. Not anymore, at least. She uses angles, she changes up her serve, and she hits mid-pace shots in order to set up a point. Sure, you can dismiss the current players' ability as "racket technology," but I would call it a result of hours and hours of practice in order to develop the skill to do so.

pierce85
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:08 PM
And don't give me the "American reporters consider serena the best ever" argument, they have no clue and they are clearly biased. I mean please ESPN made a "who is the best of all time" poll and conveniently forgot to include the GOAT steffi graff

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Steffi wasn't the GOAT. She was the greatest of her generation(well, I mean, with the stabbing and all).

azinna
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:12 PM
...And the point I am making is b/c it is so much easier to impart spin on the ball, creating angles have required less skill as time goes forward. In the second half of her career, Serena has used more placement and angles but she still is nowhere near Graf, Seles, Evert, etc in that category...

I definitely see your point, AcesHigh, when comparing players of the same era, using the same equipment and against the same prevailing mode of play. Much tougher to compare, say, Evert and Serena, to simply look at the rallies they are involved in, and then declare that one is more skilled than the other.

Anyway, I'd also say Sampras, Graf, Seles, Agassi, Serena and Nadal needed and do need an often unacknowledged but very high level of skill to use power effectively. That includes a facility with the racquet surface, placement, angles and point construction that many players find they lack when they wish to go big with any kind of consistency.

pierce85
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Steffi wasn't the GOAT. She was the greatest of her generation(well, I mean, with the stabbing and all).

In the end of the day numbers matter and they don't lie my dear. 22 slams trump everything else and steffi dominated EVERY surface.

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:24 PM
In the end of the day numbers matter and they don't lie my dear. 22 slams trump everything else and steffi dominated EVERY surface.Oh, ok, so that's the criteria we use, right? Right off the top of my head, I'll say part of Steffi's GOAT armor is dented because of the fact that Serena has more AO Slams. Also, the stabbing is something that can't be ignored, regardless of what her fans may say. (Then again, are you even a Steffi fan or simply an anti-Serena fan? LOL!)

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:44 PM
Oh, ok, so that's the criteria we use, right? Right off the top of my head, I'll say part of Steffi's GOAT armor is dented because of the fact that Serena has more AO Slams. Also, the stabbing is something that can't be ignored, regardless of what her fans may say. (Then again, are you even a Steffi fan or simply an anti-Serena fan? LOL!)
I personally don't even believe in the GOAT :bs: but it is fun to see the Serena haters try to ignore the "special" circumstances by which Graf won 22 majors.:lol: What ever Serena achieved she did so without the help of any of her fans. Can't say the same about Graf.:devil:

Anyway it seem like the Serena haters are now getting nervous because they don't like what other great players and tennis journalist are now saying and writing.:lol:

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:46 PM
Link to this?

She said it just after the women's final. You can try the BBC iPlayer, although few things on there are accessible outside of the UK.

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:49 PM
I personally don't even believe in the GOAT :bs: but it is fun to see the Serena haters try to ignore the "special" circumstances by which Graf won 22 majors.:lol:

What "special" circumstances are these? If you're talking about Seles's stabbing... you realise Graf "only" won 6 Slams in Seles's absence? Meaning, even if we are going to arbitrarily apply asterisks to those six Slams, that puts Graf on 16. Then, it's ridiculous to take away the two Wimbledons Graf won in Seles's absence considering Seles hadn't come close to upsetting Graf there, so that puts her on 18 - meaning even if we do go by your "special circumstances", Serena is still way behind Graf. And that's not even taking into account the "special circumstances" that has helped boost Serena's Slam count in recent years.

Plus, of course, there's the fact that that Graf had 5 seasons in her career (1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996) that were better than Serena's best season (2002). It's really not a remotely close contest at this point.

homogenius
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:52 PM
She'll end her career as one of the best ever but she'll have too many "weak points" in her resume to be considered better than the others (Court, Graf, Navi, Seles etc...).

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:53 PM
What "special" circumstances are these? If you're talking about Seles's stabbing... you realise Graf "only" won 6 Slams in Seles's absence? Meaning, even if we are going to arbitrarily apply asterisks to those six Slams, that puts Graf on 16. Then, it's ridiculous to take away the two Wimbledons Graf won in Seles's absence considering Seles hadn't come close to upsetting Graf there, so that puts her on 18 - meaning even if we do go by your "special circumstances", Serena is still way behind Graf. And that's not even taking into account the "special circumstances" that has helped boost Serena's Slam count in recent years.

Plus, of course, there's the fact that that Graf had 5 seasons in her career (1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996) that were better than Serena's best season (2002). It's really not a remotely close contest at this point.Hmm....Graf never won any Slams after Monica returned from the stabbing? :tape: The numbers you pose are not in a vacuum. Stop trying to act like the are.

It's fun pitting Serena among the best in the game, though.

bandabou
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:53 PM
What "special" circumstances are these? If you're talking about Seles's stabbing... you realise Graf "only" won 6 Slams in Seles's absence? Meaning, even if we are going to arbitrarily apply asterisks to those six Slams, that puts Graf on 16. Then, it's ridiculous to take away the two Wimbledons Graf won in Seles's absence considering Seles hadn't come close to upsetting Graf there, so that puts her on 18 - meaning even if we do go by your "special circumstances", Serena is still way behind Graf. And that's not even taking into account the "special circumstances" that has helped boost Serena's Slam count in recent years.

Plus, of course, there's the fact that that Graf had 5 seasons in her career (1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996) that were better than Serena's best season (2002). It's really not a remotely close contest at this point.

Nice, nice...then you wanna explain to us why prior to Serena's recent exlamation burst to totally put an end to all talk about greatest of this generation, there were lots lots of talk about Justine being greater than Serena?

pierce0925
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:54 PM
No.

Navratilova is the greatest.

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:57 PM
No.

Navratilova is the greatest....of her generation.

pierce85
Jul 7th, 2010, 05:58 PM
...of her generation.

delusional...And may i ask who is the GOAT?

GhostFace
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:03 PM
Serena is best player ever, no the greatest yet. But soon, 3,4 years, cuple more slams.

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:06 PM
delusional...And may i ask who is the GOAT?I've seen Navratilova play in her prime. I've seen Serena play in what very well may be hers. Navratilova wouldn't be able to handle most aspects of Serena's game. Let's just start @ the bread and butter of MN's game - the chip @ charge off of the second serve. Serena's serve would bounce way too high about Nav's right shoulder in order for MN to be effective. That's just one example.

die_wahrheit
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:08 PM
She is strong and muscular and plays like an untalented man. She has more power than normal woman. But talent?

pierce85
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:10 PM
I've seen Navratilova play in her prime. I've seen Serena play in what very well may be hers. Navratilova wouldn't be able to handle most aspects of Serena's game. Let's just start @ the bread and butter of MN's game - the chip @ charge off of the second serve. Serena's serve would bounce way too high about Nav's right shoulder in order for MN to be effective. That's just one example.

Dude we're talking about accomplishments not about who has the better serve. You're making assumptions that navratilova wouldn't be able to deal with serena. That's an hypothesis not a fact, damn your arguments are a hot mess. By your logic mary pierce is the best player because her best trumps evryone's best even though she has 11 slams less than serena

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:17 PM
Dude we're talking about accomplishments not about who has the better serve. You're making assumptions that navratilova wouldn't be able to deal with serena. That's an hypothesis not a fact, damn your arguments are a hot mess. By your logic mary pierce is the best player because her best trumps evryone's best even though she has 11 slams less than serenaYou can deal with "accomplishments" of Nav in those weak, 96 player field Slams. Cool. Also, I've never said that Pierce(Mary and certainly not you) has a better "best" than anybody else's. By the way, your argument is an hot mess simply because you've tried to re-define the argument and appropriate it for your own advantage.

"Pierce is the best player...." :haha: How did you let that foolishness come across your keyboard?

pierce85
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:23 PM
You can deal with "accomplishments" of Nav in those weak, 96 player field Slams. Cool. Also, I've never said that Pierce(Mary and certainly not you) has a better "best" than anybody else's. By the way, your argument is an hot mess simply because you've tried to re-define the argument and appropriate it for your own advantage.

"Pierce is the best player...." :haha: How did you let that foolishness come across your keyboard?

Mary pierce is the best player according to your erratic logic dumbo! Anyways, after reading all your posts i'm deeply sorry but i would like to refrain from exchanging opinions with you any longer, i should go and have a more constructive conversation with my dog. I wish you all the best, to succeed in everything in your life and please don't stop reading! I heard somewhere it makes you wiser

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:25 PM
Mary pierce is the best player according to your erratic logic dumbo! Anyways, after reading all your posts i'm deeply sorry but i would like to refrain from exchanging opinions with you any longer, i should go and have a more constructive conversation with my dog. I wish you all the best, to succeed in everything in your life and please don't stop reading! I heard somewhere it makes you wiser
Riiiight. Set up another account so you can get dogged again. :haha:

calou
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:26 PM
She is strong and muscular and plays like an untalented man. She has more power than normal woman. But talent?

:yeah:

Pureracket
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:30 PM
:yeah:
Wow! There are quite a few anti-Serena newbies on this site lately. You have 117 posts right now.

sweetpeas
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:35 PM
To me Serena was the best player,long before the haters came along!

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:39 PM
She is strong and muscular and plays like an untalented man. She has more power than normal woman. But talent?
I'm sure the same was said of Martina when she was kicking ass also but now all that :bs: is irrelevant when the topic of "greatness" is being discussed.:lol:

madeaismad
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:41 PM
King, who was there when the Freedoms debuted in 1974, did not seem upset to be passed by Williams.

"I think it's great," King said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters. "I think her next goal now should be to beat Chris [Evert's] and Martina [Navratilova's] 18 singles [titles], then thereafter she can go on to Steffi Graf," who won 22. Margaret Smith Court is the all-time leader with 24.

"There's no reason Serena Williams shouldn't be the greatest woman player that's ever played."

The Freedoms will play at the Pavilion after competing



Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20100707_Philadelphia_Freedoms_set_for_WTT_opener. html#ixzz0t1TSoebw
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

Serena is the best player of all time, and if not, she soon will be. I think Billie hits it on the nail. There is no reason why she shouldn't be. Her talent, skill, and sheer determination gets her through everybody. People seem to forget all she has been through. She was at the zenith of her career in 2002-2003, just to have it crashing down with a knee surgery, a sister getting killed, and her parents divorce. Then she went through body issues driven by low self-esteem. But look at her now, she has still kept winning despite the adversities, got herself back into GREAT shape, and tries to be the best she can be. This girl is IT. And I honestly think, that if she continues to stay in shape and motivated, she will probably win like 6 more grandslams.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 7th, 2010, 06:57 PM
Is this thread going to Serenas haters thread?
I didnt made this thread to open Serena insults thread!

kiwialicat
Jul 7th, 2010, 07:09 PM
I simply don't see how Serena can be considered the best ever yet. Perhaps on talent, sure. However, even then she is not head and shoulders above any of the others in contention. Certaintly on achievements she isn't, slams or no slams (as in other tournaments won). Plus, if we're making the argument that talent shows she should be included as best ever, then surely some others who haven't won nearly as many slams as Serena should get a mention too, hmm?

Plus the whole surface argument (Serena has more Oz slams) is pointless because Graf is the only one to have 4slams on each surface. Serena is probably never going to match that. And, hello? forgetting about Court much, 11 AOs?

The different eras argument is pointless to, because we don't know how well Serena would have done playing with rackets significantly different from now.

Are we considering other forms of the competition, doubles, mixed etc? In that case, it also supports Court, the only player to do the 'boxed set' and others who also played doubles extensively (ie. Navratilova)

And then, what about Steffi and her 'golden slam'? Is Serena gong to achieve that feat? Theorectically possible, not likely. If she did that would certainly give her added credibility.

we haven't even mentioned, Moody or Evert yet. Nor extensively at any rate. If anything, that proves that it is not all about how many slams you win.

This argument just proves that there is no definitive answer.

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2010, 08:24 PM
Did you really says Serena is the GOAT in this week's Sports Illustrated?
--Jeff H., New York

• So I'm prepared for the onslaught of hate mail, but I stand by that. Let me first say that, much as we enjoy these discussions, they have the unfortunate (and unintended) effect of diminishing the achievements of truly great players,legends of the sport. So bear in mind: None of this is intended to disrespect the other candidates. At some level, too, this comes down to semantics. As long as the definition of "GOAT" is not standardized, we're going to disagree.But, paraphrasing what I wrote in the magazine, here's my take on Serena: strip away the nonsense -- the controversies and the drama and the fines and the sore losing -- and she's the best ever. Is Serena the most accomplished? Well, no. She has 13 career majors now, which still trails Chris Evert (18), Martina Navratilova (18), Helen Wills Moody (19), Steffi Graf (22) and Margaret Court (24). But few consider Margaret Court the GOAT, which means there are other factors beyond the raw numbers. How was the competition? How long did they play? What were their X-factor contributions? Qualitatively, how good were they?
So here's my case for Serena: She's now won 13 Grand Slams spanning more than a decade (and she's still going). Mostly because of the quirks of a ranking system that induces the field to (over)play, she hasn't always been No. 1. Yet, for a big chunk of her career, she's been top dog and everyone has known it. While clay is her worst surface, she's won each of the four majors. Her record in doubles in phenomenal. She's won Olympic gold. She's won year-end championships.

Evert and Navratilova, you say, both would have won many more titles, were it not for the existence of the other. OK, but how many more Slams would Serena have won if she didn't have to face her sister, infinitely weirder than a non-blood-related rival? Serena is playing during a "soft" period in tennis history, you say, as evidenced by her winning Wimbledon without being tested. I disagree. Serena has often had to go through the best to win (Davenport, Sharapova, Venus, Henin). Is, say, Vera Zvonareva, really a worse player than the Helena Sukovas or Zina Garrisons that other contenders often faced in finals?

Serena has the most fearsome serve -- i.e. the most important stroke -- in women's tennis history, and it would be the case even if everyone used the same technology. (She uses natural gut strings by the way.) She is the best athlete in women's tennis history, likely the fastest and the strongest. And she competes as well as any athlete -- not tennis player; athlete -- you'll ever come across.

But here's where I really feel strongly: Head-to-head, on a neutral surface (i.e. hard courts), everyone at their best, I can't help feeling that she crushes the other legends. Sacrilege, I know. But spark up of video of other players, watch where their balls land in the court or how hard they serve or how they move and then consider Serena's game. She would blow through Evert. She wouldn't allow Navratilova (who looks like a pixie next to Serena) a chance to attack. She would tee off on Graf's slice. Again, this isn't to disrespect the others; it's progress. But I think it counts for a lot that no one has ever played tennis at a higher level than Serena has. (It's the same reason, incidentally, that I was early to pronounce Federer the male GOAT. You just know watching him that no one has played better tennis qualitatively and surely that has to count for something.)

The big knock on Serena is her wavering commitment and sparse schedule. But that, too, needs to be reassessed. At a time when tennis has never been a) more physical and b) more global, it's not realistic to expect her to play 18 events a year. And considering the fate of her contemporaries (leaving aside the one who was hospitalized for an OD, we've had retirements, unretirements, burnouts and fast fades), Serena's approach to scheduling and "outside interests" made a lot of sense in retrospect.

I realize that Serena is incredibly polarizing. Sometimes, she gets a raw deal from the establishment. Other times, she brings it on herself. I realize that for some of you, her outburst at the U.S. Open last year, will always disqualify her from "greatest anything" consideration. I also realize that, as long as she's still playing, it may be silly to make a declarative statement one way or the other. But I think in the end, the preening and the Indian Wells fiasco, and the "lying and fabricating," and the Mariana Alves controversy, and the boots and the catsuit and, even the 2009 U.S. Open are reduced to footnotes. And we're left with the portrait of the Greatest Ever. Until the next one comes along.
I totally concur with the highlighted portions. Serena has 2-4 yrs of good tennis left in her therefore I will wait for the end to assess her career. For now I'm just enjoying every great moment of both Sisters.

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2010, 08:53 PM
I wonder why mods are moving certian threads?:rolleyes:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs066.snc4/34675_406261566366_14553116366_4940346_4546619_n.j pg

edificio
Jul 7th, 2010, 08:54 PM
Margaret is getting dyspepsia. Steffi doesn't care.

LightWarrior
Jul 7th, 2010, 09:19 PM
we haven't even mentioned, Moody or Evert yet. Nor extensively at any rate. If anything, that proves that it is not all about how many slams you win.

This argument just proves that there is no definitive answer.

You haven't.:wavey: All the others have. BJK just did :
"I think it's great," King said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters. "I think her next goal now should be to beat Chris [Evert's] and Martina [Navratilova's] 18 singles [titles],..."

Rollo
Jul 7th, 2010, 11:23 PM
We're in for some exciting times as Serena edges up the grand slam ladder. The biggest strike against her at the present would be the 1 French title. If she can win it even once more it adds a lot of weight to her resume.

It's incredible to think she had match point vs Stosur in Paris. Had she won in Paris she could have been 3/4 of the way to THE Grand Slam.

Serenaluv
Jul 7th, 2010, 11:25 PM
In my heart she is, but in my mind she isn't there yet. Though at the rate she's going, she'll probably be around 18 slams by the end of 2012. If she reaches that number... who knows where she'll end up? At 23 or 30? We don't know, we can only wait and see :cool:

Matt01
Jul 7th, 2010, 11:45 PM
We're in for some exciting times as Serena edges up the grand slam ladder. The biggest strike against her at the present would be the 1 French title. If she can win it even once more it adds a lot of weight to her resume.

It's incredible to think she had match point vs Stosur in Paris. Had she won in Paris she could have been 3/4 of the way to THE Grand Slam.


Serena has won RG only once and that was in her best year. She hasn't won a red clay tourney or made it past the quarters at RG in years. Sorry, I don't see what is so exciting.

Donny
Jul 8th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Serena has won RG only once and that was in her best year. She hasn't won a red clay tourney or made it past the quarters at RG in years. Sorry, I don't see what is so exciting.

You're forgiven.

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2010, 12:14 AM
You're forgiven.


I was talking to Rollo.

mykarma
Jul 8th, 2010, 12:54 AM
We're in for some exciting times as Serena edges up the grand slam ladder. The biggest strike against her at the present would be the 1 French title. If she can win it even once more it adds a lot of weight to her resume.

It's incredible to think she had match point vs Stosur in Paris. Had she won in Paris she could have been 3/4 of the way to THE Grand Slam.
It won't matter, the haters will still find a reason not to give Serena her due.

Rollo
Jul 8th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Serena has won RG only once and that was in her best year. She hasn't won a red clay tourney or made it past the quarters at RG in years. Sorry, I don't see what is so exciting.

Hi Matt. :wavey:

Clearly the red dirt is Serena's weakest surface-no secret there. Look at where she is at though. 13 slams and counting. She has won at least 1 grand slam most year since 2002. The last two years Serena has bagged at least 2 slams.

She's no shoe-in to get to 18 slams and tie Chrissie and Martina, but she has a shot at it. If she can bag another French along the way and gets to 18 she is, in my view making a case for herself as a GOAT contender.

Love her or hate her that's exciting to me.

Rollo
Jul 8th, 2010, 01:00 AM
It won't matter, the haters will still find a reason not to give Serena her due.

I'm sure you're right. The other side of that coin are some of her fans who proclaim her the greatest now-no contest. When it comes to fans it's always personal-and cuts both ways I guess.

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2010, 01:00 AM
Love her or hate her that's exciting to me.


Good for you :wavey: :)

I'd rather see people like you who are excited than people who are always complaining about the tour and telling us how bad the WTA tour currently is :yawn: :o

Stamp Paid
Jul 8th, 2010, 01:12 AM
It's incredible to think she had match point vs Stosur in Paris. Had she won in Paris she could have been 3/4 of the way to THE Grand Slam.http://i25.tinypic.com/9auyqe.gif

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 8th, 2010, 01:17 AM
http://i25.tinypic.com/9auyqe.gif


he didn't mean it boo :hug: sarin didn't play paris this year

GrafMariaPetraK
Jul 8th, 2010, 01:22 AM
IFK8DgoBA9Y :worship::worship::worship::worship::worship: :hearts::hearts::hearts::hearts:

darrinbaker00
Jul 8th, 2010, 02:59 AM
It won't matter, the haters will still find a reason not to give Serena her due.
So what if they do? It won't take away from what Serena has accomplished in her career.

HRHoliviasmith
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:14 AM
he didn't mean it boo :hug: sarin didn't play paris this year

this. she missed wimbledon in 2004 as well.

Cakeisgood
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:21 AM
So what if they do? It won't take away from what Serena has accomplished in her career.

Thank you.

omoruyi
Jul 8th, 2010, 03:23 AM
Yes, yes she is...

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 8th, 2010, 05:53 AM
IFK8DgoBA9Y :worship::worship::worship::worship::worship: :hearts::hearts::hearts::hearts:

Thanks very nice video!:)

guyinsf
Jul 10th, 2010, 12:46 AM
i think you have to give Serena the respect her game has earned over the years...especially the last 2-3 years she has matured alot and improved even more, her first and second serve is the best womens tennis has or probably will ever see (will see) and competition wise, shes tougher than anyone female ive ever seen play the game, to me even more than a player like Seles....who was also renowned as a tough player herself.

The only thing Graff, Nav and Evert have on Serena are overall GRAND SLAM numbers....but game-wise, she is the far superior player....i was never a big fan, but even as that you have to call it as it is and say that Serena is just that good...

To say that Serena is a "far superior" player than Nav, Graf and Evert is the biggest stretch I can imagine! I think Serena has less talents then those 3 but probably more power!

guyinsf
Jul 10th, 2010, 01:04 AM
As for being a great tennis player, there can be no doubt that Serena is one of the greatest ever. Today's game is much more physically demanding than the pre Williams era. Therefore, it will be impossible for any woman to win the number of tournaments that: Court, Navratilova, Evert or even Graf did. Serena, whom I never root for, would be a great player in any era and would hold her own against any other player in history- at least. Serena is definitely one of the very greatest of all-time. To say otherwise is either due to ignorance or personal dislike of her.

Today's game is more physically challenging because the players are bigger and stronger. Tennis before the Williams wasn't as physically challenging but players back then were not as strong as today so EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE which makes your point not so valid.

choi15
Jul 10th, 2010, 01:12 AM
http://i25.tinypic.com/9auyqe.gif

OMG, your gifs r :happy::happy:

1jackson2001
Jul 10th, 2010, 01:19 AM
No she's not the greatest, far from it. Give her time (and she probably doesn't have that much). We dont' know..she could win zero slams from now on, she can win 20. Just wait and see. Some fans are way too excited. Too many posters here suffer from premature ejaculation.

nat75
Jul 10th, 2010, 01:30 AM
No she's not the greatest, far from it. Give her time (and she probably doesn't have that much). We dont' know..she could win zero slams from now on, she can win 20. Just wait and see. Some fans are way too excited. Too many posters here suffer from premature ejaculation.

:haha: :haha:
Best post on this thread! :yeah:

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:22 AM
No she's not the greatest, far from it. Give her time (and she probably doesn't have that much). We dont' know..she could win zero slams from now on, she can win 20. Just wait and see. Some fans are way too excited. Too many posters here suffer from premature ejaculation.

The question was is Serena the best...not the greatest; there's a difference.

Baselinebasher
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:25 AM
Best player of all time (Steffi Graf) did not struggle in RG. Serena failed at RG in absolute mug era (2008/2009).

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:30 AM
Best player of all time (Steffi Graf)

This best player actually struggled to win there four years in a row from 1989-1992. Coincidentally Monica Seles was number one during much of this time.

Serena has played RG six times since she first won it. If she won it again next year her struggles wouldn't be much worse than Steffi's.

Steven.
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:46 AM
pretty dumb to compare them across all generations of tennis when... the game has changed so much. I'd rank the people per decades, so in order of prominence I think:

70s is Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova
80s is Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert
90s is Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis
Noughties is Serena Williams, Justine Henin, Venus Williams
TwentyTen is Serena Williams

Baselinebasher
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:54 AM
This best player actually struggled to win there four years in a row from 1989-1992. Coincidentally Monica Seles was number one during much of this time.

Serena has played RG six times since she first won it. If she won it again next year her struggles wouldn't be much worse than Steffi's.

Seles didn't even manage a winning H2H against Graf during her slump. Need I remind you of a brutal beating slumping Graf delivered to "peak" Seles?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwdeBBzhdPA

Here is your Graf killer.

kiwialicat
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:54 AM
The question was is Serena the best...not the greatest; there's a difference.

Well she is neither the greatest nor the best yet. Regarding the former, if she finishes her career with greater achievements than anyone else then there would be no argument about who is the greatest/most accomplished. As of yet she hasn't and probably isn't likely to. That's not to say she can't or won't.

Regarding the latter, there will never be answer because you can't compare players who play in different eras. So technically theere will never be a best player of all time.

kiwialicat
Jul 10th, 2010, 02:59 AM
This best player actually struggled to win there four years in a row from 1989-1992. Coincidentally Monica Seles was number one during much of this time.

Serena has played RG six times since she first won it. If she won it again next year her struggles wouldn't be much worse than Steffi's.

What are you talking about? Steffi was runner up three times during that period. She ended up wining 6. How on earth does that compare to Serena's struggles at the French? Steffi was also year end number one for the first two years of the period you mentioned. When it comes to Serena v. Steffi achievements, Steffi wins hands down, without a doubt.

Even on her worse surface she managed to win 4. While Serena seems likely to be stuck on 1 or 2.

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:00 AM
The question was is Serena the best...not the greatest; there's a difference.
OK, I'll bite. What is the difference, pray tell?

Steven.
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:04 AM
This best player actually struggled to win there four years in a row from 1989-1992. Coincidentally Monica Seles was number one during much of this time.

Serena has played RG six times since she first won it. If she won it again next year her struggles wouldn't be much worse than Steffi's.

Steffi was a multiple runner up during those times compared to Serena's multiple R3 / QF exits. Not to mention Steffi already had 2 RG titles by that time. Steffi also reached the finals of RG 9/16 times in her career at RG (with 3 runner up during the period in which she struggled; 1989-1992) and hadn't lost before the Quarterfinals since 1985...

all in all, Steffi's struggle on clay is definitely not comparable to Serena's on clay.

Deck
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:06 AM
Serena the best player of all time?:haha::haha::haha:

CloudAtlas
Jul 10th, 2010, 04:27 PM
As I'm sure someone has already mentioned (or they should have), the discussion of the "best" player is a moot discussion. Sure today's game is more physical and possibly more difficult but by the same book would Serena have been as successful with her game with a wooden racket against previous bests? Unlikely , therefore the discussion of the one "best" player across all generations is pointless.

hingisGOAT
Jul 10th, 2010, 09:20 PM
In addition to being more accomplished, Steffi Graf is more athletic and more technically versed than Serena... where is the comparison :confused:

tennisvideos
Jul 10th, 2010, 11:38 PM
pretty dumb to compare them across all generations of tennis when... the game has changed so much. I'd rank the people per decades, so in order of prominence I think:

70s is Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova
80s is Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert
90s is Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis
Noughties is Serena Williams, Justine Henin, Venus Williams
TwentyTen is Serena Williams

I would think the 70s was Evert and Court.

Court won the Calendar Grand Slam in 1970, retired in 71 to have a child in 72 and then came back to win 3/4 Slams in 73 and dominate the season before retiring again in 74 for her second child.

Both Evert and Court achieved a lot more than Navratilova in the 70s.

DaMamaJama87
Jul 10th, 2010, 11:47 PM
The answer for anyone unbiased has to be YES. She is the epitome of the tennis player. A combination of natural gifts of speed and strength combined with a game honed to perfection from years of hard work and topped with a mental fortitude that's indefatigable. She is the tennis player perfected. No other player past or present has had such mastery over every stroke. Serve, forehand, backhand, volley, footwork...ad infinitum, all are strengths, none are weaknesses and all are the best or close to the best stroke of all time. You might be able to find one or two players in the history of tennis who did one thing better than her (it's hard but possible), but you'll never find a player who did even two things better than her. Put Serena against any past great on any surface and Serena is always automatically the favourite. Even against Evert on clay. Even against Navratilova or Graf on grass. That alone should tell you how unmatched Serena is in the history of tennis.

dsanders06
Jul 10th, 2010, 11:54 PM
but you'll never find a player who did even two things better than her.

Graf moved better than her, had a better forehand than her and volleyed better than her.

kiwialicat
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:01 AM
The answer for anyone unbiased has to be YES. She is the epitome of the tennis player. A combination of natural gifts of speed and strength combined with a game honed to perfection from years of hard work and topped with a mental fortitude that's indefatigable. She is the tennis player perfected. No other player past or present has had such mastery over every stroke. Serve, forehand, backhand, volley, footwork...ad infinitum, all are strengths, none are weaknesses and all are the best or close to the best stroke of all time. You might be able to find one or two players in the history of tennis who did one thing better than her (it's hard but possible), but you'll never find a player who did even two things better than her. Put Serena against any past great on any surface and Serena is always automatically the favourite. Even against Evert on clay. Even against Navratilova or Graf on grass. That alone should tell you how unmatched Serena is in the history of tennis.

Oh, the irony. Oh, the hilarity of what you just wrote.

:happy::happy:

spencercarlos
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:06 AM
The answer for anyone unbiased has to be YES. She is the epitome of the tennis player. A combination of natural gifts of speed and strength combined with a game honed to perfection from years of hard work and topped with a mental fortitude that's indefatigable. She is the tennis player perfected. No other player past or present has had such mastery over every stroke. Serve, forehand, backhand, volley, footwork...ad infinitum, all are strengths, none are weaknesses and all are the best or close to the best stroke of all time. You might be able to find one or two players in the history of tennis who did one thing better than her (it's hard but possible), but you'll never find a player who did even two things better than her. Put Serena against any past great on any surface and Serena is always automatically the favourite. Even against Evert on clay. Even against Navratilova or Graf on grass. That alone should tell you how unmatched Serena is in the history of tennis.
Took a page out of LVDTennis book. :lol::tape:

Maybe Serena 2002 is the strongest and most difficult player to beat. But her whole carreer be the greatest of all of time? :rolleyes: No..

supergrunt
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:07 AM
yes she would pulverize overrated graf and court

hingisGOAT
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:11 AM
I think people need to check their sarcasm detectors...

DaMamaJama87
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:26 AM
Graf moved better than her, had a better forehand than her and volleyed better than her.
Graf possibly had better footwork than Serena and the forehands are close though Serena has more variety I would say. That's it. Serena's volleys are just as good, if not better than Graf's.

DaMamaJama87
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:26 AM
Took a page out of LVDTennis book. :lol::tape:

Maybe Serena 2002 is the strongest and most difficult player to beat. But her whole carreer be the greatest of all of time? :rolleyes: No..

Thanks for making my point!:kiss:

Dominic
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:28 AM
She is one of the worst actually.

GrafMariaPetraK
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:39 AM
yes she would pulverize overrated graf and court

:tape::lol:

nat75
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:40 AM
Graf possibly had better footwork than Serena and the forehands are close though Serena has more variety I would say. That's it. Serena's volleys are just as good, if not better than Graf's.

Graf footwork is definitely better, her forehand is slightly better and Serena has more variety?? :weirdo:

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:49 AM
Sorry if this has already been said, but... Is she the "best," going by what we've established that to mean(most difficult to beat)? At a GS event, maybe. The previous greats would have had a very difficult time playing SlamRena, especially 2002 SlamRena, as they simply weren't trained to return freaking 125+ mph serves. The game as a whole is a lot more offensive than before, so pitting them at their best against Rena, or even others of this generation at their best would be highly unfair. In much the same way, I'm sure 20-30 years from now we'll have new technology and different training routines, and the Venuses and Serenas of that generation will be hitting in the 140's, not 120's, and the game will be totally different than it is now... Maybe.

As far as "Greatest," I'm pretty sure we all know she's not -- And there's little to no chance she'll tie Graf's record, or even reach 20. My guess is that she'll reach or just come short of reaching Evert and Nav's record, being totally honest.

Gdsimmons
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:50 AM
Still talking about this??
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn135/dazzle_me90/GIF/sarcasticclapping.gif

nat75
Jul 11th, 2010, 01:10 AM
Sorry if this has already been said, but... Is she the "best," going by what we've established that to mean(most difficult to beat)? At a GS event, maybe. The previous greats would have had a very difficult time playing SlamRena, especially 2002 SlamRena, as they simply weren't trained to return freaking 125+ mph serves. The game as a whole is a lot more offensive than before, so pitting them at their best against Rena, or even others of this generation at their best would be highly unfair. In much the same way, I'm sure 20-30 years from now we'll have new technology and different training routines, and the Venuses and Serenas of that generation will be hitting in the 140's, not 120's, and the game will be totally different than it is now... Maybe.

As far as "Greatest," I'm pretty sure we all know she's not -- And there's little to no chance she'll tie Graf's record, or even reach 20. My guess is that she'll reach or just come short of reaching Evert and Nav's record, being totally honest.

Again, those greats would use the technology of today so they certainly would be able to coupe with a 125+ mph. On the other hand, what would Serena be capable to do with a wooden racket?? And Serve-and-volley is dead so they game is by no means more offensive than before. You do have aggressive baseliners though.
And training hasn't changed much in the last 20+ years. All they world records lately are beaten with the help new technology, not conditioning. The year when the athletes achieved their peak in conditioning (and therefore the most world records) was 1988. The year Graf won the golden Slam.

Baselinebasher
Jul 11th, 2010, 01:18 AM
Graf possibly had better footwork than Serena and the forehands are close though Serena has more variety I would say. That's it. Serena's volleys are just as good, if not better than Graf's.

Graf had infinitely better footwork. Forehands aren't even close... Graf had best FH of all time in women's tennis. Serena's forehand looks dreadful, brutish and forced. Steffi also had much more variety. She had absolutely no weaknesses during her peak. Dominant on every surface for years. Serena is a ball basher with good serve, basically female version of Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro. Graf is female version of Federer.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 11th, 2010, 01:26 AM
Again, those greats would use the technology of today so they certainly would be able to coupe with a 125+ mph. On the other hand, what would Serena be capable to do with a wooden racket?? And Serve-and-volley is dead so they game is by no means more offensive than before. You do have aggressive baseliners though.
And training hasn't changed much in the last 20+ years. All they world records lately are beaten with the help new technology, not conditioning. The year when the athletes achieved their peak in conditioning (and therefore the most world records) was 1988. The year Graf won the golden Slam.

Technology plays a major part, most of it in fact. But you can't deny that more emphasis has been played on physical strength, what with said technology being available. Because women now have the ability to hit 120 mph serves, they're looking to take advantage of that by backing it with muscle strength. Just look at the way builds have changed over the years. Comparing the thin and lithe serve and volleyers of past generations to someone like Serena, who clearly has the muscle mass to back up her power game. It's assuming too much that Navratilova, Graf, or Evert would be hitting nearly as hard, even with the technology available now. Especially considering power was never really a part of any of their games(Look at how irrelevant Hingis became with the rise of powerplayers/ballbashers)

dsanders06
Jul 11th, 2010, 01:43 AM
Graf possibly had better footwork than Serena and the forehands are close though Serena has more variety I would say. That's it. Serena's volleys are just as good, if not better than Graf's.

Both Graf's footwork and footspeed were far, far better than Serena's have ever been - Graf is the only tennis player ever who could sprint at Olympic standard. Graf's forehand is also a lot better - it broke down far less frequently than even peak Serena's did, and it's questionable whether Graf's fh was even less "powerful". Serena has the better backhand, although Graf's wicked backhand slice would wreak havoc for Serena, who struggles against even mediocre slice such as Emilie Loit's. And I'll assume your last couple of statements are sarcasm - Serena a better volleyer and more variety than Graf? :spit:

Donny
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:08 AM
Both Graf's footwork and footspeed were far, far better than Serena's have ever been - Graf is the only tennis player ever who could sprint at Olympic standard. Graf's forehand is also a lot better - it broke down far less frequently than even peak Serena's did, and it's questionable whether Graf's fh was even less "powerful". Serena has the better backhand, although Graf's wicked backhand slice would wreak havoc for Serena, who struggles against even mediocre slice such as Emilie Loit's. And I'll assume your last couple of statements are sarcasm - Serena a better volleyer and more variety than Graf? :spit:

This is completely irrelevant as to who was the faster mover on the tennis court. A tennis court is less than 8 and a half meters- Olympic sprinters don't reach top speed until around 40 meters or more. They also start from a crouching position and have full use of their arms when running and of course, don't have to worry about abrupt stops. It's entirely possible that a world class sprinter would be average at moving laterally across a tennis court.

Secondly: Who's to say Serena *couldn't* have sprinted at an elite level in her prime?

kiwialicat
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:18 AM
Secondly: Who's to say Serena *couldn't* have sprinted at an elite level in her prime?

At an elite level? Are you freakin' kidding?

Donny
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:22 AM
At an elite level? Are you freakin' kidding?

People here throw around the 'Steffi Graf as sprinter' line, why can't i do the same re Serena?

Gdsimmons
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:27 AM
Serena really ruffles alot of you peoples feathers eh?
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f205/OrangeBangs_Bucket/8.gif

Slutati
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:30 AM
yes!

VeeJJ
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:32 AM
Sports Illustrated seems to think so....

kiwialicat
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:43 AM
People here throw around the 'Steffi Graf as sprinter' line, why can't i do the same re Serena?

Because Serena might be fast around a court, and a supreme athlete but she is in no way a runner. Not like the professional sprinters. Steffi on the hand was known to be able to run at that sort of standard.

Donny
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:44 AM
Because Steffi in her prime could run the Olympic 800m qualifying time. Serena, plainly can not.

The 800m is an endurance based race. The primary focus is not on speed. In fact, a lot of 200m meter runners suck at it.

The men's- the MEN'S- world record for the 800m is 1 min and 41 seconds, or 100 seconds. That's an average speed of 18 mph. That's not super fast. That's near average sprinting speed for an athletic male. I certainly wouldn't rule out a peak Serena as incapable of short 15-18mph bursts, at least around a tennis court.

Two: Where's proof of this? The only results I found were about a completely unrelated athlete with the name Steffi Graf who ran the 800m.

But in actual fact the odds are quite high, because the Steffi Graf who at present heads the global order of female 800-metre runners is not the Steffi Graf who dominated women's tennis for a decade or more, and who, it might be recalled, was said by her father to be capable of also becoming a world-class half-miler on the track.

The Steffi Graf who clocked 1min 57.80sec in Birmingham last Sunday and who starts as the clear favourite to win the European indoor 800m crown here this afternoon is, at 26, four years younger than the Steffi Graf who hung up her racket with her formidable forehand last year. She is also an Austrian - a native of Volkermarkt, near Klagenfurt, in the heart of Jörg Haider country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/farewell-steffi-graf-welcome-steffi-graf-725812.html

kiwialicat
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:58 AM
The 800m is an endurance based race. The primary focus is not on speed. In fact, a lot of 200m meter runners suck at it.

The men's- the MEN'S- world record for the 800m is 1 min and 41 seconds, or 100 seconds. That's an average speed of 18 mph. That's not super fast. That's near average sprinting speed for an athletic male. I certainly wouldn't rule out a peak Serena as incapable of short 15-18mph bursts, at least around a tennis court.

Two: Where's proof of this? The only results I found were about a completely unrelated athlete with the name Steffi Graf who ran the 800m.

800m is not an endurance race. It's middle distance, not even long. Your not making any sense. By your logic, the average athletic male could run as a fast as one of an elite level.

That's not super fast.

So now your saying Olympic sprinters aren't super fast?

I'm sorry but that's just wrong. Are you really saying Serena could run as fast as a men's Olympic sprinter?

The two people are unrelated. Stefanie Graf is an Austrian middle-distance runner. I thought it was common knowledge that she could. I'm pretty sure there is something else too. Maybe something about Steffi wanting to become an Olympic sprinter when she was younger, as a viable career before she decided on tennis. If you want me to find evidence, I'm sure I could.

Donny
Jul 11th, 2010, 03:11 AM
Your not making any sense. By your logic, the average athletic male could run as a fast as one of an elite level.

No I'm not. The 800m race is about maintaining a decent sprinting speed for a relatively long time. Elite speeds are not required. 800m runners often times jog during long stretches of the race. Could Serena run 800m at the same speed male Olympic athletes run the 800m? Of course not. Could Serena sprint 25-50 meters at the speed male Olympic athletes run the 800m? I would say she has a very good shoot, or at least she did.



The two people are unrelated. Stefanie Graf is an Austrian middle-distance runner. I thought it was common knowledge that she could. If you want me to find evidence, I'm sure I could.

Great, I'd love to see some evidence for this claim.

hingisGOAT
Jul 11th, 2010, 06:39 AM
It's assuming too much that Navratilova, Graf, or Evert would be hitting nearly as hard, even with the technology available now. Especially considering power was never really a part of any of their games(Look at how irrelevant Hingis became with the rise of powerplayers/ballbashers)

1) Power was never a part of their games? :weirdo: Graf's forehand is the most devestating shot in tennis history... there are even youtube clips of her playing your precious Williams sisters, and Graf's forehand is unquestionably the dominant ground stroke in those matches...

2) Hingis' entire career (and all her Slam wins) was comprised of beating more powerful girls than her... her decline started when she began losing to ASV, Myskina, Virginia Ruano Pasucal, Mauresmo etc... hell even in 2006 she had more losses to fast, versatile players than she did to "ball bashers" or "power players"

Pureracket
Jul 11th, 2010, 11:13 AM
1) Power was never a part of their games? :weirdo: Graf's forehand is the most devestating shot in tennis history... there are even youtube clips of her playing your precious Williams sisters, and Graf's forehand is unquestionably the dominant ground stroke in those matches...

Clearly, you've never seen Serena's serve. Weird how you bring "Willilams Sisters" into this when the thread is about Serena. Oddly enough, Graf and Serena are 1-1. They played each other twice in '99. The two matches both went to three sets. The two scores are almost identical.

Baselinebasher
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:07 PM
Clearly, you've never seen Serena's serve. Weird how you bring "Willilams Sisters" into this when the thread is about Serena. Oddly enough, Graf and Serena are 1-1. They played each other twice in '99. The two matches both went to three sets. The two scores are almost identical.

Prime Graf would absolutely ruin Williams on any surface (probably double bagel on clay). Nice job bringing H2H into this against Graf, who has done it all by that point, retiring the same year and Serena was a nobody back then trying oh so hard to get that big win over greatest female player of all time, who probably didn't even care by then.

Pureracket
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:53 PM
Prime Graf would absolutely ruin Williams on any surface (probably double bagel on clay). Nice job bringing H2H into this against Graf, who has done it all by that point, retiring the same year and Serena was a nobody back then trying oh so hard to get that big win over greatest female player of all time, who probably didn't even care by then.At the same time, I could say that Serena was simply starting her career. Graf had no business going 3 sets with this nobody, and she must have really started evaluating ending her career when this "nobody" beat her in Finals of Indian Wells. After both of her matches, Graf was quoted as saying Serena could be the best.

I would love to see Graf's slice backhand respond to Serena's kickserve. :haha:I don't think we would even need to bring Prime Serena into this argument. We all know that she would be unbeatable.

mykarma
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:04 PM
Clearly, you've never seen Serena's serve. Weird how you bring "Willilams Sisters" into this when the thread is about Serena. Oddly enough, Graf and Serena are 1-1. They played each other twice in '99. The two matches both went to three sets. The two scores are almost identical.
:spit:

thrust
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:05 PM
At the same time, I could say that Serena was simply starting her career. Graf had no business going 3 sets with this nobody, and she must have really started evaluating ending her career when this "nobody" beat her in Finals of Indian Wells. After both of her matches, Graf was quoted as saying Serena could be the best.

I would love to see Graf's slice backhand respond to Serena's kickserve. :haha:I don't think we would even need to bring Prime Serena into this argument. We all know that she would be unbeatable.

Serena was not at her very best in 99, but neither was Graf. Didn't Serena win the USO in 99? Obviously she was quite good even then. I am not a fan of either Serena or Steffi, but to say that Serena would be unbeatable for Graf is nonsense. The one thing Serena and Graf do have in common is mental strength. They knew how to win a match, even when they were on the verge of losing. I do think Hingis could have won slams longer had she not played singles and doubles so often. She sinply played too often in order to stay at #1, even when not fully fit to play.

Olórin
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Well...16 pages later I think all we can conclude is that: clearly there is a discussion to be had on the matter.

dsanders06
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:30 PM
At the same time, I could say that Serena was simply starting her career. Graf had no business going 3 sets with this nobody, and she must have really started evaluating ending her career when this "nobody" beat her in Finals of Indian Wells. After both of her matches, Graf was quoted as saying Serena could be the best

Are you serious? You're seriously trying to say that a 17-year-old Serena struggling to put away a 30-year-old Graf is proof of Serena's superiority?

Fact is, Serena at her peak might have seen off Graf on a slow hardcourt, but it would be Steffi winning evevrywhere else.

dsanders06
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:31 PM
Well...16 pages later I think all we can conclude is that: clearly there is a discussion to be had on the matter.

By that logic, there's DEFINITELY a case to be said for Henin being a better player than Serena, seeing as my thread on the issue reached 60 pages. :)

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2010, 02:51 PM
Graf is the only tennis player ever who could sprint at Olympic standard.What were her times? I watched Graf whole career, and Serena is defintiely has a higher top speed on the court than Graf ever did. (Venus ran a 5:29 mile when she was eight years old, so I'm betting she was actually faster than either of them. Distance running isn't sprinting, but a 5:29 when you're eight is ....

Olórin
Jul 11th, 2010, 03:26 PM
Fact is, Serena at her peak might have seen off Graf on a slow hardcourt, but it would be Steffi winning evevrywhere else.

As we have already established, you know very little. The intellectual boundaries of "fact" apparently being another item to index in the Dsanders catalogue of ignorance.

mykarma
Jul 11th, 2010, 03:41 PM
Are you serious? You're seriously trying to say that a 17-year-old Serena struggling to put away a 30-year-old Graf is proof of Serena's superiority?

Fact is, Serena at her peak might have seen off Graf on a slow hardcourt, but it would be Steffi winning evevrywhere else.
I don't think that post said that at all. :shrug: It appears to me as though he was responding to another poster and was making the statement that their records h2h was even. Keep up now.

Pureracket
Jul 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Serena was not at her very best in 99, but neither was Graf. Didn't Serena win the USO in 99? Obviously she was quite good even then. I am not a fan of either Serena or Steffi, but to say that Serena would be unbeatable for Graf is nonsense. The one thing Serena and Graf do have in common is mental strength. They knew how to win a match, even when they were on the verge of losing. I do think Hingis could have won slams longer had she not played singles and doubles so often. She simply played too often in order to stay at #1, even when not fully fit to play.If you're going to jump into a convo, please don't isolate one post as if it's posted in some kind of vacuum. I'll respond to yours, though. You point to Serena being quite good in '99 because of her winning the USO. You neglect to mention Graf's Slams, though. Graf won the French O. in '99, and she made it to the Final round of Wimbledon.

I wouldn't say that Graf didn't have mental strength(I remember the Hingis comeback), but she certainly never really had to display it. I don't think it's on par with Serena's. Hell, I don't think Graf's mental strength was really on par with ASV's or Seles' @ that time. Graf was a wondeful player, but her success was due more to her athletic ability than anything else. She could hit the ball harder, and she could run faster.

thrust
Jul 11th, 2010, 05:32 PM
If you're going to jump into a convo, please don't isolate one post as if it's posted in some kind of vacuum. I'll respond to yours, though. You point to Serena being quite good in '99 because of her winning the USO. You neglect to mention Graf's Slams, though. Graf won the French O. in '99, and she made it to the Final round of Wimbledon.

I wouldn't say that Graf didn't have mental strength(I remember the Hingis comeback), but she certainly never really had to display it. I don't think it's on par with Serena's. Hell, I don't think Graf's mental strength was really on par with ASV's or Seles' @ that time. Graf was a wondeful player, but her success was due more to her athletic ability than anything else. She could hit the ball harder, and she could run faster.

The fact is neither Graf or Serena were at their very best in 99. All players have bad losses, Serena has had her share as did Steffi. Both are all-time great players, who if they playerd often in their prime, would have come about even in wins and losses in matches played against each other. Overall, I would give the slight advantage to Graf. The Fact also is, we will never know. One does not win 22 Slams without being, mentally, exceptionally strong.

Helen Lawson
Jul 11th, 2010, 07:55 PM
You guys are delusional! I love them both, but Serena does not have Graf's numbers, and she never will, not even close. As much as I like Serena, she had some awful years everyone is ignoring, not so much with Steffi.

BluSthil
Jul 11th, 2010, 08:12 PM
I can't believe this thread hasn't been closed !

GoldenGophers
Jul 12th, 2010, 03:30 AM
I would definitely put Graf way way above her.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2010, 03:52 AM
I can't believe this thread hasn't been closed !Why would it be closed? Nobody is convincing anybody of anything, granted, but I see no violation of the guidelines. If threads were closed merely because of vociferous disagreement, this forum would be empty.

moby
Jul 12th, 2010, 04:34 AM
What were her times? I watched Graf whole career, and Serena is defintiely has a higher top speed on the court than Graf ever did. (Venus ran a 5:29 mile when she was eight years old, so I'm betting she was actually faster than either of them. Distance running isn't sprinting, but a 5:29 when you're eight is ....I've never seen Serena or Venus do anything quite like this.
Besides movement on a tennis court is quite different from movement in a straight line.
I think Graf would be taking wider strides if she were running on track.
But of course, huge strides do not make for good footwork in tennis.

ZioS4QVPmaw


What were her times? I watched Graf whole career, and Serena is defintiely has a higher top speed on the court than Graf ever did. (Venus ran a 5:29 mile when she was eight years old, so I'm betting she was actually faster than either of them. Distance running isn't sprinting, but a 5:29 when you're eight is ....I don't know what her time was. But from what I've heard, she would have been good enough to be on the German relay team in 1988.

Gdsimmons
Jul 12th, 2010, 04:44 AM
This thread just continues to get more and more crazy and make NO sense
I just.....

http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad198/sober_gifs/21bix38_thjpg.gif

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 12th, 2010, 04:57 AM
I've never seen Serena or Venus do anything quite like this.
Besides movement on a tennis court is quite different from movement in a straight line.
I think Graf would be taking wider strides if she were running on track.
But of course, huge strides do not make for good footwork in tennis.

ZioS4QVPmaw


I don't know what her time was. But from what I've heard, she would have been good enough to be on the German relay team in 1988.


Serena may not have won the point, but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bktg4zioVQE&feature=related

And that's not even '02Rena, where she was thin and muscley and ran all around the courts on a regular basis.

WTAtennisfan15
Jul 12th, 2010, 12:35 PM
Graf moved smoothly!

dsanders06
Jul 12th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Serena may not have won the point, but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bktg4zioVQE&feature=related

And that's not even '02Rena, where she was thin and muscley and ran all around the courts on a regular basis.

While Serena's movement there is very good, it's not as good as Graf's movement in the other clip, considering the 90s Wimbledon grass was much faster than DecoTurf.

serenafan08
Jul 12th, 2010, 02:13 PM
Uh no. Steffi, Martina and Chris have stats that Serena will NEVER match:

Martina - 86 out of 87 match wins in one season (was that 1984?), 59 total Grand Slams (singles, doubles and mixed), 167 total titles (most of any player male or female)

Chris - won at least one Grand Slam every year for 13 straight years, 125 consecutive match wins on clay

Steffi - 377 weeks at No. 1, won each major a MINIMUM of four times, won the Golden Slam (Serena could still do this in 2012)

When Serena can put up a significant stat like one of these three, she can join the conversation. Without question, she is the best player of this generation though. And she's on the heels of the GOATs. But I don't think it's right to put her in that conversation yet - she's still got plenty of tennis left to play.

moby
Jul 12th, 2010, 02:46 PM
While Serena's movement there is very good, it's not as good as Graf's movement in the other clip, considering the 90s Wimbledon grass was much faster than DecoTurf.Not to mention that Graf barely retreated from the baseline even in full defence.
I think she would have nailed a forehand past Venus on Venus's approach shot in the other video.

spencercarlos
Jul 12th, 2010, 03:04 PM
Not to mention that Graf barely retreated from the baseline even in full defence.
I think she would have nailed a forehand past Venus on Venus's approach shot in the other video.
Yeah i was to say, that Venus´s approach was ridiculously bad, compared to her previous backhand...

Also you have to be deluded to say Serena moved near as good as Graf. Steffi´s movement was so smooth, but strong at the same time...

LUVMIRZA
Jul 12th, 2010, 03:05 PM
Serena is one of the GOATs not 'THE GOAT'. She has to win another 9 or more slams to prove that. Its Steffi who is 'THE GOAT' as of now.

Pureracket
Jul 12th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Well, if numbers of Slams is what elevates Serena to GOAT, then so be it. I simply hope this thread is bumped when/if Serena achieves this. I suspect that people will move the goal post again, though.

The Dawntreader
Jul 12th, 2010, 04:31 PM
Also you have to be deluded to say Serena moved near as good as Graf. Steffi´s movement was so smooth, but strong at the same time...

The ultimate tennis athlete.

The best i've ever seen on either tour.

LUVMIRZA
Jul 12th, 2010, 04:34 PM
Well, if numbers of Slams is what elevates Serena to GOAT, then so be it. I simply hope this thread is bumped when/if Serena achieves this. I suspect that people will move the goal post again, though.

:rolleyes: