PDA

View Full Version : Which is Serena Williams's best season so far? 2002 or 2012?


Barktra
Nov 10th, 2012, 01:56 AM
2002- 3 slams, Year end #1,Final of YEC, and 8 titles or 2012- 2 Slams, Olympic Gold, YEC, and 7 titles

RenaSlam.
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:41 AM
2002. More dominant.

Lin Lin
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:58 AM
2012 French Open made it worse:fiery:

shoryuken
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:14 AM
In order all seasons she won at least 1 slam.

2002
2012
2009
2003
2010
1999
2008
2007
2005

rjd1111
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:23 AM
2002. More dominant.


This story is still being written. We will have to wait

until after a loss at AO or FO.

englando08
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:25 AM
In order all seasons she won at least 1 slam.

2002
2012
2009
2003
2010
1999
2008
2007
2005

I'd put 2008 ahead of 1999. (Wimbledon Final and Year End no. 2)

new-york
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:35 AM
I'm really amazed by the fact that Serena in 2012 even had a season that can compare with the mighty 2002. :worship:

CANNOT wait for next season.

shoryuken
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:41 AM
I'd put 2008 ahead of 1999. (Wimbledon Final and Year End no. 2)

yeah that's a good point. She did have 1 extra title in 1999 the Grand Slam Cup which was like a YEC type event? But in 2008 she did reclaim no. 1 ranking and had an extra slam F.

I'm really amazed by the fact that Serena in 2012 even had a season that can compare with the mighty 2002. :worship:

CANNOT wait for next season.

Agreed I didn't expect this :lol:

http://i.minus.com/ibg5sQvGoh3GWD.gif

Alexander18
Nov 10th, 2012, 04:03 AM
Someone check my math, but 3>2

spencercarlos
Nov 10th, 2012, 04:31 AM
This story is still being written. We will have to wait

until after a loss at AO or FO.
What does 2013 have to do with 2012? Oh wait lets exclude her RG 2012 from this year so she looks better.

spencercarlos
Nov 10th, 2012, 04:33 AM
I'm really amazed by the fact that Serena in 2012 even had a season that can compare with the mighty 2002. :worship:

CANNOT wait for next season.
Certainly R4 and R1 loss in slams + W W does not compare to W W W.

She won the Olympics and the YEC this year, but does really trump a slam? hmm not so sure....

Stamp Paid
Nov 10th, 2012, 06:58 AM
She is our Lord.

hingis-seles
Nov 10th, 2012, 08:49 AM
2002 was the best level of tennis I have ever seen her play. Or any other woman for that matter.

Gentleman
Nov 10th, 2012, 08:52 AM
2012 cause she is 30 now and that is spectacular, never seen level for that age! :)

saint2
Nov 10th, 2012, 09:42 AM
2002 and its not close to being close. Just compare the level of the field...And she even failed to finnish at #1 in 2012...

bobito
Nov 10th, 2012, 09:43 AM
The quality of thne competition in 2012 doesn't come close to 2002.


02 Serena Williams, 12 Victoria Azarenka
02 Venus Williams, 12 Maria Sharapova
02 Jennifer Capriati, 12 Serena Williams
02 Kim Clijsters, 12 Agnieszka Radwanska
02 Justine Henin, 12 Angelique Kerber
02 Amelie Mauresmo, 12 Sara Errani
02 Monica Seles, 12 Li Na
02 Daniela Hantuchova, 12 Petra Kvitova
02 Jelena Dokic, 12 Samantha Stosur
02 Martina Hingis, 12 Caroline Wozniacki
02 Anastasia Myskina, 12 Marion Bartoli
02 Lindsay Davenport, 12 Nadia Petrova
02 Chanda Rubin, 12 Ana Ivanovic
02 Magdalena Maleeva, 12 Maria Kirilenko
02 Patty Schnyder, 12 Dominika Cibulkova

bandabou
Nov 10th, 2012, 11:40 AM
'02..the rest of the tour was just praying not to get embarassed..but that was for the WHOLE year. This year it was only after RG.

Alejandrawrrr
Nov 10th, 2012, 12:34 PM
2002 without a shadow of a doubt. Her summer run of 2012 was amazing, but the year as a whole is actually only her second best year because her 2003 and possibly 2010 seasons came to an abrupt end when she would have been the odds-on favorite to collect her third slam of the year at both. Maybe even with a third slam in 2010, her 2012 would be better than 2010 on account of more non-slam titles, but not 2002 with one less slam, one less title, no #1 etc. I'm still thankful for it :angel:

doomsday
Nov 10th, 2012, 12:44 PM
The quality of thne competition in 2012 doesn't come close to 2002.


02 Serena Williams, 12 Victoria Azarenka
02 Venus Williams, 12 Maria Sharapova
02 Jennifer Capriati, 12 Serena Williams
02 Kim Clijsters, 12 Agnieszka Radwanska
02 Justine Henin, 12 Angelique Kerber
02 Amelie Mauresmo, 12 Sara Errani
02 Monica Seles, 12 Li Na
02 Daniela Hantuchova, 12 Petra Kvitova
02 Jelena Dokic, 12 Samantha Stosur
02 Martina Hingis, 12 Caroline Wozniacki
02 Anastasia Myskina, 12 Marion Bartoli
02 Lindsay Davenport, 12 Nadia Petrova
02 Chanda Rubin, 12 Ana Ivanovic
02 Magdalena Maleeva, 12 Maria Kirilenko
02 Patty Schnyder, 12 Dominika Cibulkova


Names don't mean much. Clijsters was slamless, Henin as well and pretty much all the other players.
Just the very fact that Serena ended N3 with such amazing results says a lot really.

brickhousesupporter
Nov 10th, 2012, 01:18 PM
Names don't mean much. Clijsters was slamless, Henin as well and pretty much all the other players.
Just the very fact that Serena ended N3 with such amazing results says a lot really.
They were still better players than the top 10 players of this year.

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 10th, 2012, 01:36 PM
Names don't mean much. Clijsters was slamless, Henin as well and pretty much all the other players.
Just the very fact that Serena ended N3 with such amazing results says a lot really.

if you have to wait until everyone wins a slam for them to be strong players then someone's RG is meaningless :lol: try again....if serena was winning most of the slams then who else was gonna win them? 4 slams can't be won by every member of the top 10 in 1 year so some of them will lose...serena was too strong in 2002 for them so failed logic :lol:


2002 by far

thrust
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:21 PM
2002. More dominant.

AND TOUGHER COMPETITION.

legalise#
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:24 PM
2002, without a doubt. To dominate like that in that era.. imagine if she was coming up against the players of today that year :speakles:

doomsday
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:42 PM
if you have to wait until everyone wins a slam for them to be strong players then someone's RG is meaningless :lol: try again....if serena was winning most of the slams then who else was gonna win them? 4 slams can't be won by every member of the top 10 in 1 year so some of them will lose...serena was too strong in 2002 for them so failed logic :lol:

I never said that she wasn't but just that they weren't threat for her despite being in the top 5. Clijsters, Henin weren't that good tbh and were certainly not playing at the level people were expecting them to.
As top 5 players you shouldn't have those poor results at majors, Clijsters reached one semi final at majors in 2002, Henin as well.
Clijsters lost to Capriati, Fernandez, Likothseva and Mauresmo.
Henin lost to Kim, Kapros, Venus and Hantuchova.

doomsday
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:45 PM
They were still better players than the top 10 players of this year.

Like I said, Clijsters and Henin's results were horrible at majors for top 5 players and Serena wasn't the one beating up on them back then.

brickhousesupporter
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:46 PM
I never said that she wasn't but just that they weren't threat for her despite being in the top 5. Clijsters, Henin weren't that good tbh and were certainly not playing at the level people were expecting them to.
As top 5 players you shouldn't have those poor results at majors, Clijsters reached one semi final at majors in 2002, Henin as well.
Clijsters lost to Capriati, Fernandez, Likothseva and Mauresmo.
Henin lost to Kim, Kapros, Venus and Hantuchova.
So Clijsters/Henin having been to GS finals and Henin winning a GS the following year were just not that good. You need to back away from your computer.

doomsday
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:54 PM
So Clijsters/Henin having been to GS finals and Henin winning a GS the following year were just not that good. You need to back away from your computer.

In 2002 they weren't. I don't know about you but I do expect players in top 5 to reach at least the semis of every major and not lose in 1st round/2nd round or the third one.

legalise#
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:03 PM
In 2002 they weren't. I don't know about you but I do expect players in top 5 to reach at least the semis of every major and not lose in 1st round/2nd round or the third one.

hunny, that is impossible. :lol: Only 4 SF places..

tejmeglekvár
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:35 PM
She is our Lord.
Word of the Lord is perfect and stands forever.

"I would say it's pretty much the best season of my career, a little bit of a slow start though, so I have to give it to 2002 - but there's always 2013," she added.

doomsday
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:38 PM
Word of the Lord is perfect and stands forever.

"I would say it's pretty much the best season of my career, a little bit of a slow start though, so I have to give it to 2002 - but there's always 2013," she added.

We're waiting.

tejmeglekvár
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:51 PM
We're waiting.

The Lord is trustworthy in all she promises and faithful in all she does.

resilience
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:53 PM
Yeah 2002 was really overrated. Her big wins were only over Venus :shrug: she always drew Hantuchova and some of those noughties scrubs :facepalm: there was no one else who could've won those slams.

Plus Henin and Clijsters were horrible that year. Serena didn't even meet them in her slam wins :oh:

2012 is better

bandabou
Nov 10th, 2012, 04:50 PM
Gotta love the Mashatards...their girl finally wins a major after 4 years beating Sara Errani in the finals and they wanna talk about the top 10 of '02 being weak?! :lol: Priceless.

Orbis
Nov 10th, 2012, 04:54 PM
2002, but not by a lot. It's amazing to see such great results 10 years apart, have to admire Serena's dedication and hard work. A true champion.

hingis-seles
Nov 10th, 2012, 05:20 PM
I'll be the first to say that the field in 2002 wasn't as strong as it was from 1998-2001. Hingis skipped RG & Wimbledon because of injuries, Lindsay skipped AO, RG & W with injuries - these were the big two in the preceding years. Hantuchova and Dokic were winning Tier I events and cracking the Top 5, Mauresmo became a regular in GS SF events, Clijsters and Henin having sophomore slumps after their 2001 breakthroughs, etc. However, none of that matters. For those of us who saw Serena play tennis in 2002 she would've still beat up on all those players. The highest level of tennis I ever saw from a woman. 2002 was Serena's best season and from a perspective of level of tennis produced, one could argue the best season in history.

new-york
Nov 10th, 2012, 05:25 PM
Certainly R4 and R1 loss in slams + W W does not compare to W W W.

She won the Olympics and the YEC this year, but does really trump a slam? hmm not so sure....

Obv, 2002 remains at the top with 3 slams and a tougher competition, but the fact that you're not certain proves my point. :p

In The Zone
Nov 10th, 2012, 05:27 PM
if you have to wait until everyone wins a slam for them to be strong players then someone's RG is meaningless :lol: try again....if serena was winning most of the slams then who else was gonna win them? 4 slams can't be won by every member of the top 10 in 1 year so some of them will lose...serena was too strong in 2002 for them so failed logic :lol:


2002 by far

Identity crisis! :speakles: THIS IS MINE. :lol: ;)

i.will2
Nov 10th, 2012, 05:28 PM
2002 results are better because of the 3 slams but had Serena ended 2012 with the YE #1 I would say 2012 is better because of the Gold Medal and Serena is 10 years older now.

I wonder if using the same ranking system used in 2002 what the 2012 year end rankings would be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the bonus points for beating top ranked players used back then Serena likely could have managed a top ranking under that system.

Alejandrawrrr
Nov 10th, 2012, 06:14 PM
The Lord is trustworthy in all she promises and faithful in all she does.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvdp84JHjx1r4ghkoo1_250.gif
The gerls are learning well.

vogus
Nov 10th, 2012, 06:20 PM
2002 Serena is the best anybody has played in the modern era of the WTA. I don't think there's much debate about this from those who have been around long enough to remember.

AcesHigh
Nov 10th, 2012, 06:25 PM
Not sure if this is a joke or not. 2002 Serena would beat 2012 Serena in two easy sets.

2002 Serena is top 5 all-time kind of tennis and the most dominant physically a player has been in the Open Era.

Roookie
Nov 10th, 2012, 06:32 PM
Not sure if this is a joke or not. 2002 Serena would beat 2012 Serena in two easy sets.

2002 Serena is top 5 all-time kind of tennis and the most dominant physically a player has been in the Open Era.

Not sure. 2012 Serena would always hold serve. :p

doomsday
Nov 10th, 2012, 07:20 PM
Not sure. 2012 Serena would always hold serve. :p

:lol: this.

bobito
Nov 10th, 2012, 07:24 PM
2002 results are better because of the 3 slams but had Serena ended 2012 with the YE #1 I would say 2012 is better because of the Gold Medal and Serena is 10 years older now.

I wonder if using the same ranking system used in 2002 what the 2012 year end rankings would be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the bonus points for beating top ranked players used back then Serena likely could have managed a top ranking under that system.

Interesting question but I doubt it. Williams and Azarenka each won 18 matches against top 10 opposition this year so both would have stacked up a heap of quality points under the 2002 system. Also, in 2002 a player's best 17 results counted towards their ranking and there were no zero pointers. Azarenka would have therefore had points from another two tournaments on her ranking while Williams, who only played 15, would not.

AcesHigh
Nov 10th, 2012, 07:36 PM
Not sure. 2012 Serena would always hold serve. :p

No she wouldnt. 2012 Serena isn't serving that much better. It's a matter of subtle improvements and the level of competition today.

Additionally, Serena is not even nearly as agile on the return.

Trickle
Nov 10th, 2012, 07:36 PM
In hindsight, the fact that Venus has 7 slams herself strengthens Serena's 2002. So 2002.

Start da Game
Nov 10th, 2012, 07:46 PM
i would say 2012......the level of domination is phenomenal......48-2 or something of her last 50 matches......she was effectively few games away from beating razzano and winning the french open as well this year......

2002 she was probably more strong physically but it really doesn't matter if she can play like she did this year.....

Roookie
Nov 10th, 2012, 09:05 PM
No she wouldnt. 2012 Serena isn't serving that much better. It's a matter of subtle improvements and the level of competition today.

Additionally, Serena is not even nearly as agile on the return.

No way Serena served close to this level in 2002. Her placement, disguise and clutchness on this shot its been on another level since 2010.

Z1988
Nov 10th, 2012, 09:42 PM
I have to give a little edge to 2002; due to her inconsistency in the first half of her 2012 season...

kiwifan
Nov 10th, 2012, 10:03 PM
1st round loss in a Slam? How could that be included in her "best year"?

Sure she got better and made it one of her "best years"...

...I think there has to be another French Open victory in order to even bring the question up...

...but let us hope that 2013 puts us in a place where we really have to compare it to Serena 2002. :)

In The Zone
Nov 10th, 2012, 11:55 PM
I was being nostalgic and watching some of Serena's 2002 and 2003 matches, especially the ones against Henin, Capriati, and Mauresmo.

Serena's serve has improved TREMENDOUSLY. AND! Her groundstrokes today have more juice and accuracy. 2012 Serena definitely get a set off 2002 Serena, no doubt. I think 2002's movement would expose 2012's Serena LACK of movement in the end though.

brickhousesupporter
Nov 11th, 2012, 12:03 AM
I was being nostalgic and watching some of Serena's 2002 and 2003 matches, especially the ones against Henin, Capriati, and Mauresmo.

Serena's serve has improved TREMENDOUSLY. AND! Her groundstrokes today have more juice and accuracy. 2012 Serena definitely get a set off 2002 Serena, no doubt. I think 2002's movement would expose 2012's Serena LACK of movement in the end though.
Did you see the Paris indoors match in 2003 against Mauresmo. It is one of my favorites. Momo came out storming and Serena got into her grove and Muaresmo was over.

heavyhorse
Nov 11th, 2012, 12:15 AM
Not really a comparison, imo. 2002 was the best year for her, even if I'm highly suspicious of her French Open win.

heavyhorse
Nov 11th, 2012, 12:17 AM
No way Serena served close to this level in 2002. Her placement, disguise and clutchness on this shot its been on another level since 2010.

But remember, along with the aces comes practically the same amount of double faults. They pretty much go hand-in-hand for her serve.

She still has THE best serve on the WTA, though.

bandabou
Nov 11th, 2012, 01:27 AM
'02 Serena's serve wasn't too shabby either, no?! plus then she had the movement..people act like it's just now that Serena learned to serve. Serena ALWAYS had the serve. nowadays she relies more on it, but in the past it was still good for 6 aces a match.

TennisPhan
Nov 11th, 2012, 03:12 AM
I was being nostalgic and watching some of Serena's 2002 and 2003 matches, especially the ones against Henin, Capriati, and Mauresmo.

Serena's serve has improved TREMENDOUSLY. AND! Her groundstrokes today have more juice and accuracy. 2012 Serena definitely get a set off 2002 Serena, no doubt. I think 2002's movement would expose 2012's Serena LACK of movement in the end though.

I did the same and noticed Serena 2002 played a lot more to the middle. In the last couple of years she places the balls in the corners more often with less UE's (AO Final vs Henin is a good example of where the difference started to show). Serena 2012 movement is really good, not as good as 2002, but it's not that far off.

The slam results show 2002 was her best year, but she's playing her best ever in 2012 (not the whole year, but PEAK-wise). here's why:

- Improved shot placement (2012)
- improved serve (2012)
- improved variety (2012)
- slightly better movement (2002)

Experienced Serena takes it! but the difference is small..

TennisPhan
Nov 11th, 2012, 03:14 AM
I have to give a little edge to 2002; due to her inconsistency in the first half of her 2012 season...

The inconsistency was because of the long lay off ---> near death experience??? shouldn't be counted.

she beat tougher competition in 2002 so it was her best season, but peak play is 2012

Alejandrawrrr
Nov 11th, 2012, 08:50 PM
Not really a comparison, imo. 2002 was the best year for her, even if I'm highly suspicious of her French Open win.

Suspicious? What's there to be suspicious of? Do you think she snuck into the stadium and stole it? :lol:

But remember, along with the aces comes practically the same amount of double faults. They pretty much go hand-in-hand for her serve.

She still has THE best serve on the WTA, though.

... That's not true :lol:

Stamp Paid
Nov 11th, 2012, 08:51 PM
Suspicious? What's there to be suspicious of? Do you think she snuck into the stadium and stole it? :lol:



... That's not true :lol:
Sanctutary, sis. :lol:

The Dawntreader
Nov 11th, 2012, 10:38 PM
No way is Serena better off the ground now. Back in '02/03, her shots had so much leverage, huge thudding power complimented by great width and accuracy. Just look at the US Open final of 2002- she made Venus look underpowered and slow, such was the sheer insanity of her hitting.

Nowadays Serena is certainly more inventive on court, and can probably gage the tempo of a match much better. Also she has refined her serve to the extent that it becomes borderline unplayable when serving over 60%.

Movement wise, she's nowhere near the athlete she was 10 years ago. But that's to be expected obviously. What Serena has done is adapt completely to the changing conditions and limitations in her game, and that is the proof of an enduring champion. Making compromises, but not at the expense of limiting your results.

As for the question, 2002>>2012.

TennisPhan
Nov 12th, 2012, 12:07 AM
No way is Serena better off the ground now. Back in '02/03, her shots had so much leverage, huge thudding power complimented by great width and accuracy. Just look at the US Open final of 2002- she made Venus look underpowered and slow, such was the sheer insanity of her hitting.

Nowadays Serena is certainly more inventive on court, and can probably gage the tempo of a match much better. Also she has refined her serve to the extent that it becomes borderline unplayable when serving over 60%.

Movement wise, she's nowhere near the athlete she was 10 years ago. But that's to be expected obviously. What Serena has done is adapt completely to the changing conditions and limitations in her game, and that is the proof of an enduring champion. Making compromises, but not at the expense of limiting your results.

As for the question, 2002>>2012.

No. I watched the 2002 UO again and I see the same thing I said earlier. The rallies are longer, because she returns so many balls to the middle of the court. Go watch her vs Azarenka or any other top player since 2010 AO to present. She has become Federer, going for the lines and keep points short. She is more impressive to me now than she was before with her serve and shot placement. power is the same.

Agree about the movement though.

azinna
Nov 12th, 2012, 12:43 AM
No. I watched the 2002 UO again and I see the same thing I said earlier. The rallies are longer, because she returns so many balls to the middle of the court.....
:confused: :scratch:

xvPbzqBxu50

Jajaloo
Nov 12th, 2012, 03:51 AM
if you have to wait until everyone wins a slam for them to be strong players then someone's RG is meaningless :lol: try again....if serena was winning most of the slams then who else was gonna win them? 4 slams can't be won by every member of the top 10 in 1 year so some of them will lose...serena was too strong in 2002 for them so failed logic :lol:


2002 by far

:oh:

Lilowannabe
Nov 12th, 2012, 12:30 PM
People who were actually watching tennis 10 years ago will all be in agreement. Serena 02 was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen, some of her 2012 performances have been close but still 02>12

Although I'd say Renas a more complete player now, her serves never been this good, 2002 rena was a superior shotmaker and athlete.

Simugna Help
Nov 12th, 2012, 12:38 PM
Serena's hair in 2012 > Serena's hair in 2002

That said, Serena said herself 2002 was bigger/better for her (I think she considers AO 2003 as the extension/part of 2002 though) after winning Istanbul this year.

cehowardrx7
Nov 12th, 2012, 12:47 PM
2002. More dominant.

Dam Rena, how could she be more dominant that in 2012?? Banging the world #1 & 2 one right after another in the Olympic and didn't lose but 4 games to them. Then banging Wimbledon, and the US Open, also, beating the #1 and #2, but this time, she is 30-31 years old. Hingis, Davey, Caprita, all retired, and still younger..

Serena's age makes 2012, unapproachable (new word):)

Geisha
Nov 12th, 2012, 03:32 PM
People who were actually watching tennis 10 years ago will all be in agreement. Serena 02 was the highest level of tennis I've ever seen, some of her 2012 performances have been close but still 02>12

Although I'd say Renas a more complete player now, her serves never been this good, 2002 rena was a superior shotmaker and athlete.

I started watching tennis in 2000. I think she's playing better now. In my opinion, although she's a step slower, her serve and shots are more effective and deadly.

Lilowannabe
Nov 12th, 2012, 04:18 PM
I started watching tennis in 2000. I think she's playing better now. In my opinion, although she's a step slower, her serve and shots are more effective and deadly.

I'd agree her serve is superior now, and I'd say her forehand has become a more complete shot. But I think her level in 2002 is higher then today. I mean her matches vs sharapova this year, and her Olympic tournament play is arguably the best tennis I've ever seen a woman produce!!!! But she was producing almost the same level far more consistently in 2002, with a less effective serve and against greater competition.

Stamp Paid
Nov 12th, 2012, 06:56 PM
Serena was a superhuman in 2002.
Qf4iLLIRzbk

Look how fast and powerfully she moved. Beautiful Black Amazon Queen.

Olórin
Nov 12th, 2012, 07:21 PM
The rallies are longer [in 2002], because she returns so many balls to the middle of the court.

Utter garbage.

Of course her ground game was better in 2002.

RVD
Nov 12th, 2012, 07:53 PM
Dam Rena, how could she be more dominant that in 2012?? Banging the world #1 & 2 one right after another in the Olympic and didn't lose but 4 games to them. Then banging Wimbledon, and the US Open, also, beating the #1 and #2, but this time, she is 30-31 years old. Hingis, Davey, Caprita, all retired, and still younger..

Serena's age makes 2012, unapproachable (new word):)This.

Serena is a by far a more complete and relaxed player in 2012 than she was in 2002.
More complete = More superior.
Purely in terms of wins/records, 2002 would appear the greater year.
However, the mental and technical improvements of 2012 Serena, would stomp 2002 Serena.
The 2002 version would quickly become frustrated with the 2012 version, and invariably lose.
One last note...
Let's not forget that Serena did achieve/complete the career Golden Slam thus year.

Alejandrawrrr
Nov 12th, 2012, 08:32 PM
- Serena serves better now, is better tactically and probably has a better FH.
- Serena returned better then, was clearly faster and was FAR mentally tougher.
2002 was her greater season, and in a hypothetical face-off I pick 2002Rena in 3. Serena hates opponents who get a lot of balls back, neutralize the serve and who mix spin/slice to keep her off rhythm. Neither do much of the latter(though Serena now is better in that regard, just not enough to decide a matchup) so I'll disregard that. Neither versions of her are slow, but 2002Rena was a step and a half quicker and had more stamina. Both incarnations of her could neutralize the other's serve fairly effectively, but 2002Rena relied on her serve less. And in terms of mental toughness, in which year did she surrender a set and 5-2 in the TB lead at the french leading to her first ever loss in R1 of a slam, crumble from a set and a break up in a wimbledon final, and a couple of months later kill her opponent in the first set only to lose timing/intensity and very nearly lose the US Open final? I'll wait.

Maddox
Nov 12th, 2012, 09:00 PM
2002 Serena would rape 2012 Serena off the ground particularly on grass.

Just watch how she destroyed the ball in the 02 SF and Finals. :drool:
2012 has the overall superior serving. And better shot placement and better tactics.
But movement hands down is 02

2002>>2012

But you gotta admire her 2012; how she is still sooooo dominant after 10 years :hearts:

LightWarrior
Nov 12th, 2012, 09:09 PM
2002- 3 slams, Year end #1,Final of YEC, and 8 titles or 2012- 2 Slams, Olympic Gold, YEC, and 7 titles

3 GS titles will always be bigger than 2 GS + Olympics obviously. :rolleyes:
She was faster in 2002. That being said Serena 2012 is a much more complete player, smarter, serves better. Her general style of play was more "brutal" in 2002 and so not as beautiful to watch as it is now. The woman has matured a lot. Turning point was 2006/07.

sweetadri06
Nov 12th, 2012, 09:51 PM
Serena was a superhuman in 2002.
Qf4iLLIRzbk

Look how fast and powerfully she moved. Beautiful Black Amazon Queen.

Damn, Serena and Capriati had some fierce battles. I bet she misses having a real rival. lol:lol:

Geekking
Nov 12th, 2012, 10:45 PM
2002

tejmeglekvár
Nov 12th, 2012, 11:27 PM
This.

Serena is a by far a more complete and relaxed player in 2012 than she was in 2002.
More complete = More superior.
Purely in terms of wins/records, 2002 would appear the greater year.
However, the mental and technical improvements of 2012 Serena, would stomp 2002 Serena.
The 2002 version would quickly become frustrated with the 2012 version, and invariably lose.
One last note...
Let's not forget that Serena did achieve/complete the career Golden Slam thus year.

or the opposite, 2002 version was faster and better athlete, a few more balls in play could frustrate the 2012 of her well. She always had most trouble with good defenders.
This year she mostly played against one dimensional players.

The Dawntreader
Nov 12th, 2012, 11:32 PM
This.

Serena is a by far a more complete and relaxed player in 2012 than she was in 2002.
More complete = More superior.
Purely in terms of wins/records, 2002 would appear the greater year.
However, the mental and technical improvements of 2012 Serena, would stomp 2002 Serena.
The 2002 version would quickly become frustrated with the 2012 version, and invariably lose.
One last note...
Let's not forget that Serena did achieve/complete the career Golden Slam thus year.

Mental? Absolute bull.

AcesHigh
Nov 13th, 2012, 04:25 AM
The only reason this is an argument is because Serena has not been challenged at all this year. There is no one on tour capable of great tennis except for Serena which is a huge shame.

This does not detract from Serena's achievements, her skill or her hard work. However, at the same time let's not cheapen the greatness of PeakRena by comparing her to a much lesser model.

Serena 2002 was one of the fastest players ever, one of the strongest ever, one of the mentally toughest ever, best serve and best return.. great footwork, I mean every single aspect was there except spotty on consistency at times. She was ferocious and struck fear into her opponents. She won before stepping on the court.

The 2012 version is not nearly the same. All you need is a bad serving day and you have a chance.

Brad[le]y.
Nov 13th, 2012, 04:31 AM
This.

Serena is a by far a more complete and relaxed player in 2012 than she was in 2002.
More complete = More superior.
Purely in terms of wins/records, 2002 would appear the greater year.
However, the mental and technical improvements of 2012 Serena, would stomp 2002 Serena.
The 2002 version would quickly become frustrated with the 2012 version, and invariably lose.
One last note...
Let's not forget that Serena did achieve/complete the career Golden Slam thus year.

I disagree. Serena in 2002 was a much better athlete, arguably one of the fastest women in the game. To go along with that, she struck the ball of the ground better than anyone; watch the 2002 USO where she put Davenport and Venus on the defense nearly every point.

She's also more prone to go through mental lapses in big matches that she would never do in 2002, see this years Wimbledon and USO finals where she was comfortably outplaying Radwanska and Azarenka before unexplainably went off the rail.

Stonerpova
Nov 13th, 2012, 04:33 AM
y.;22471219']I disagree. Serena in 2002 was a much better athlete, arguably one of the fastest women in the game. To go along with that, she struck the ball of the ground better than anyone; watch the 2002 USO where she put Davenport and Venus on the defensive nearly every point.

She's also more prone to go through mental lapses in big matches that she would never do in 2002 (see this years Wimbledon and USO finals)

Wimbledon was understandable, because it had been so long since she had won a major. Of course there would be nerves.

On the flip side look at what she did to the field at the Olympics this year, the biggest stage in sports.

Jakeev
Nov 13th, 2012, 05:53 AM
2002 is still Serena's greatest year but for her to accomplish this year despite what happened in Paris is pretty extroardinary. And to add a career Golden Slam to the equation? 2012 certainly rivals 2002.

laj
Nov 14th, 2012, 02:55 AM
Having, with much amusement, read through the myriad of subjective and for the most part reasonable opinions on the subject matter at hand, I think it is befitting if we now look at a comparison of the Serena Williams 2002 and 2012 tennis seasons from both a numerical and an analytical points of view.

At the foundation of the comparison, Serena competed in a total of 13 tournaments each of the 2002 and 2012 tennis seasons. However, unlike the 2002 season Serena in the 2012 season competed in four Fed Cup matches. In 2002 she played in a total of 61 matches, whereas, in 2012 she played in a total of 62 matches. In 2002 she was 3 - 0 against the World #1 ranked player, whereas, in 2012 she was 4 - 0 against the World #1 ranked player.

Numerically, the Serena Williams 2002 tennis season breaks down as follows:

Total Season Tournaments.........................13 Trn
Total Season matches played.........................61 matches
Total Season Win/Loss Percentage.................(56 - 5) = 92% (91.8)
Total Season Titles Won...........................8 Titles
Season Title Success..............................8/13 = 61.5%
Quality of Titles Won.............................(3 Grand Slams, 2 Tier I, 3 Tier II)
Season Top 10 ranked Win/Loss Percentage..........(18 - 2) = 90%
Season Top 5 ranked Win/Loss Percentage...........(10 - 0) = 100%.

Whereas, the numerical breakdown of the Serena Williams 2012 tennis season is as follows:

Total Season Tournaments..............................13 Trn
Total Season matches played...........................62 matches
Total Season Win/Loss percentage......................(58 - 4) = 93.5%
Total Season Titles Won............................... 7 Titles
Season Title Success...................................7/13 = 54% (53.8)
Quality of Titles Won............................(2 Grand Slams, 1 Tour Championship, 1 Olympic Gold Medal (Singles), 2 Tier I, 1 Tier II)
Season Top 10 Win/Loss Percentage......................(18 - 2) = 90%
Season Top 5 Win/Loss Percentage.......................(14 - 0) = 100%.

Clearly, those opinions opined in this thread in support of the idea that the Serena 2002 season was so superior to her 2012 season is not supported by the numerical evidence.

Analytically, the Serena Williams 2012 season is a greater season than her 2002 tennis season for the following reasons:

1. Greatness is a measurement against the level and greatness of competition at hand - the degree of difficulties to achieve a certain thing. In both the 2002 and the 2012 seasons Serena played 20 matches against top 10 ranked players and in both season she won (18 - 2)= 90% of those matches. But, in the 2002 season she was 10 - 0, including 3 - 0 against the World #1 ranked player, against World Top 5 ranked players. Whereas, in the 2012 season Serena went 14 - 0, including 4 - 0 against the World #1 ranked player, against the World Top 5 ranked players. [N.B: The notion that the level of competition in 2002 was greater than it was in 2012 is unsupported and is nothing but a myth].

2. The science of probabilities furnishes three principles of which practical use is made in the determination of the possibility of a certain event: (1) the law of certainty, (2) the law of simple probability, and (3) the law of compound probability. The use of these methods of probabilities makes possible the description of risk and difficulties in terms of mathematical values. As such, the Serena Williams of the 2002 season was 21 years young, whereas, the Serena Williams of the 2012 season was 31 years old. Moreover, factor in the difficulties the specter of the injury propensity poses between the 21 years and 31 years old Serena:

2003 - Underwent left knee surgery on August 1 to repair a partial tear, withdrawing from all events after Wimbledon (incl. US Open, Tour Championships).

*[Had professional Psychological attention to deal with the 2003 murder of her oldest sister, finally came to terms with that tragedy by the time to the 2007 Australian Open, at which time she dedicated her win then to her late sister in her winners speech].

2004 - Returned to Tour after eight-month lay-off due to knee rehabilitation and had fourth straight Top 10 finish. San Diego (withdrew w/left knee inflammation). Charleston (withdrew prior to 3r w/left knee inflammation). Withdrew from Australian Open w/left knee rehabilitation.

2005 - After impressive run to sixth Grand Slam singles title, injury-plagued season resulted in first non-Top 10 finish since 1998. Paris [Indoors] (withdrew before QF w/GI illness), Dubai (ret. in SF vs. Jankovic w/right shoulder strain). Amelia Island (ret. in QF vs. Farina Elia w/left ankle sprain). Toronto (withdrew before 3r w/left knee pain). Withdrew from Roland Garros w/left ankle injury; did not qualify for Tour Championships for first time since 1998.

2006 - Nearly finished outside Top 100 for first time after injury-plagued season; fell 3r at Australian Open (l. to Hantuchova) then withdrew from all events until summer w/left knee injury (incl. Roland Garros, Wimbledon); on April 10, ranked outside Top 100 for first time since November 16, 1997; on July 10, fell to No.140 (down from No.11 at start of 2006); ended six-month layoff with three summer events, reaching SF at Cincinnati (l. to Zvonareva), SF at Los Angeles (l. to Jankovic; returned to Top 100 afterwards, having spent 18 weeks outside) and 4r at US Open (as WC, l. to No.1 Mauresmo in 3s); played only four events all year, lowest in Top 100 (next-lowest was V.Williams with six).

2007 - Charleston (ret. 2r w/right groin strain), Zürich (ret. 1r w/right adductor strain) and Tour Championships (ret. in first RR match w/left knee injury then withdrew from tournament). Missed all pre-US Open summer hardcourt events w/left thumb sprain (suffered at Wimbledon).

2008 - Rome (withdrew prior to match vs. Cornet w/back injury). Tour Championships (went 1-1 in RR stage then withdrew from event w/abdominal injury). Withdrew from Paris [Indoors], Antwerp and Dubai w/recovery from gum surgery, Los Angeles w/left knee injury and Moscow w/left ankle injury.

2009 - Paris [Indoors] (as top seed, withdrew prior to match vs. No.3 seed Dementieva w/right knee injury). Madrid (as No.2 seed, ret. vs. Schiavone w/right knee injury in 1r). Withdrew from Charleston w/left leg injury, and from Tokyo w/left knee and toe injury.

2010- Missed three months early in season w/left knee injury (withdrawing from Paris [Indoors], Dubai, Miami, Marbella and Charleston) and all post-Wimbledon events w/right foot injury (withdrawing from Istanbul, Cincinnati, Montréal, US Open, Tokyo, Beijing, Linz and WTA Championships).

2011 - Sensational summer results after year-long injury and illness lay-off (finishing No.12); missed first half of year w/right foot injury and PE (withdrew from Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Charleston, Madrid, Rome and Roland Garros) but returned in June, going 4-2 during grass court season (reaching 2r at Eastbourne and 4r at Wimbledon) then compiling 18-1 record during summer hardcourt season, winning 38th and 39th WTA titles at Stanford (d. Bartoli in final) and Toronto (d. Stosur in final), reaching 2r at Cincinnati (withdrew prior to match vs. Stosur w/right toe injury aggravation) then reaching 17th Grand Slam final at US Open (l. to Stosur; now 13-4 in Grand Slam finals); withdrew from Tokyo and Beijing w/medical reasons.

Source: http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/p...s_2257889_9044

No further amplification of this factor is warranted here as it is too obvious.

3. Although the number of titles Serena won in 2002 is numerically bigger than those she won in 2012, the titles she won in 2012 are of better quality that makes things almost even is this aspect. In terms of quality, including ranking points value, 1 Olympic Gold Medal (Singles) title plus 1 Tour Championship title is equivalent or greater to 1 Grand Slam Singles title. For example, the ranking system currently awards a total of 2000 points for Grand Slam title, but it offers a total of 2185 ranking points for combination of the Tour Championship title and the Olympic Gold Medal title.

4. Finally, that which goes towards the singularly most distinguishing aspect of the Serena Williams 2012 tennis season is the 2012 Olympics Tournament. Not merely the winning of the Olympic Singles Gold Medal provides Serena with a Career Golden Slam, but the 2012 Olympic Tournament was the singularly most dominated tournament by an individual player in the Opera Era of professional tennis. In 6 matches played for the Olympic Singles Gold Medal, including 5 matches against top 20 ranked players, Serena drops a mere 17 games to the titles, and she also puts on the display that which can be only describe as the highest tennis performance level in the history of the sport.

Therefore, numerically and analytically it appears that the Serena Williams 2012 season is probably her best tennis season ever.

AcesHigh
Nov 14th, 2012, 03:03 AM
Wow laj, i've never seen so much garbage.

3/3 is better than 2/4. Always. Always.

laj
Nov 14th, 2012, 03:16 AM
Wow laj, i've never seen so much garbage.

3/3 is better than 2/4. Always. Always.

I will not dignify your "so much garbage" comment with an answer. However, it is true that 3 of 3 is than 2 out of 4, but that's not whole story and you know it. LOL!

Freak3yman84
Nov 14th, 2012, 03:17 AM
Hard to say. But without a doubt, Godrena is the greatest player of all time, she can dominate the game full of young rivals and still win 2 slams a year, much better than overrated Graf IMO

Navratilova > Williams > Graf

AcesHigh
Nov 14th, 2012, 03:18 AM
I will not dignify your "so much garbage" comment with an answer. However, it is true that 3 of 3 is than 2 out of 4, but that's not whole story and you know it. LOL!

It really is. Would you rather have 3 slams or 2? Everyone will say 3. She was perfect in slams that year. That is much more rare than anything else you put in that long post.

And I apologize if garbage seemed too harsh. I just felt like it was a lot of maneuvering numbers to make a point.

Freak3yman84
Nov 14th, 2012, 03:21 AM
Wrong. Nobody beats peak Rena. :bigwave:

Peak Seremug couldn't even beat my cat, Buttons :o

laj
Nov 14th, 2012, 03:34 AM
It really is. Would you rather have 3 slams or 2? Everyone will say 3. She was perfect in slams that year. That is much more rare than anything else you put in that long post.

And I apologize if garbage seemed too harsh. I just felt like it was a lot of maneuvering numbers to make a point.

Apology accepted!

My intension was never to maneuver the numbers to make a point. Rather, I aimed to show that by the number the 2002 season, although slightly better, the 2002 season was not so superior to that of 2012. Secondly, that at age 31 it was naturally much, much more difficult and improbable for Serena to achieved what she achieved in 2012 than when she achieved what she achieved in 2002. Thirdly, the 2012 Olympic Tournament was a stand out performance. To me that was the equalizer and tie-breaker.

RVD
Nov 14th, 2012, 05:14 AM
Apology accepted!

My intension was never to maneuver the numbers to make a point. Rather, I aimed to show that by the number the 2002 season, although slightly better, the 2002 season was not so superior to that of 2012. Secondly, that at age 31 it was naturally much, much more difficult and improbable for Serena to achieved what she achieved in 2012 than when she achieved what she achieved in 2002. Thirdly, the 2012 Olympic Tournament was a stand out performance. To me that was the equalizer and tie-breaker.Laj, your points were completely credible and logical. And I'm not the only one who thinks this.

What I don't understand is why so many posters feel that double Olympic Gold is on the same level as a Tier I tournament.
Come on people. Are you all serious?
So what, Serena flubbed the FO. Small deal there.
She still returned thereafter to annihilate the field on the largest stages for the second half of this year.
I could possibly accept that 2002 is equal to 2012 in terms to tournament success. However, Serena did not win the 2002 YEC, and also there was no Olympics that year. But this year she took both, and in dominating fashion.
IMHO, these are the two events that sets 2012 and 2002 apart for me.

As far as Serena being a step faster in 2002. I agree that she was.
But today, she no longer has to be as fast as her 2002 self since she is a more complete player, and has a wider arsenal of shots on which to fall back on to negate the necessity of speed. Though even in 2012, she's still one of the fastest WTA athletes in the field.
So speed is negligible in the overall argument.

No one has yet truly demonstrated how 2002 is superior to 2012. Even in terms of achievements.
What I've been reading is all relative opinion.
That said, I maintain that 2012 was a monster year for Serena, and edges out 2002. :p

spencercarlos
Nov 14th, 2012, 01:14 PM
Laj, your points were completely credible and logical. And I'm not the only one who thinks this.

What I don't understand is why so many posters feel that double Olympic Gold is on the same level as a Tier I tournament.
Come on people. Are you all serious?
So what, Serena flubbed the FO. Small deal there.
She still returned thereafter to annihilate the field on the largest stages for the second half of this year.
I could possibly accept that 2002 is equal to 2012 in terms to tournament success. However, Serena did not win the 2002 YEC, and also there was no Olympics that year. But this year she took both, and in dominating fashion.
IMHO, these are the two events that sets 2012 and 2002 apart for me.

As far as Serena being a step faster in 2002. I agree that she was.
But today, she no longer has to be as fast as her 2002 self since she is a more complete player, and has a wider arsenal of shots on which to fall back on to negate the necessity of speed. Though even in 2012, she's still one of the fastest WTA athletes in the field.
So speed is negligible in the overall argument.

No one has yet truly demonstrated how 2002 is superior to 2012. Even in terms of achievements.
What I've been reading is all relative opinion.
That said, I maintain that 2012 was a monster year for Serena, and edges out 2002. :p
RVD slam performances is what makes 2002 way better than 2012 and that is not even debatible.

Plus i would always take a slam out of a YEC and Olympic gold, even if they are in the same year. Is not the YEC or the Olympic Gold that would move Serena along in the all time great ranks.

I personally feel that she was a better player back then, always amazed on how she would only allow single digit winners in matches, and she definetly was returning serve way better than she is today.

TSequoia01
Nov 14th, 2012, 09:03 PM
2002 was the best season Serena ever had. Her semifinal wimbledon match against Mauresmo was like a heavyweight fight. Mauresmo fresh off of her quarterfinal victory over Caprati was serving and playing well. Serena played what I consider her best match ever. The match was so physical, Mauresmo had to be helped off of the court. It was a straight set 2 and 1 match.

RVD
Nov 14th, 2012, 10:55 PM
RVD slam performances is what makes 2002 way better than 2012 and that is not even debatible.

Plus i would always take a slam out of a YEC and Olympic gold, even if they are in the same year. Is not the YEC or the Olympic Gold that would move Serena along in the all time great ranks.

I personally feel that she was a better player back then, always amazed on how she would only allow single digit winners in matches, and she definetly was returning serve way better than she is today.I don't agree spencercarlos. And yeah, it's my opinion, however, when the Olympics is a part of the equation, how can any fan of this sport just chuck it over their shoulder as if it's a nothing achievement to win Gold (or double Gold)? IMHO, that is no small feat. And especially in her twilight years (30 years old), and in such dominating fashion.

I notice that when other WTA players win Olympic Gold, it's huge news. But when Serena does it ,it's not a big deal.
I also believe that her ROS today is better as well.
I can't count how many times she's tee'd off on first and second served this year. Though I could concede that it may be equal to her 2002 level.
But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on these points. :)

azinna
Nov 14th, 2012, 11:12 PM
...No one has yet truly demonstrated how 2002 is superior to 2012. Even in terms of achievements.
What I've been reading is all relative opinion....:p

Ok, I'll bite.... A season where a player wins Wimbledon and US Open, then possibly the Year-ender is undoubtedly dominant, a run shared by two handfuls of peers and modern-era predecessors. Special note if during that run there's an Olympics on the player's favorite surface.

But the French-Wimbledon-USOpen triad is the rarest, most difficult and historic of seasons to achieve. And the reasons why are perennial: the varied surfaces, the difficulties of adjusting to the switches, the timing, with most all top players and talented surface specialists training to peak during those months, and either win it or giant-kill. So many of our greats have come one, three or six matches short. So players, commentators, fans and historians of the game do rightly value those dominant runs over others. Usually the player (Serena, Rafa, Steffi) has other big titles bracketing that run. It'd be great if the Olympics were also played that year, but not at all necessary.

....

missvarsha
Nov 14th, 2012, 11:15 PM
I would say 2002, mainly because back then Sereta had (at least nominally) some competition. Nowadays, if she isn't too bored to stand up, she wins.
Further, 2002 was really the breakout year for what is turning out to be an all-time great career. Prior to that, Sereta was the also-ran younger sister, and Richard Williams got laughed at for saying she would have the better career. Her contemporary opponents shit themselves on seeing her, so even all the big titles she won seem like anticlimaxes. Of course, this is all my opinion.

TennisPhan
Nov 14th, 2012, 11:39 PM
This.

Serena is a by far a more complete and relaxed player in 2012 than she was in 2002.
More complete = More superior.
Purely in terms of wins/records, 2002 would appear the greater year.
However, the mental and technical improvements of 2012 Serena, would stomp 2002 Serena.
The 2002 version would quickly become frustrated with the 2012 version, and invariably lose.
One last note...
Let's not forget that Serena did achieve/complete the career Golden Slam thus year.

True, but they do have a point about her facing much tougher opposition. Azarenka is really great, but she fades in comparison to Henin, Venus, Clijsters and Davenport (all multiple slam winners). So, owning the current #1 and #2 is not the same as it was in 2002.

RVD
Nov 15th, 2012, 12:11 AM
Ok, I'll bite.... A season where a player wins Wimbledon and US Open, then possibly the Year-ender is undoubtedly dominant, a run shared by two handfuls of peers and modern-era predecessors. Special note if during that run there's an Olympics on the player's favorite surface.

But the French-Wimbledon-USOpen triad is the rarest, most difficult and historic of seasons to achieve. And the reasons why are perennial: the varied surfaces, the difficulties of adjusting to the switches, the timing, with most all top players and talented surface specialists training to peak during those months, and either win it or giant-kill. So many of our greats have come one, three or six matches short. So players, commentators, fans and historians of the game do rightly value those dominant runs over others. Usually the player (Serena, Rafa, Steffi) has other big titles bracketing that run. It'd be great if the Olympics were also played that year, but not at all necessary.

....Great points.
I like the "surface" argument, and I'll grant you that that is huge.
And I also agree that Serena faced stiffer competition during her 2002-2003 season.
I offset the lack of competition in her 2012 year with her age, which is probably not the best equalizer.True, but they do have a point about her facing much tougher opposition. Azarenka is really great, but she fades in comparison to Henin, Venus, Clijsters and Davenport (all multiple slam winners). So, owning the current #1 and #2 is not the same as it was in 2002.Okay, I concede that 2002 was superior to 2012, on the bases of continual relentless competition, and her dominance regardless of the opponents. :)

The 2013 season had better show me some competition from the up-in-comers. Otherwise, Serena won't be able to surpass her 2002 run before she retires.
The iron is still hot, and baby-girl needs to strike the hammer.

azinna
Nov 15th, 2012, 01:31 AM
But, RVD, you along with others in this thread have made a persuasive argument for Serena now being another version of her peak, at least equal to her '02-'03 self. The only real blemish is her mental consistency, and by YEC it looked like she'd once again made that shift from being desperate to win to being determined. She clearly knew how to manage herself, her form and her expectations, as well as her competition.

If she can maintain her mental and physical fitness, as well as her training regimen, all I'd need baby girl to do is repeat the French-Wimbledon-USOpen triad, add a handful of titles...and I'd call 2013 (or 2014) the equal of 2002.

...

End da Game
Nov 15th, 2012, 02:53 AM
2002 obviously, 3 slams > 2 slams

RVD
Nov 15th, 2012, 05:14 AM
But, RVD, you along with others in this thread have made a persuasive argument for Serena now being another version of her peak, at least equal to her '02-'03 self. The only real blemish is her mental consistency, and by YEC it looked like she'd once again made that shift from being desperate to win to being determined. She clearly knew how to manage herself, her form and her expectations, as well as her competition.

If she can maintain her mental and physical fitness, as well as her training regimen, all I'd need baby girl to do is repeat the French-Wimbledon-USOpen triad, add a handful of titles...and I'd call 2013 (or 2014) the equal of 2002.

...I still hold to that belief.
However, 2002 season achievements seems to me to have edged out 2012's purely on the basis of competition Serena faced. Both years were extraordinarily dominant ones for her, and arguments can be made for both. I still don't accept the, "If only she had won the AO or FO, then 2012 would have been the better year," argument, because her Olympics success made up for one of those.
I still feel strongly that the 2012 Serena is superior to the 2002 Serena though.
It's the, "which year was the most dominant one", is what I'm conceding. But just by a scant hair's width.

Correction:
Under further consideration, competition faced is a relative consideration at best.
If a dominant players defeats her opponents, that's all that's necessary, regardless of the subjective levels of the opposing players. And since any player can defeat another player on any given day, the argument that Serena faced stronger competition in 2002 can't be used to support the argument that 2002 was superior to 2012.
*smacks forehead*
That said, I'm solidly back in the 2012 corner. :)

azinna
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:45 AM
...Correction: Under further consideration, competition faced is a relative consideration at best....

I knew this reversal would happen!...which is why I avoided the competition argument (though it is a sound one).

...I still don't accept the, "If only she had won the AO or FO, then 2012 would have been the better year," argument, because her Olympics success made up for one of those...

So let's instead return to the argument that should hold: I think by most folks' objective evaluation, winning three slams on three different surfaces (esp French, Wimbledon and US Open) makes for a stronger period of dominance than Wimbledon, US Open and Olympics on grass (actually the same Wimbledon courts).

Also, 2012 Serena can't be superior to 2002 Serena if she's less mentally tough. At that stratospheric level, mental toughness is the decider. But I see everything coming together for Serena 2.0 in 2013 and '14....

...

chuvack
Nov 15th, 2012, 09:00 AM
I am pretty sure that 2002 will go down in history as a much better year for Serena than 2012 - for reasons that will become clear later, but which you cant talk about out loud on this forum, because the thought police will come in and start deleating your posts...

Stamp Paid
Nov 15th, 2012, 09:05 AM
I am pretty sure that 2002 will go down in history as a much better year for Serena than 2012 - for reasons that will become clear later, but which you cant talk about out loud on this forum, because the thought police will come in and start deleating your posts...And the disciples will skin you alive as well. Don't come for Sarin.
http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1308936899345033.gif

RVD
Nov 15th, 2012, 09:13 AM
I knew this reversal would happen!...which is why I avoided the competition argument (though it is a sound one). Immediately after posting the change of heart, I thought, "What the hell did I just post?! That's not what I believe!" :lol:

So let's instead return to the argument that should hold: I think by most folks' objective evaluation, winning three slams on three different surfaces (esp French, Wimbledon and US Open) makes for a stronger period of dominance than Wimbledon, US Open and Olympics on grass (actually the same Wimbledon courts).The different surface argument is a very credible argument. I grant you that. And at the moment, I don't have a counter-argument against it. :banghead: :lol:

Also, 2012 Serena can't be superior to 2002 Serena if she's less mentally tough. At that stratospheric level, mental toughness is the decider. But I see everything coming together for Serena 2.0 in 2013 and '14.... And touché yet again.

Kudos azinna. :worship:

Matt01
Nov 15th, 2012, 03:02 PM
True, but they do have a point about her facing much tougher opposition. Azarenka is really great, but she fades in comparison to Henin, Venus, Clijsters and Davenport (all multiple slam winners). So, owning the current #1 and #2 is not the same as it was in 2002.


LOL...Davenport was injured in 2002 and only played a few tournaments.
Henin and Clijsters in 2002 were nowhere near the level Azarenka or Pova are in 2012 and Venus was always Serena's underling in Slam finals. In fact, one could argue that the competition in 2012 was stronger than it was in 2002 which is also why Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking in 2012 (unlike 2002).

Of course achievement-wise (unlike what RVD claims :spit:), 2002 was a much better year for Serena since she won more Slams, was more dominant overall and was #1 for the most part of the year.

bandabou
Nov 15th, 2012, 03:12 PM
LOL...Davenport was injured in 2002 and only played a few tournaments.
Henin and Clijsters in 2002 were nowhere near the level Azarenka or Pova are in 2012 and Venus was always Serena's underling in Slam finals. In fact, one could argue that the competition in 2012 was stronger than it was in 2002 which is also why Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking in 2012 (unlike 2002).

Of course achievement-wise (unlike what RVD claims :spit:), 2002 was a much better year for Serena since she won more Slams, was more dominant overall and was #1 for the most part of the year.

What's with your: "Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking"-shade all the time?! :lol:
Serena's first half of the year is the only reason she didn't get to the no.1 rank..you can't bomb early at Oz open, Miami and RG..and expect to be no.1. THAT's the ONLY reason she didn't get to no.1.

Matt01
Nov 15th, 2012, 03:25 PM
What's with your: "Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking"-shade all the time?! :lol:
Serena's first half of the year is the only reason she didn't get to the no.1 rank..you can't bomb early at Oz open, Miami and RG..and expect to be no.1. THAT's the ONLY reason she didn't get to no.1.


Yeah, and those results have to be included if we want to talk about 2012. In 2002 she didn't bomb out so often early at big tournaments. What I'm saying is only logical but some people can't even grasp that.

harloo
Nov 15th, 2012, 03:59 PM
Technically 2002 is her best season namely due to the achievements. You cannot negate the fact that in 2002 Serena dominated all her main rivals, won three straight slams, completed the Serena Slam in 2003, remained #1 for a extended period, and established herself as a formidable champion worthy of respect. This was a 21 year old Serena in her prime with fresh legs, no knee surgery, and at full confidence.

Fast forward to 2012 and Serena is 31 and considered an aging veteran. She missed a year off the tour due to a freak injury which later developed into pulmonary embolism loosing a piece of her lung but still working furiously to get back to the top of the sport. Then came the final loss at the US Open 2011, next she bombed out at the AO in the fourth round, but nothing prepared her for arguably one of the worst loses of her career(losing first round at the French). With Serena's record of never losing a first round slam match that could have easily been a game changer.

We've seen champions lose these type of matches and never quite recover. At that point, everyone assumed Serena couldn't come through at the slams anymore and while Serena struggled through some of her matches at Wimbledon she still fought tooth and nail to stay the course and eventually won the tournament ending her losing streak.
Then came the Olympics singles where she dominated her competitors in devastating fashion plus she even won the doubles with her sister. The US Open and YEC wins were just proof that Serena had somehow found her old form and even in old age she was just as much a champion as she was in 2002.

Yep, maybe she's a step slower than 2002, isn't as explosive and her mental focus sometimes comes and goes but 2012 Serena is a smarter player in the sense that she understands her fundamentals and uses them to the best of her ability. She's confident that her skill set is enough to defeat the competition and has improved her shot selection, forehand, and serve.

So for me, while I respect Serena's 2002 season I much prefer her 2012 season as a fan. In my opinion, the true measure of a champion isn't determined during peak years but how that champion responds to opposition when the best years are behind them. I can truly say that Serena's will and determination in 2012 is impressive when you consider all the circumstances surrounding her year.

crazillo
Nov 15th, 2012, 04:18 PM
The quality of thne competition in 2012 doesn't come close to 2002.


02 Serena Williams, 12 Victoria Azarenka
02 Venus Williams, 12 Maria Sharapova
02 Jennifer Capriati, 12 Serena Williams
02 Kim Clijsters, 12 Agnieszka Radwanska
02 Justine Henin, 12 Angelique Kerber
02 Amelie Mauresmo, 12 Sara Errani
02 Monica Seles, 12 Li Na
02 Daniela Hantuchova, 12 Petra Kvitova
02 Jelena Dokic, 12 Samantha Stosur
02 Martina Hingis, 12 Caroline Wozniacki
02 Anastasia Myskina, 12 Marion Bartoli
02 Lindsay Davenport, 12 Nadia Petrova
02 Chanda Rubin, 12 Ana Ivanovic
02 Magdalena Maleeva, 12 Maria Kirilenko
02 Patty Schnyder, 12 Dominika Cibulkova


Agreed. I marked red the player I consider to be a stronger threat and 2002 wins almost anywhere (notable exceptions are Kvitova and Stosur). Not sure about #13 and obviously Azarenka and Sharapova and/or Capriati are no slouches either.

doomsday
Nov 15th, 2012, 05:53 PM
What's with your: "Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking"-shade all the time?! :lol:
Serena's first half of the year is the only reason she didn't get to the no.1 rank..you can't bomb early at Oz open, Miami and RG..and expect to be no.1. THAT's the ONLY reason she didn't get to no.1.

No it's not the only reason. You can still give 1000 points to Serena that she'd still be behind Vika.
Maria and Vika are obviously part of this too they've both reached 9 finals and have been more consistent than Serena overall.
4th round at OZ ain't that bad and QF at Miami either btw. It's just that two players have been way more consistent.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 15th, 2012, 05:59 PM
What's with your: "Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking"-shade all the time?! :lol:
Serena's first half of the year is the only reason she didn't get to the no.1 rank..you can't bomb early at Oz open, Miami and RG..and expect to be no.1. THAT's the ONLY reason she didn't get to no.1.
It's not the ONLY reason. If she hadn't skipped Indian Wells (I know, a big no-no for her) and Beijing she could have gotten there. But it's obviously not a top priority for her and she's likely to get there early next year anyway.

bandabou
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:11 PM
No it's not the only reason. You can still give 1000 points to Serena that she'd still be behind Vika.
Maria and Vika are obviously part of this too they've both reached 9 finals and have been more consistent than Serena overall.
4th round at OZ ain't that bad and QF at Miami either btw. It's just that two players have been way more consistent.


4th round at the oz and qf at Miami ain't that bad?! :spit: You crazy or what?! :lol:
This is serena we talking about..anytime she doesn't WIN Miami, she did bad..and the same can be said about the Oz open.

About your consistency: Serena WON 7 titles, so that's already 7 finals there..it ain't like she didn't win anything. She bombed out too early at some big tourneys, didn't play others altogether..but not complaining. She's already been there, done that..

and Chrissiefan: No, she ain't playing IW ever again. :lol:

bandabou
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:13 PM
And doomsday: Your sig is :lol: If you really believe that, then I guess you still believe in Santa Claus too. :lol:

doomsday
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:36 PM
4th round at the oz and qf at Miami ain't that bad?! :spit: You crazy or what?! :lol:
This is serena we talking about..anytime she doesn't WIN Miami, she did bad..and the same can be said about the Oz open.

About your consistency: Serena WON 7 titles, so that's already 7 finals there..it ain't like she didn't win anything. She bombed out too early at some big tourneys, didn't play others altogether..but not complaining. She's already been there, done that..

and Chrissiefan: No, she ain't playing IW ever again. :lol:

No it's not that bad when we know that she won Wimbledon, OG, USO and YEC.
But maybe you were expecting her to win every single title well that's not gonna happen.

dsanders06
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:46 PM
:rolls: at people again trotting out the "ZOMG the competition was so much better in 2002!!!11!!". Whoever said people were wrongly conflating 2002 with 1999-2001 was spot-on - 99-01 was truly the WTA's golden age, but in '02, Hingis dropped out, Davenport missed almost the entire season with injury, Henin and Clijsters had a strangely poor year (esp in the Slams) despite their breakthrough seasons in '01. Serena's only significant rivals that year were Venus and Capriati. The strength at the top of the game was certainly on a par with 2002.

With that said, Serena's 2002 is obviously still much better than 2012, because of the fact she dominated on all surfaces. 2 of her big wins in 2012 came on grass, and she was hardly convincing at the US Open. Even though the Willytards don't like to hear it, it's still pretty obvious that Serena's best tournament of 2012 level of play-wise was the YEC (the Li match aside) when you take into account that it was a slow surface that didn't give her much serve much bang for its buck and actually forced her to play better off the ground than she did on grass.

Steven.
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:50 PM
So for me, while I respect Serena's 2002 season I much prefer her 2012 season as a fan. In my opinion, the true measure of a champion isn't determined during peak years but how that champion responds to opposition when the best years are behind them. I can truly say that Serena's will and determination in 2012 is impressive when you consider all the circumstances surrounding her year.

well said. That's why I have extra respect for rena, jcap, masha more than any other multi-slam champions (including hingis) because they came back from career ending scenarios, whether self indueced or not, and managed to get back to the very top of the echelon. Not only is that a mark of a true champion, but a mark of how strong they are as a human being.

I hope Venus can win an 8th slam before she retires.

Start da Game
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:52 PM
there is really no point in going back and forth with this when the answer is 2012......she is clearly a more complete player today than what she was in 2002......

you cannot register a match record of 48-2 to finish off the season and own no.1 and no.2 players in the world in slam finals and olympics with an incomplete game and incomplete confidence......

lloyders76
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:52 PM
What's with your: "Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking"-shade all the time?! :lol:
Serena's first half of the year is the only reason she didn't get to the no.1 rank..you can't bomb early at Oz open, Miami and RG..and expect to be no.1. THAT's the ONLY reason she didn't get to no.1.

can't even begin to get my head round how foolish this comment is

the 'only' reason any player doesn't get to number 1 is losing early in some major tournaments

sweetadri06
Nov 15th, 2012, 06:58 PM
:rolls: at people again trotting out the "ZOMG the competition was so much better in 2002!!!11!!". Whoever said people were wrongly conflating 2002 with 1999-2001 was spot-on - 99-01 was truly the WTA's golden age, but in '02, Hingis dropped out, Davenport missed almost the entire season with injury, Henin and Clijsters had a strangely poor year (esp in the Slams) despite their breakthrough seasons in '01. Serena's only significant rivals that year were Venus and Capriati. The strength at the top of the game was certainly on a par with 2002.

With that said, Serena's 2002 is obviously still much better than 2012, because of the fact she dominated on all surfaces. 2 of her big wins in 2012 came on grass, and she was hardly convincing at the US Open. Even though the Willytards don't like to hear it, it's still pretty obvious that Serena's best tournament of 2012 level of play-wise was the YEC (the Li match aside) when you take into account that it was a slow surface that didn't give her much serve much bang for its buck and actually forced her to play better off the ground than she did on grass.

Her best tournament was actually Charleston.

doomsday
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:02 PM
Her best tournament was actually Charleston.

Yeah but the the competition was way too weak overall though. She played great for sure but she wasn't even challenged and couldn't be against those mugs except Stosur.

Start da Game
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:15 PM
:rolls: at people again trotting out the "ZOMG the competition was so much better in 2002!!!11!!". Whoever said people were wrongly conflating 2002 with 1999-2001 was spot-on - 99-01 was truly the WTA's golden age, but in '02, Hingis dropped out, Davenport missed almost the entire season with injury, Henin and Clijsters had a strangely poor year (esp in the Slams) despite their breakthrough seasons in '01. Serena's only significant rivals that year were Venus and Capriati. The strength at the top of the game was certainly on a par with 2002.

With that said, Serena's 2002 is obviously still much better than 2012, because of the fact she dominated on all surfaces. 2 of her big wins in 2012 came on grass, and she was hardly convincing at the US Open. Even though the Willytards don't like to hear it, it's still pretty obvious that Serena's best tournament of 2012 level of play-wise was the YEC (the Li match aside) when you take into account that it was a slow surface that didn't give her much serve much bang for its buck and actually forced her to play better off the ground than she did on grass.

1997 - 2001 was actually very weak......steffi, arantxa, seles were done and dusted mentally and physically......there were talks of steffi's retirement as early as 1995 but she somehow continued on......

hingis took over the weak era (1997 - 2001) and won all the slams she could before venus and serena peaked too early for her(hingis) unfortunately and took over completely......very much reminiscent of federer's domination before nadal and djokovic peaked(2003 - 2006)......

2001 saw the revival of capriati(a player who i dislike for some reason) and those belgian slam fights(clijsters-henin) started in the same year as well......venus and serena entered their peaks and started smashing everyone else into oblivion......

sweetadri06
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:18 PM
Yeah but the the competition was way too weak overall though. She played great for sure but she wasn't even challenged and couldn't be against those mugs except Stosur.

Well i'm talking about her game coming together perfectly, not really competition-wise. At the YEC her level was overall "meh" but she did play great in the final.

Steven.
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:19 PM
nobody gives a shit about nadal

bandabou
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:24 PM
No it's not that bad when we know that she won Wimbledon, OG, USO and YEC.
But maybe you were expecting her to win every single title well that's not gonna happen.

Right, right...so why you guys so sad about the 3-6 record in finals this year, then?! :shrug:

Start da Game
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:31 PM
nobody gives a shit about nadal

of course you do, that's why you bothered to post about him.....

doomsday
Nov 15th, 2012, 07:59 PM
Right, right...so why you guys so sad about the 3-6 record in finals this year, then?! :shrug:

3-6 is quite bad but only Miami really bothers me though, the others she had zero chance with the way she was playing and of course because of the opponent as well.

forehand27
Nov 15th, 2012, 08:05 PM
1997 - 2001 was actually very weak......steffi, arantxa, seles were done and dusted mentally and physically......there were talks of steffi's retirement as early as 1995 but she somehow continued on......

hingis took over the weak era (1997 - 2001) and won all the slams she could before venus and serena peaked too early for her(hingis) unfortunately and took over completely......very much reminiscent of federer's domination before nadal and djokovic peaked(2003 - 2006)......

2001 saw the revival of capriati(a player who i dislike for some reason) and those belgian slam fights(clijsters-henin) started in the same year as well......venus and serena entered their peaks and started smashing everyone else into oblivion......

Hingis wasnt running anything after 1997. 1998 and 1999 Davenport was the true number 1 both years (even if on the computer only in 1998). 2000 and 2001 Hingis was nowhere near best player.

Start da Game
Nov 15th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Hingis wasnt running anything after 1997. 1998 and 1999 Davenport was the true number 1 both years (even if on the computer only in 1998). 2000 and 2001 Hingis was nowhere near best player.

she just got shown her way out gradually by better players......davenport too benefited a little from the weak field but at least she scored some quality victories......

RVD
Nov 15th, 2012, 08:39 PM
LOL...Davenport was injured in 2002 and only played a few tournaments.
Henin and Clijsters in 2002 were nowhere near the level Azarenka or Pova are in 2012 and Venus was always Serena's underling in Slam finals. In fact, one could argue that the competition in 2012 was stronger than it was in 2002 which is also why Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking in 2012 (unlike 2002).

Of course achievement-wise (unlike what RVD claims :spit:), 2002 was a much better year for Serena since she won more Slams, was more dominant overall and was #1 for the most part of the year.Just your opinion alone doesn't make the argument convincing Matt. In fact, you've added nothing to the debate at all here. So why bring up my name as if you've stumbled upon some astounding revelation?
Just for once while discussing Serena...why not check your personal hatred at the door?

bandabou
Nov 15th, 2012, 08:42 PM
3-6 is quite bad but only Miami really bothers me though, the others she had zero chance with the way she was playing and of course because of the opponent as well.

I see..okay, still feel that if Serena had done a better job at the Oz and Miami and RG specially, she'd be no.1 :p

Matt01
Nov 15th, 2012, 09:17 PM
Just your opinion alone doesn't make the argument convincing Matt. In fact, you've added nothing to the debate at all here. So why bring up my name as if you've stumbled upon some astounding revelation?
Just for once while discussing Serena...why not check your personal hatred at the door?


Why do YOU not check your personal delusional fandom first?
Even your fellow Serena fans disagree with you about 2012 being a better season for Serena, and the arguments I provided for my opinion you probably didn't even read. So instead of singing your old song about my "hatred" for Serena, why not use your brain for once and come up with some reasonable arguments for a change? :tape: :help:

forehand27
Nov 15th, 2012, 10:02 PM
In no sense was Serena's 2012 better than 2002 except for the fact 2012 it was probably the best season ever by a 30 year old women, and the best season ever by a women who hadnt been able to play a relatively full season in 3 years, while 2002 it wasnt the best season ever in any sense except arguably sheer level of play or most dominance vs an actual real field (vs what Navratilova and Graf faced in their most dominant years which was crap on a bun).

RVD
Nov 15th, 2012, 11:44 PM
Why do YOU not check your personal delusional fandom first?
Even your fellow Serena fans disagree with you about 2012 being a better season for Serena, and the arguments I provided for my opinion you probably didn't even read. So instead of singing your old song about my "hatred" for Serena, why not use your brain for once and come up with some reasonable arguments for a change? :tape: :help:Simply because my arguments aren't delusions Matt.
With you it's always the same perfectionist requirements when you discuss Serena. Why is that?

Yes, some of my fellow Serena fans have in fact disagreed with me in this thread, and some have agreed with me as well. I read your posts. What's your point?
There is still no revelation expressed here from you Matt. You parrotted what posters have already said.
And you didn't answer the question as to why you brought ONLY my name up when a few other posters shared in my argument.
So again, what point were you trying to make in bringing up my name Matt?

Chrissie-fan
Nov 16th, 2012, 12:24 PM
she just got shown her way out gradually by better players......davenport too benefited a little from the weak field but at least she scored some quality victories......
Well, according to TF logic every past great benefited from a weak field. But the era of our fave is always much tougher than the previous or later one(s) so that it makes our fave look even better.

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 16th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Well, according to TF logic every past great benefited from a weak field. But the era of our fave is always much tougher than the previous or later one(s) so that it makes our fave look even better.

exactly :lol:

RVD
Nov 16th, 2012, 08:26 PM
Simply because my arguments aren't delusions Matt.
With you it's always the same perfectionist requirements when you discuss Serena. Why is that?

Yes, some of my fellow Serena fans have in fact disagreed with me in this thread, and some have agreed with me as well. I read your posts. What's your point?
There is still no revelation expressed here from you Matt. You parroted what posters have already said.
And you didn't answer the question as to why you brought ONLY my name up when a few other posters shared in my argument.
So again, what point were you trying to make in bringing up my name Matt?So is this your answer Matt?

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8175/mattsanswer.jpg

So now asking you why you singled me out when others shared in my opinion is "irrelevant"? :facepalm:

Poor Matt has finally lost it, and can no lomger handle a simple question. :oh:

TennisPhan
Nov 18th, 2012, 02:03 AM
LOL...Davenport was injured in 2002 and only played a few tournaments.
Henin and Clijsters in 2002 were nowhere near the level Azarenka or Pova are in 2012 and Venus was always Serena's underling in Slam finals. In fact, one could argue that the competition in 2012 was stronger than it was in 2002 which is also why Serena didn't even get close to the #1 ranking in 2012 (unlike 2002).

Of course achievement-wise (unlike what RVD claims :spit:), 2002 was a much better year for Serena since she won more Slams, was more dominant overall and was #1 for the most part of the year.

I've been watching more vids of 2002-2003 Serena and it's even harder now to decide which version of Serena is better.. There are 2 discussions going on in this thread.

1. Which season was better: 2002 or 2012?

2002:
- 3 slams
- Lost in Finals of YEC
- 8 tourneys won
- 56 wins 5 losses
- Won against: 5-0 Capriati, 4-0 Venus, 2-0 Mauresmo, 2-0 Hingis, 2-1 Henin, 1-1 Clijsters

2012:
- 2 slams
- 1 Olympic gold
- Won YEC
- 7 tourneys won
- 58 wins 4 losses
- Won against: 5-0 Azarenka, 3-0 Sharapova, 2-0 Radwanska, 1-0 Kvitova, 1-0 Li, 1-1 Kerber

It's REALLY CLOSE with these results, but I would pick 2002, because she got kicked out of AO 2012 and RG 2012 by much weaker players and in 2002 she didn't play AO at all. I think as an achievement a GS and Olympic Gold is equal. There is 1 extra round in a GS, but tougher oponents in Olympics from the start.

2. Which version of Serena is better 2002 or 2012 (peak)?

2002 pros:
- Faster / better footwork -> returns more balls
- Slightly stronger mentally (did not cry or smash rackets)

2012 pros:
- Improved serve
- Improved shot placement
- 10 more years of experience, more variety

This is so hard to decide, but I would have to pick 2012 Serena, because of the killer combination of her improved skills. It beats the 'faster/younger' Serena in my eyes.

Tag
Nov 18th, 2012, 02:11 AM
erm, 2002

this isn't even a question

all serve, movement limited serena versus all court, lightning fast serena...HMMMM, TRICKY

serena destroyed everyone that year

she even won matches on clay :eek: :eek:

it's a no contest

TennisPhan
Feb 25th, 2013, 09:04 PM
I changed my mind.

After checking her stats and watching many highlights of her 2002 matches against the other greats of the last decade it's obvious that Serena of 2002-2003 was better than 2012 overall, because her movement and mentality was much better!

Serena record vs the best in 2002:

5-0 vs Capriati
4-0 vs Venus
3-0 vs Mauresmo
2-0 vs Hingis
2-0 vs Hantuchova
2-0 vs Myskina
2-1 vs Henin
1-0 vs Davenport
1-1 vs Clijsters


Serena record vs the best in 2012:

5-0 vs Azarenka
3-0 vs Sharapova
2-0 vs Radwanska
2-0 vs Stosur
1-0 vs Li
1-0 vs Kvitova
1-0 vs Errani
1-1 vs Kerber
1-1 vs Wozniacki

Deestruction
Feb 25th, 2013, 11:24 PM
Well 2012, she won 2 gold medals, 2 slams and a YEC.

While in 2002, yes the field that year was the toughest ive seen in a long time. No year can top 2002's field of draws. 2002 was also impressive as well.

50/50 on both achievement wise.

ZeroSumGame
Feb 25th, 2013, 11:35 PM
2002 was just epic for the indomitable Ms Williams, it culminated in her scooping up the 2003 prestigious Laureus World Sports Awards where Serena Williams was named Sportswoman of the Year :worship:

Matt01
Feb 26th, 2013, 03:16 AM
Well 2012, she won 2 gold medals, 2 slams and a YEC.

While in 2002, yes the field that year was the toughest ive seen in a long time. No year can top 2002's field of draws. 2002 was also impressive as well.

50/50 on both achievement wise.


Oh my. :facepalm:
I'm sure I've posted it already 567578 times (maybe even in this thread) but the field of 2002 was not clearly the toughest "in a long while", because Hingis and Davenport were out with injury/illness for long periods that season. The only decent competition that year for the WS which was left was Capriati.
And no, it's not "50/50" achievement wise. Serena won 3 Slams in 2002, only 2 Slams in 2012 (and lost early at the other Slams) so 2002 was clearly a better year for her.