PDA

View Full Version : How Good is Great ????


TheBoiledEgg
Dec 23rd, 2002, 06:32 PM
http://www.tennisone.com/Larson/Larsonnews.home.htm
by Bob Larson

How Good is Great?
A few weeks ago, we talked about the year Serena Williams had in 2002 -- and the unspectacular years almost everyone else had. This led to an unanswerable question: Was Serena spectacularly improved, or did everyone else go downhill? (The answer is probably something of both, but the goal -- which probably can't be achieved -- is to know how much.)

But just how good was Serena in 2002? That, at least, we can examine relatively objectively. Serena had certainly a very good year -- three singles Slams, eight singles titles, one doubles Slam, two doubles titles, a mere five losses in the course of the year (and one loss in doubles), and titles on all four surfaces.

We actually saw an Internet posting claiming Serena's was the best year in tennis history. We can't help but think that Steffi Graf -- and even Monica Seles and Martina Hingis -- could have a few words to say about that. (Apparently "tennis history," for the poster, began around 2001. That, plus the fact that tennis history consists of two players: Venus and Serena Williams. And we checked: The person who claimed that was not Richard Williams in disguise. Though perhaps on his payroll, for all we know.)

So where does Serena's season stack up among all-time great years?

For these purposes, let's look at only the last 20 years (1983-2002); records before that time are sadly spotty, and in any case the sport was rather different then. (Frankly, it was pretty different in 1983, and we generally don't think it possible to compare across eras. But we have to use some sort of yardstick.)

Generally speaking, we're going to look at the twelve best seasons in a particular category, and anything below that is -- below that.

Statistic 1: Winning Percentage in a season


1. Navratilova/1983.....86-1, 99%
2. Graf/1989............86-2, 98%
3. Navratilova/1984.....78-2, 98%
4. Graf/1987............75-2, 97%
5. Navratilova/1986.....89-3, 97%
6. Graf/1988............72-3, 96%
7. Navratilova/1985.....84-5, 94%
8. Hingis/1997..........75-5, 94%
9. Graf/1990............72-5, 94%
10. Seles/1992...........70-5, 93%
11. Graf/1996............54-5, 93%
12. Graf/1993............76-6, 93%

Serena's 2002 record was 56-5. 92%. Which, believe it or not, isn't even in the Top 25 in the Open Era; we make it #14 in our 20-year sample (Seles was 74-6, 93%, in 1991).

Statistic 2: Total Wins in a season


1. Navratilova/1986......89
2. Graf/1989.............87
3. Navratilova/1983......86
4. Navratilova/1985......84
5. Evert/1985............81
6. Navratilova/1984......78
7. Hingis/2000...........77
8. Graf/1993.............76
9. Graf/1987.............75
9. Hingis/1997...........75
11. Seles/1991............74
12. Navratilova/1989......73
... Graf/1988.............72
... Graf/1990.............72
... Hingis/1999...........70
... Seles/1992............70
... Davenport/1998........67
... Graf/1986.............64
... Davenport/2001........62
... Venus/2002............62
... Hingis/1998...........60
... Serena/2002...........56

The preceding list shows all the leaders in wins in recent years, even if they weren't particularly impressive, plus the really big winners of the past. The list may not be comprehensive for the early eighties (it's possible that some years had a strong player we didn't notice). Still, this should put Serena in perspective. Serena's 56 wins, we note, don't even make her #1 this year; Venus Williams had 62. In 2001, four players (Davenport, 62; Hingis, 60; Henin, 59; Capriati, 56) equalled or exceeded Serena's total this year. It might be objected that Serena didn't play all that much -- only 13 events. But while that's a very low number by 2002 standards, it's quite normal for players around 1990, when Graf and Seles were putting up their numbers. Graf in 1988, for instance, played only 13 events -- and still managed 16 more wins than Serena. And Graf also had only 13 events in 1987, when she had nineteen more wins than Serena even though she didn't win the Grand Slam that year. And in 1989, both Graf and Navratilova topped Serena 2002; similarly, Navratilova and Evert both topped Serena in 1985.

A better objection is that total wins don't mean much, because some wins are cheap (e.g. Henin in 2001 earned a lot of her 59 wins in Tier III events). There is truth to this -- but winning a lot still takes effort. Serena had a consistent advantage over her opponents in 2002: She was more rested. Logically, she ought to be able to win.

Statistic 3: Titles in a season

The following list shows every player in the last 20 years with 8 or more titles in a year, and every player who led the tour in a given year even if she didn't have 8 titles. Note: This is irritatingly approximate for some of the early years, partly because the WTA wasn't then on a calendar system and partly because their records are a mess. So, e.g., the WTA lists Navratilova as having 12 titles in 1985 -- but that was Tour year 1985. We've adjusted as best we can, both here and in the next item. We may not have succeeded. But the top six are pretty definitely the top six; it's just that the order may be a little off.


1. Navratilova/1984.........15
2. Graf/1989................14
2. Navratilova/1986.........14
4. Navratilova/1983.........13
5. Navratilova/1985.........13
6. Hingis/1997..............12
7. Evert/1985...............11
7. Graf/1987................11
9. Graf/1988................10
9. Graf/1990................10
9. Graf/1993................10
9. Seles/1991...............10
9. Seles/1992...............10
... Graf/1995.................9
... Hingis/2000...............9
... Navratilova/1988..........9
... Seles/1990................9
... Graf/1992.................8
... Navratilova/1989..........8
... Sanchez-Vicario/1994......8
... Serena/2002...............8
... Davenport/1999............7
... Davenport/2001............7
... Graf/1996.................7
... Hingis/1999...............7
... Davenport/1998............6

Serena had eight titles in 2002. This is not that bad by recent standards, as the above list shows -- but historically it is weak indeed; until 1994, the winningest player had had at least ten titles every season in the entire Open Era!

Statistic 4: Fraction of Events Won

This takes the preceding list and divides it by number of events played.

1. Navratilova/1984.........88%
2. Graf/1989................88%
3. Graf/1987................85%
4. Navratilova/1983.........81%
5. Navratilova/1986.........78%
6. Graf/1988................77%
7. Navratilova/1985.........72%
8. Hingis/1997..............71%
9. Graf/1995................69%
10. Graf/1990................67%
10. Graf/1993................67%
10. Seles/1992...............67%
... Graf/1996................64%
... Seles/1991...............63%
... Serena/2002..............62%
... Evert/1985...............61%
... Seles/1990...............60%
... Graf/1992................57%
... Navratilova/1988.........56%
... Navratilova/1989.........50%
... Sanchez-Vicario/1994.....47%
... Hingis/2000..............45%
... Davenport/2001...........41%
... Davenport/1999...........37%
... Hingis/1999..............35%
... Davenport/1998...........30%

Thus we see that, even taking number of events played into account, Serena doesn't stand all that high -- her winning percentage is actually below the #2 player in one year (1985).

Statistic 5: Slams Won

As a sort of tiebreak in this category, we'll award an extra half-point for winning the year-end championships. We'll only list years where a player had two or more Slams since 1983.

1. Graf/1988..............4.0
2. Navratilova/1983.......3.5
2. Navratilova/1984.......3.5
2. Graf/1989..............3.5
2. Seles/1991.............3.5
2. Seles/1992.............3.5
2. Graf/1995..............3.5
2. Graf/1996..............3.5
9. Navratilova/1986.......3.0*
9. Hingis/1997............3.0
9. Serena/2002............3.0
12. Navratilova/1985.......2.5
12. Navratilova/1987.......2.0
12. Sanchez-Vicario/1994...2.0
12. Venus/2000.............2.0
12. Capriati/2001..........2.0
12. Venus/2001.............2.0

* Navratilova won only two Slams in 1986 but had two "year-end" titles.

Finally, Serena gets into the Top 12.

So let's analyze what we have here. This is just for singles, and we will fiddle. But let's find every year that's in the Top 12 in one of our five categories. There are 23 such years (meaning, obviously, that several years had multiple qualifying players):

Capriati/2001
Evert/1985
Graf/1987
Graf/1988
Graf/1989
Graf/1990
Graf/1993
Graf/1995
Graf/1996
Hingis/1997
Hingis/2000
Navratilova/1983
Navratilova/1984
Navratilova/1985
Navratilova/1986
Navratilova/1987
Navratilova/1989
Sanchez-Vicario/1994
Seles/1991
Seles/1992
Serena/2002
Venus/2000
Venus/2001

Now we're going to pull one more trick: We're going to tack on some doubles. Not much, but a little -- since, like total wins, it represents effort the players had to expend. Here is what we will do: We will award four points for each doubles Slam win and one point for each additional doubles title. The doubles points for the above players then become:

Navratilova/1984........24
Navratilova/1983........22
Navratilova/1986........20
Navratilova/1987........18
Navratilova/1985........17
Sanchez-Vicario/1994....14
Navratilova/1989........13
Hingis/1997.............11
Hingis/2000.............11
Graf/1988................5
Serena/2002..............5
Venus/2000...............4
Venus/2001...............4
Seles/1991...............2
Graf/1987................1
Graf/1989................1
Graf/1993................1
Seles/1992...............1
Capriati/2001............0
Evert/1985...............0
Graf/1990................0
Graf/1995................0
Graf/1996................0

Incidentally, there are some great doubles years missing here -- e.g. Shriver consistently was earning 15-25 points a year in the mid-Eighties, mostly with Navratilova; Hingis's Grand Slam year of 1998 would have given her 21 points that year (Hingis, incidentally, is the first player since Graf in 1988 to have five Slams, singles and doubles, in one year -- which also points up that Serena had four Slams in 2002; prior to Hingis's four in 1997 and five in 1998, and Jana Novotna's four in 1998, the last player to do that was, yes, Graf). But neither Hingis nor Shriver had particularly great singles years those years.

And so, the moment we've all been waiting for: The Greatest Year List.

This, though, requires explanation. Here's what we're going to do: We'll grant 20 points for the best year (#1 in any of the above lists). #2 is worth 16, #3 worth 13, #4 worth 11, #5 worth 9, #6 worth 7, #7 worth 6, #8 worth 5, #9 worth 4, #10 worth 3, #11 worth 2, and #12 worth 1 point. Anything below #12 is worth 0. We will halve everyone's doubles points for this purpose. That gives us the following totals:

1. Navratilova/1984..........88
2. Navratilova/1983..........82
3. Graf/1989.................80.5
4. Navratilova/1986..........68
5. Navratilova/1985..........41.5
6. Graf/1988.................40.5
7. Graf/1987.................34.5
8. Hingis/1997...............30.5
9. Seles/1992................26.5
10. Seles/1991................23
11. Graf/1995.................20
12. Graf/1996.................18
13. Evert/1985................15
14. Graf/1993.................13.5
15. Hingis/2000...............11.5
16. Graf/1990.................11
17. Navratilova/1987..........10
18. Sanchez-Vicario/1994.......8
19. Navratilova/1989...........7.5
20. Serena/2002................6.5
21. Venus/2001.................3
21. Venus/2000.................3
23. Capriati/2001..............1

We'd say, though, that this gives a little too much weight to absolute successes (total wins, total titles) compared to rate of success (winning percent, fraction of tournaments won). So let's make a modification: Let's halve the points awarded for total wins and total titles. (Note that both of these help Serena, who had relatively few wins and titles.) That gives us this list for best years:

1. Navratilova/1984..........74.5
2. Navratilova/1983..........70
3. Graf/1989.................64.5
4. Navratilova/1986..........53.5
5. Graf/1988.................37
6. Navratilova/1985..........33
7. Hingis/1997...............26
7. Graf/1987.................26
9. Seles/1992................25
10. Seles/1991................22
11. Graf/1995.................18
11. Graf/1996.................18
13. Evert/1985................10.5
14. Navratilova/1987..........10
15. Graf/1990..................9.5
15. Graf/1993..................9.5
17. Hingis/2000................8.5
18. Sanchez-Vicario/1994.......8
19. Navratilova/1989...........7
20. Serena/2002................6.5
21. Venus/2001.................3
21. Venus/2000.................3
23. Capriati/2001..............1

Obviously this doesn't take some things into account, such as Graf's 1988 Grand Slam. But Graf herself has said that she thought her 1989 was better than her 1988 -- she missed one Slam but had a better overall record. And that comes out here.

And it puts Serena at #20 in the all-time years list. Lower, frankly, than we expected. We didn't expect her to have one of the truly great years -- but certainly we thought she had done better than this. What it really seems to show is how things have levelled out over the past few years. Our expectations of a #1 player have clearly been lowered. Informally, we knew that. But this demonstrated how much they have lowered. Note that, since 1993, we haven't had a single year with a player in the Top Five in any of our statistical category, and only Hingis's 1997 is in the Top Ten in the big statistics of winning percentage and wins and titles and title winning percentage. Serena's year isn't great by historical standards -- but it's certainly the best since Hingis in 1997. Indeed, 1997 seems to be the watershed year: Until that time, the dominant players were of all sorts -- Hingis the shotmaker, Seles the two-handed basher, Graf the fast mover with the forehand, Navratilova the serve-and-volleyer, Sanchez-Vicario the scrambler. Since then, except for Hingis (who is obviously fading, though she held up pretty well until 2001), it's been all bashers, all the time. So you could make a case that Serena is the best basher of all time. Or, at least, the best basher since Seles was stabbed....

auntie janie
Dec 23rd, 2002, 06:39 PM
Very interesting analysis!

But he fails to take into account the much stronger level of competition now, compared to even two years ago. Ask Navratilova herself about this; seh is the first to admit it.

There won't be anybody putting up the numbers that those ladies did any more...

ASV
Dec 23rd, 2002, 06:48 PM
yes, very interesting.

BK4ever
Dec 23rd, 2002, 08:38 PM
I understand the analysis, but I too think its unfair to compare the eras. The level of competition is so different that it makes all of those stats laughable.

Havok
Dec 23rd, 2002, 09:18 PM
good to see something agaisnt Serena.don't get me wrong here,i don't hate the girl, but frankly hearing praise all this time was kinda annoying:)

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 09:37 PM
Great analysis! But what does it prove?! The reporter wants us to believe that the players from the past are better than those of today?! Who needs all those other titles: 3 slams are 3 slams and that is what counts!! What do u prefer: 10 titles no slams or 8 slam including 3 straight slams?!Iīll take option B any day. He has to look at the quality of the wins: Scottsdale, Nasdaq,Rome, RG,Wimbledon, Us Open.....only the Oz open and the Championships are missing....how which way you turn it, itīs dominating. I donīt care about history or statistics!!

Steffi & all were all tennisbots thatīs why they had such a large amount of matches won etc. But the reporters better watch out. Because Serena plans to play more next year.......

tennisfan1972
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:03 PM
one of the things that this kinda analysis fails to take into consideration is the level of competition. also if look closely to the data, in the early years the data clearly shows that this was the case. during the navratilova, grad seles years, there seemed to be years of dmination by one player where no real challenger came about tile maybe 4 or 5 years. Notice the number of consecutive years of domination of the players. it becomes clear that around the hingis era that more and more players became able to win slams and dominate in a sense. earlier if was just Navratilova for 4 or 5 years, then graf for 4 or 5 years , then seles, for 3 years , then hingis for a year , lindsay fora year , venus for a year, jen for a year, now serena for a year. anybody else have any thoughts on this? very interesting stuff though. Now if serena does indeed have another spectacular year, i would tend to think that she would reigne for a few more years unless Venus or somebody steps it up. Interesting is that lindsay is the only player who seems to have a record that would indicate that she could dominate. so imagine if the williams were not around, i think lindsay would be on par with someone like a seles by now.

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:08 PM
Great point tennisfan!! Right now the level is greater...the top 10 is really a top 10. Anyone can beat anyone( excluding the sisters of course)......I think that is better than 4 or 5 years the same person winning all the time. Thatīs why if Martina or Steffi graf played now they wouldnīt be dominating...they would win, sure! But they wouldnīt be dominating!!

treufreund
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:46 PM
The level of competitition always looks harder when ýou are not dominating as much. Maybe players like Martina and Steffi and Chrissie and Martina were just that dominating. Why do people always try to put down the level of competition. I mean people kept saying how Serena was SOOOOO dominating and had distanced herself but then she chose not to play in the fall and lost in the finals to Kim in the championships which hurts her statistics relatively speaking (considering the level of perfection it takes to be in the top ten of all time). Of course she had a spectacular year but the article is great cuz it points out how nearsighted fans can be and how quickly great accomplishments of the past are nearly forgotten.

treufreund
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:53 PM
Whether the top ten really a top ten is or not is subjective. But in order to have a year like Martina Navratilova has had in the past you can't have any hiccups, any letdowns, any fatigue. you basically have to be perfect. And Martina was not one to take it easy on herself. She was playing TONS AND TONS of tourneys, singles, doubles and often mixed too. So even if she was having easier tournaments (which I would dispute) it is still amazing how consistent she could be all year long while playing sooo much. Getting probably to the finals constantly in more than one event week after week. Also Serena and the girls today usually play fewer tournaments, often skip doubles, rarely play mixed and also tend to have very easy early rounds. So domination should be easier in some ways.

-Sonic-
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:56 PM
I think thats from the statistical abstract that comes out every year, so the guy doing it wants to prove nothing by doing them, he just does them cos he can

The site also said the full statistical abstract would be out next week

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D yay i love that

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:04 PM
The article is stupid because I canīt remember anybody saying that the Serenaīs season was the greatest individual season! So what is all the big deal?! She had the greatest year of all people this year so thatīs why she is dominating.

treufreund
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:07 PM
Me thinks you just don't like the outcome of the statistical analysis. Serena was fabulous but we all know that many people totally blew it out of proportion.

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:14 PM
So what?! What does all those tourny victories tell u?! Itīs the GSīs that matter!! If u win all 4 GSīs in a year and no other title too me you were still dominating when it mattered!! That counts!!

BCP
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:20 PM
Janie, where is the extra competition today?

Serena won 3 of the 4 slams this year, venus won 4 of the 6 before that. Venus and Serena have contested 4 out of the last 5 GS finals. The other 2 GS went to Capriati....therefore only 3 players have won the last 11 Grandslams, back to Mary Pierce's 2000 FO title. Doesn't look that competitive to me.........

Navratilova in her 40s took Daniela, who was just outside the top 10 at the time, to 3 sets at Eatsbourne, so where's the extra competition?

I hope the above analysis gives some posters a better appreciation of the achievements of past champions.

It also lend weight to Martina Nav fans argument as to who was the best of all time (Irma and Way, be kind!)

BCP
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:22 PM
I meant to also say that Serena had a fab year. Good for her. This analysis should not take away from her achievements, but rather put them into perspective...........

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:29 PM
Ok dan Bcp!! But Daniela is no Serena!!

BCP
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:32 PM
I never said she was. I for one would have thought that you would be pleased that Serena and Venus are too good for the "competition"...............:p ;)

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:41 PM
If you want statistics: two sisters. Both have reached no.1
Both 4 gsīs. ranked no.1 and no.2....have faced in 4 of the last 5 GSīs! That is a statistic that matters to me! Look at the year Venus had! If it werenīt for Venus she would have one of the greatest seasons and would have had 7 slams already...the same can be said of Serena. Thatīs what makes their cases more special. When they both retire they both can have like 9 or 10 slams( depends how long they want to play, because right now the slams go through the Williams and we all know that!!). Donīt see Steffi do that and neither Martina. Two sisters that can go down as two of the greatest! Amazing stuff!!!

BCP
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:50 PM
Nuriboy, whatever.

I never realised that there were 7 GS in a season. I thought there was only 4.

Martina Nav won 6 GS straight. From Wimbeldon 83 to USO 84. To do so, she had to beat off Chris Evert who ended her career with 18 GS, and many other excellent players.

By your logic, if it wasn't for Chris Evert, then Martina Nav would have won 36 GS. In fact, she retired after Steffi Graf had won 10, so if it wasn't for Steffi and Chris, she would have ended up with 46.

Now that's unique!

I'm sure that Venus and Serena would love the fact that you've basically made them into one person.

Anyway, I'm bored to trying to inform you of the achievements of past players. You win.... Serena and Venus are the greatest ever, and the other past champions only have better stats due to the fact that there wasn't any competition......:rolleyes:

Sophie
Dec 23rd, 2002, 11:51 PM
Fans of all sports tend to have short memories. Analysis like these simply help to put things in perspective. I do not think that this could be considered bashing. We have almost daily threads in this forum comparing this player with another player from a different era (Williams vs. Graf, etc) so we are "guilty" of it as well.

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:09 AM
Hahahahahaha bcp! Whatīs happening man?! I didnīt say that Serena and Venus are one person....Iīm telling that the amazing thing is that there are 2 SISTERs members of ONE family that are dominating the tour. To me that is an amazing thing that has never been done in any sport!! Iīm not saying that they are greater than Martina or Steffi or whatever. Why is it good to say to tell that past greats are better than the players of today but not good to say that the ones of today are better than the ones of the past?! You see the logic?! I donīt either!! So perhaps you could explain THAT to me?! Think about it.....

TSequoia01
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:19 AM
I was watching an exhibition between the great Martina and the great Monica and I was amazed at how well Navratilova can still play. But one match is like asking Larry Holmes to fight one round or Micheal Jordan to play 10 minutes in a game. The great ones can still bring it for a short period. Their level or technique is not what they lose. What is lost is stamina, quickness, and durability. Martina, even at 45 especially on grass, has not lost much technique if any. But if she had to go at it match after match, that is where she would suffer. Actually, the same could be said of Monica. :cool:

BCP
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:19 AM
Not at all. Discussion and debate is healthy. Some posters however, in many threads, have dismissed the incredible achievements of past champions to the fact that there was no competition etc etc.

It gets a bit tiresome. At first you try to inform younger posters of the acievements of others, but eventually you give up becuase all of that falls on deaf ears due to blind admiration for their favourites.

Don't get me wrong. I think that today's players are great. However, they understandably have a long way to go before they can compare to the greats, as they are not at the end of their careers.

Nuriboy, 18 GS> 4 GS
22 GS> 4 GS

I have always praised Serenas and Venus's achievements, but your arguments ring a bit hollow when you exclude Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills Moody from your greatest ever thread because you didn't know that they 24 and 19 GS respectively.

Anyway, you have the right to your opinion..........

Crazy Canuck
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:24 AM
We actually saw an Internet posting claiming Serena's was the best year in tennis history. We can't help but think that Steffi Graf -- and even Monica Seles and Martina Hingis -- could have a few words to say about that. (Apparently "tennis history," for the poster, began around 2001. That, plus the fact that tennis history consists of two players: Venus and Serena Williams. And we checked: The person who claimed that was not Richard Williams in disguise. Though perhaps on his payroll, for all we know.)




Bob must read WTAworld ;)

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:27 AM
No,no, no Bcp! Youīre changin topics! All time greats are all time greats!! No doubt.....Martina and Steffi et al had a greater career than Serena and Venus so long! Completely agreed!! But that doesnīt mean that these greats were greater/better at PLAYING tennis!! Donīt tell me that if they were playing today the greats would beat todays players coming and going!! Thatīs not true!

The greats have acomplished more but that doesnīt mean that they are better game vs game than todays players! Thatīs what Iīm explaining to you!!

Crazy Canuck
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by nuriboy
If you want statistics: two sisters. Both have reached no.1
Both 4 gsīs. ranked no.1 and no.2....have faced in 4 of the last 5 GSīs! That is a statistic that matters to me! Look at the year Venus had! If it werenīt for Venus she would have one of the greatest seasons and would have had 7 slams already...the same can be said of Serena. Thatīs what makes their cases more special. When they both retire they both can have like 9 or 10 slams( depends how long they want to play, because right now the slams go through the Williams and we all know that!!). Donīt see Steffi do that and neither Martina. Two sisters that can go down as two of the greatest! Amazing stuff!!!

Not that I disagree in the least, but how does this have anything to do with the article that was posted?

His statistical analysis was based on individual performance - at least check it didn't take into account "sibling success".

Philbo
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:29 AM
BCP - Nevermind Nuriboy, he lives in his little universe that consists of the Williams sisters in a universe where tennis began about 3 years ago!!!

And I have to say I like the analysis, and yes it does add wieght to people like me who argue for Martina as the all time best, her level of perfection hasnt been equalled in the open era and i cant see it ever happening..

Serena did have a great year by todays standards, but among the all-time greats its just a not bad year really...Nuriboy just cant handle the fact that other players in the past have achieved more and dominated mroe than the sisters....

BCP
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:33 AM
BTW, I got so mad that I posted that Suzanne Lenglen won 24 GS, which she didn't. Apologies.

Nuriboy, let's just agree to disagree. We'll just go around in circles.

Hey Czechfan, I thought you'd like the analysis;) .

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:37 AM
Hahahaha Czechfan! How r u doing?! If you read what I posted above I think Iīve answered your questions.......Iīm just stating that todayīs players can play tennis too! People act like since Martina N and Steffi left that the tour stopped! My point is that there are other players on their wat to greatness too!!

Crazy Canuck
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:40 AM
nuriboy - no one is saying that todays players can't play tennis! What thread are you reading? LOL

SOmehow you have miscontrued people giving props to some all time greats as a slight on today's players...

A somewhat illogical conclusion, I might add.

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:41 AM
Whatīs the problem?! You want to state your favs as greatest ever and I canīt?! Whatīs up with that?! My point is you can say someone is the greatest ever because you canīt compare eraīs!! You can only say: Martina was the greatest of her generation/era. Steffi was the greatest of her era/geneartion( almost, but with an asteriks!! We all know what Iīm talking about!). And that Serena & Venus are on their way to becoming the greatest of their era/generation. What is wrong with this opinion?!

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:44 AM
No Rebecca.....no problems with this article. It just goes to show that even with 3 slams Serenaīs season is nothing compared to other greatsīseasons. Clear to me.....Iīm glad that they posted it. Because people kept saying that Steffi was the best ever,but itīs Martina N that had the best season in history!

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:48 AM
This article showed that Martina is better than Steffi if you look at statistics. Of the 7 best Martina had 4 and all of them in consecutive seasons!! Thatīs really amazing......in 4 years Martina N lost like 8 matches??!! Incredible!! Thatīs domination!!

PhoenixStorm
Dec 24th, 2002, 01:04 AM
basically he's saying everyone sucks except steffi, martina n, everet, and and somewhat seles. No one will ever come close to them so i guess in his eyes everyone else sucks the big one for the rest of tennis history.:rolleyes:

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 01:08 AM
You see that too phoenix?! Venus & Serena simply wonīt play soo many matches to come close to these statistics....if he goes by that than Serena and Venus can both win a calendar GS and some titles and still he would say they didnīt have a dominating season....

NJjeff
Dec 24th, 2002, 01:58 AM
No... I think the numbers speak for themselves. As great a year as Serena had, other players have plainly had much better.

Shouldn't Graf's Grand Slam earn bonus points though?

NJjeff
Dec 24th, 2002, 02:02 AM
Forgot to say thanks for the great post...very interesting!

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 02:43 AM
Ok dan Njeff! Your point. is .....because then all the Steffi fans can stop talking about greatest ever!! I want to know if the Graf fans will follow script now like when they did for the sisters!! Huummm!!!

Celeste
Dec 24th, 2002, 02:49 AM
Anyone who doesn't take Serena over Martina Navratoliva, Steffi, Chris, and Monica are HAATERS! Competition stunk then, those girls won NOTHING! Serena rules, she's the best of all time! No one has finished No. 1 EVER after winning three slams. NO ONE has ever won three Slams in one year! Anyone who says otherwise is simply a HAAATER!

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 02:52 AM
Celeste are you serious about this?!

Celeste
Dec 24th, 2002, 02:58 AM
HAATERS! When Martina Hingis won three Slams in '97 and finished No. 1 it was because "no-talent" Steffi was injured and the power girls were under the age of 10. Those 3 Slams don't mean anything. Any year Steffi won 3 or more Slams it was either Monica was gone or because Steffi lucked out. She sucked! And the times when Monica won 3 Slams a year, it was because all she had was "no-talent" Steffi to beat up. How hard was that? Not hard at all. And Martina and Chris? They sucked. They only won tournaments because Tracy Austin or Hana were injured. They never really won "real" tournaments with "real" competition. All of them lucked out so bad, it makes me SICK!

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 03:00 AM
Hahahahahhaaha.......that one about Steffi is true......hahahahahahahaa!!

NJjeff
Dec 24th, 2002, 04:05 AM
Nuriboy, if Serena or Venus ever have a year better more on par with the best of the best, it seems you'd be the first to shout out the stats in every thread possible. Suddenly, it would matter, wouldn't it?

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:53 AM
I donīt care about tournaments victory or going unbeaten in a season Njjeff! It are the GSīs that matter! As long as Serena & Venus keep winning their two slams a year, who cares?!

NJjeff
Dec 24th, 2002, 12:28 PM
So you'd agree Jen had a better season than Venus!!!

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 01:15 PM
If you take in that perspective: yeah, yo can say that! But now youīre taking at to the other extreme! The author acted like winning 8 titles including 3 slams isnīt a good season! But if you want to state that 3 slam finals and 7 titles arenīt better than 1 slam and no other title?! You can say that....

NJjeff
Dec 24th, 2002, 03:05 PM
You opened the door for that comment, and I had to take it! Any way you look at it...2002 was a great and historic year. We all win as fans.

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 08:52 PM
Ok dan Njjeff! Thatīs my point!!

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 02:41 AM
ok dan!