PDA

View Full Version : 2000 Venus vs 2012 Serena


thegreendestiny
Nov 16th, 2012, 06:44 AM
Since everyone's at it. :shrug:

2000 Venus - Wimbledon, US Open, OG, Absent at YEC

2012 Serena - Wimbledon, US Open, OG, YEC

lloyders76
Nov 16th, 2012, 10:04 AM
just watched venus v hingis at 2000 wimbledon,

the serena of 2012 wins 6-2 6-2, venus hits a lot more powerfully in her later years, early years (including 2000) the majority of shots tended to be loopy, and in this match especially they were landing pretty short

ElusiveChanteuse
Nov 16th, 2012, 01:06 PM
Definitely Vee 2000.

Geisha
Nov 16th, 2012, 01:23 PM
Really tough to say. Serena in 2012 always has the serving advantage. Both are so mentally strong. Venus moves better, but she liked to rally too much. Serena in 2012 would still tee off on Venus' second serves, too. Venus' shots were explosive back then, so it's really tough. I say Serena 7-6 7-5 on hardcourts and grass. Serena wins easier on clay.

lloyders76
Nov 16th, 2012, 01:34 PM
i think venus's best form in the years 07-09 was the best she's ever produced, hitting harder and much more consistently offensive than in 2000 while still serving and moving well

it's a misconception that early venus hit consistently hard, just watch the matches, there's a lot of mid-paced, mid-court rallying, a style she transitioned from, probably why her success on clay diminished

there's no way that earlier style competes with the serena of today

StoneRose
Nov 16th, 2012, 01:36 PM
Serena 2012 is stronger.

Smitten
Nov 16th, 2012, 01:38 PM
Serena in two easy sets.

AcesHigh
Nov 16th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Venus something like 6-4, 6-2

Serena 2012 isn't nearly athletic enough.

slydevil6142
Nov 16th, 2012, 04:50 PM
Venus something like 6-4, 6-2

Serena 2012 isn't nearly athletic enough.
This. At the end of the day Venus in 2000 would get get serena on the run alot more and nto allow her to dictate play.
Venus 6-4, 6-3

Queen_Vee_92
Nov 16th, 2012, 04:56 PM
The only aspect of the game that makes this even debateable is the serve.

The Rena 2012 serve could make this match up close just because of a sheer inability to be broken.

But peak Venus would outhit this Serena, and as others have mentioned would athletically outmanoeuvre 2012 Serena in every area of the court.

DeucesAreWild
Nov 16th, 2012, 04:56 PM
Does anyone have a list of the quality of player(s) both defeated in their runs? I think that would be the deciding factor for me.

AcesHigh
Nov 16th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Does anyone have a list of the quality of player(s) both defeated in their runs? I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
Venus:
Hingis x2, Seles x3, Davenport x3, ASV x1, Serena x1, Dementieva x1

DeucesAreWild
Nov 16th, 2012, 05:07 PM
Venus:
Hingis x2, Seles x3, Davenport x3, ASV x1, Serena x1, Dementieva x1

Enough said, thank you. Definitely Venus IMO.

bandabou
Nov 16th, 2012, 05:31 PM
:lol: But remember this is only Serena's SECOND best season..and it's foolish to compare a 20 year old Vee to a 31 year old Serena.

young_gunner913
Nov 16th, 2012, 05:37 PM
:lol: But remember this is only Serena's SECOND best season..and it's foolish to compare a 20 year old Vee to a 31 year old Serena.

Exactly. Especially over a decade apart. It's obvious that Venus beat tougher players her run but Serena decimated the best this generation had to offer.

Olórin
Nov 16th, 2012, 05:38 PM
just watched venus v hingis at 2000 wimbledon,

the serena of 2012 wins 6-2 6-2, venus hits a lot more powerfully in her later years, early years (including 2000) the majority of shots tended to be loopy, and in this match especially they were landing pretty short

In a match against Hingis. I seriously hope you aren't judging Venus' form on one match. Hingis naturally tended to disrupt Venus' rhythm. No accident she played by light years her worst match since Wimbledon against Hingis in the semis of the US Open. In a match vs. Davenport Venus wouldn't hit nearly as many loopy balls.

And the reason a fair proportion of her shots were like that is because she tracked down balls that no-one else, maybe not even peak Serena could get. Thus keeping the ball in play via looping, when the point should have been over.

If you think she hit with a lot more power and depth in her later you years all that means is that you haven't watched enough of her earlier matches. Her New Haven final against Seles showcased some remarkable hitting, going for the lines with power and accuracy like women's tennis had never until that point and still hasn't been truly surpassed yet. Your statement that Venus hit a lot more powerfully in her later years and that the majority of her shots in 2000 were loopy are surely not based in fact.

It's actually a really interesting question. 2012 Serena might win because of a more consistent serve, but it would certainly be close. Equally you could say that Venus would track down balls that Azarenka, Li, Kerber or Sharapova had no hope of getting and extent enough rallies to irritate Serena into errors. Ultimate 2012 Serena is a product of what she needs to beat her peers, and a player of 2000 Venus' calibre simply isn't among them.

lloyders76
Nov 16th, 2012, 06:39 PM
In a match against Hingis. I seriously hope you aren't judging Venus' form on one match. Hingis naturally tended to disrupt Venus' rhythm. No accident she played by light years her worst match since Wimbledon against Hingis in the semis of the US Open. In a match vs. Davenport Venus wouldn't hit nearly as many loopy balls.

And the reason a fair proportion of her shots were like that is because she tracked down balls that no-one else, maybe not even peak Serena could get. Thus keeping the ball in play via looping, when the point should have been over.

If you think she hit with a lot more power and depth in her later you years all that means is that you haven't watched enough of her earlier matches. Her New Haven final against Seles showcased some remarkable hitting, going for the lines with power and accuracy like women's tennis had never until that point and still hasn't been truly surpassed yet. Your statement that Venus hit a lot more powerfully in her later years and that the majority of her shots in 2000 were loopy are surely not based in fact.

It's actually a really interesting question. 2012 Serena might win because of a more consistent serve, but it would certainly be close. Equally you could say that Venus would track down balls that Azarenka, Li, Kerber or Sharapova had no hope of getting and extent enough rallies to irritate Serena into errors. Ultimate 2012 Serena is a product of what she needs to beat her peers, and a player of 2000 Venus' calibre simply isn't among them.


fair points, though i saw plenty of her matches from that period, it's just that i rewatched highlights of the wimbledon qf. an i was talking about rally shots being loopy and short, not balls returned by venus on the stretch, but i take your points

i just think she tended to hit harder and go for the lines shot for shot more from 07-09, so that when she was fully on and accurate she was more formidable than in 2000

madeaismad
Nov 16th, 2012, 06:47 PM
In 2000, Venus displayed what COULD go down as the best show of movement on a tennis court for female tennis player ever. I think based on her movement alone, she would beat Serena of 2012, straight sets, but something like 6-4, 7-5. Although, it's interesting because I just watched some highlights of Venus playing at Wimbledon in 2007, and from the match she had with Maria onwards, Venus was moving and hitting the ball better than ever. Serves consistently in the 115+ range, groundstrokes flying through the court with unbelievable pace, and her movement was SCARY. I think comparing that Venus to Serena of 2012 or even 2002 would be an interesting discussion.

forehand27
Nov 16th, 2012, 07:58 PM
This is a good question. As outstanding as 2012 Serena still is, I cant think for a moment she is as good an overall player as the 2002 Serena, even if some aspects of her game and play are as good or better than ever today (serve, point construction). Despite reaching 4 slam finals in a row there are also many who feel 2000 Venus was slightly better than 2002 Venus, atleast when she had it going. So this would be a tough one. It would depend alot on the mental aspect. I definitely feel the mental aspect held Venus back vs Serena in 2002-2003, even if Serena was the better player then, Venus still could have done better. In this newly presented matchup if Venus has it mentally to deal with taking on her sister she has a good shot, but that is a big if. Too big an if which is why I still went with 2012 Serena.

SV_Fan
Nov 17th, 2012, 03:39 AM
Venus In New Haven 2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Rest of The WTA Tour .... the pace, the power, athelticism, everything !!!!

Stonerpova
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:16 AM
Serena. Because after she hit 20 she won all the big matches. Tougher mentally, tennis is irrelevant.

Stamp Paid
Nov 17th, 2012, 04:52 AM
20 year old, pre-Sjogren's Venus vs 31 year old Lordrena? :lol:
And yet, it would still be a dogfight.

forehand27
Nov 17th, 2012, 05:05 AM
20 year old, pre-Sjogren's Venus vs 31 year old Lordrena? :lol:
And yet, it would still be a dogfight.

Good for 20 year old Venus. A dogfight vs 31 year old Lordrena is already 100000x more than any of the CURRENT WTA can apparently manage.

Smitten
Nov 23rd, 2012, 03:09 AM
20 year old, pre-Sjogren's Venus vs 31 year old Lordrena? :lol:
And yet, it would still be a dogfight.

The only dogfight would be Venus pushing the photogs out of the way to take pictures again. That thing will never take Sarin.