PDA

View Full Version : If Serena Williams Wins the Austrailian Open....


PhoenixStorm
Dec 24th, 2002, 08:50 PM
Will she be the best player playing the game today? No other player playing today would have ever held all four grand slam titles at the same time and no player playing today would have a career grand slam. So the question is does that make serena the better player over Venus, Lindsay, Jennifer, Martina, and Monica..... you decide.

Robbie.
Dec 24th, 2002, 09:18 PM
She would defintiely have surpassed Venus and Lindsay. She is has already surpassed Jenn IMO.

It would then be a close call between Martina and Serena. this is the really juicy question. Considering Martina still has about double the career titles of Serena and is far more established in other statistical catergories, if Serena were to reach an equal grand slam footing with her - of course the career grandslam has a great significance - it would be interesting. I'd still take Martina.

No way would she be greater than Monica. Never are 5 grandslam titles worth more than 9. I mean in situations like that quantity nearly always prevails over quality. Andre has the career Grand Slam but it would be tough to find anyone who rates him greater than Sampras, even with the latters ineptitude at Roland Garros. She could then be called more versatile than Monica, but not greater.

Jakeev
Dec 24th, 2002, 09:19 PM
It would definitely make her special and put her in the elite few of players to win all four of the Grand Slams in succession.

I hope she goes to Australia focused and ready to do business.

vs1
Dec 24th, 2002, 09:31 PM
Well, it would make her the best active player at the moment (which I guess she already is). As for all of the players still playing, I think that Serena will surpass Lindsay, Jennifer, Venus and Martina. But I think that in the history books, she's still got a bit of work to do to surpass Monica. Serena is well on her way. If she wins the AO then she would have achieved a career grand slam in both Singles AND Doubles. That's pretty amazing. As well as an Olympic Gold in Doubles. What she would need to prove is more consistency winning the big ones year after year. Perhaps a few grand slams 2-3 years in a row. She definitely can do that if she keeps her eye on the money. Maybe also winning the Golden Slam + the Year End Champs. THAT would show total domination, huh?!

Anyhow, I have a feeling Serena is going to step it up in 2003. Put on your seatbelts everyone! It's going to be all about Serena all the time!

PhoenixStorm
Dec 24th, 2002, 09:38 PM
I dont think you can include doubles accomplishments. You never hear them say anything about Pete's doubles career or lack thereof so doubles imo doesnt factor into it.

I think right now she is above lindsay and jen and below Venus, because Venus has equal the slams but more titles. With Martina I still think martina has the edge, but if serena wins aussie she will not only have equal slams but also the career grand slam but less titles. IMO holding four grand slams at the same time as well as having the career grand slam tops martina even though martina has more titles. It also tops venus.

Monica would still be in the leading position but considering that serena is only 21 and monica is almost what, 28? Well I think serena has a greater chance to equal or top monica before serena calls it quits.

fhkung
Dec 24th, 2002, 09:43 PM
if she wins AO, she should be able to surpass Venus
with 5 Grand Slams, also Jen and Lindsay,
but surpassing Martina? dont think so,
she is hyped right now, but this is her 1st yr at #1
and she's "already" 21, u cant make excuse
for her not making #1 before 20,
Martina has been #1 much longer than Serena,
unless Serena ends up #1 for the next 2 yrs,
i wouldnt consider her surpassning Hingis

Venus Forever
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:02 PM
Oh, she would definitely surpass Hingis. Serena would have won all 4 GS, Martina only 3. Plus the H2H is in Serena's favor with two pretty convincing wins at the US Open 2001 and Nasdaq 100-Open 2002.

nuriboy
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:03 PM
What is age gotta do with it?! If Serena wins the AO she will be the best active player among Lindsay, Venus, Jennifer and Martina. She has the CAREER slam and no one else has that. Monica is on a special pedigree.....her career has been short cut. But I think if Serena keeps her focus she will end the greatest of her generation with 10, 11 GS´s.

PhoenixStorm
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:05 PM
So youre saying number one is more important than titles? More important than grandslam titles? More important than a career grandslam?

Imo a career and an additional US Open beats Five grandslams. Why?

1) martina has never won a career grandslam
2) martina has never won the french open.

I guess you've forgotten how number one was considered to be meaningless a few years ago? I know I would rather win a grand slam than be number one without one. EVERYBODY WOULD. The only thing that would put Martina at an adavantage would be the fact that martina would have more overall titles. That would give her an edge. Number one is such an intangible thing. What matters is concrete results, like trophies.

Of course all this is conjecture until serena actually wins the aussie open. Hopefully she will do it this january. GO SERENA!

ps

on a one to one basis we all know that serena is better than martina. the head to head proves it. However on a career level, right now serena is one step behind martina. Once she racks up the aussie she will be shoulders and above martina. Same number of grandslams but with a career grandslam AND HODLING ALL FOUR TITLES AT THE SAME TIME! No one since graf could boast that. Advantage Serena.

this also brings up my previous post of how much is one grandslam title worth? Ten regular titles? 20 regular titles? Im sure that martina would give up 20 of her single titles for a french open grandslam, dont you?

vs1
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:10 PM
AMEN!

PhoenixStorm
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:22 PM
I just thought of something else, if a career grand slam like andres is considered less than petes 14 grandslams then why is grafs 22 grandslams considered worth in your opinon?

also why is margaret courts 24 grandslams considered less than grafs 22? I mean if pete's 14 is better than andres 9 then wouldn't courts 24 be better than grafs 22?

venusfan
Dec 24th, 2002, 11:21 PM
Martina had been #1 for so freaking long and all she managed was 5 grand slams... I think Serena will win at least 2 next year and will surpass everyone on tour, except for Seles, unless Seles retires..

Ryan
Dec 24th, 2002, 11:22 PM
Why did you start a thread to answer your own question?



Of course Court's 24 is better then Graf's 22. I think because Graf was much more recent than Steffi that she will be remembered less, and people seem to think her 11 Australian Open titles were won with a weak field.

anton
Dec 24th, 2002, 11:30 PM
Graf is better than Court.

Venus is better than SErena!!!

Serena had ONE great year. This does not a champion make.
If she has another good year, then she can talk.

PhoenixStorm
Dec 24th, 2002, 11:34 PM
I answer my own question because I have an opinon and I want OTHER PEOPLE's opinon.

Also I agree that courts 24 is better than grafs 22 yet tell me why most people you ask consider graf the better player? Tell me why most people consider Sampras greater than everett, graf, narvitaloa(i butched her name I know), or court?

anton
Dec 24th, 2002, 11:39 PM
court won the oz open 11 times when nobody played it. graf won her slams against people like evert, both martinas, sabatini, capriati, seles, etc.

THE competition WAS MUCH TOUGHER for steffi than COURT!!!!!

phoenixstorm, what happened to your sig about listening to bjork on acid??

PhoenixStorm
Dec 25th, 2002, 12:27 AM
I changed it :-)
can't keep the same sig forever.

A grandslam is a grandslam no matter who plays it. Is it courts fault that no one went to play? they should have went.

anton
Dec 25th, 2002, 12:58 AM
the point that im trying to make is that as the years go by the girls get tougher so steffi's achievements are more notable for me than courts bc the girls were tougher just as in 2002 the girls are much tougher than in 1988 when steffi won her Grand Slam so for me if somebody wins a Grand Slam in 2003 or after for me it will be a bigger achievement than Steffi's since the girls are better now like there were no Williams sisters back then and Henin, Davenport, Amleie, etc.

way
Dec 25th, 2002, 01:10 AM
Just popping in to share my view.
Which is exactly the same as Rob's, i must say!

If she will, she'll surpass Davenport, Venus W.
Capriati is already closely behind her.
Hingis and Serena will be too close to call, Seles will still be ahead.
Totally agreed, Rob!

PhoenixStorm
Dec 25th, 2002, 01:12 AM
um how does she pass venus but jen is close behind when jen has less grandslams and less titles than venus?

Venus Forever
Dec 25th, 2002, 01:53 AM
I think he meant that Capriati is already a little behind her, RIGHT NOW. She'll get further away with a win.

kournikovafan13
Dec 25th, 2002, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by fhkung
if she wins AO, she should be able to surpass Venus
with 5 Grand Slams, also Jen and Lindsay,
but surpassing Martina? dont think so,
she is hyped right now, but this is her 1st yr at #1
and she's "already" 21, u cant make excuse
for her not making #1 before 20,
Martina has been #1 much longer than Serena,
unless Serena ends up #1 for the next 2 yrs,
i wouldnt consider her surpassning Hingis

I know this has been dealt with, but you are so blinded by your "love" for Martina, lol.

Grand Slams are far more important than the No.1 ranking, which Serena has got anyways, so she would be better any way you look at it.

SerialKiller#69
Dec 25th, 2002, 06:58 AM
several years from now, let's see...

irma
Dec 25th, 2002, 07:07 AM
serena will be considered as the greatest till she starts losing again.

remember till 2000 martina was a hot item in the best ever threads too!

fhkung
Dec 25th, 2002, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by irma
serena will be considered as the greatest till she starts losing again.

remember till 2000 martina was a hot item in the best ever threads too!
that's right, i predict that Serena will never win another Slam again, and Martina will win French and shut you Serena stalkers up, nobody touches my Martina, u hear me?:kiss: :hearts:

way
Dec 25th, 2002, 09:48 AM
SPOT ON, IRMA!!!
(as almost always, I must say)
:)

BasicTennis
Dec 25th, 2002, 10:02 AM
serena will be considered as the greatest till she starts her winning streak again from 2003 onwards.

remember till 2002 serena was a hot item in the best ever threads and this will continue for the next 3 years or so.;)

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 10:40 AM
Yeah you´re right Irma, but I can´t see Serena go the Hingis path any time soon. Can you imagine this Serena going more than 3 years & counting without winning a GS?! Don´ t think so! The player(s) to beat the sisters consistenly doesn´t exist and will never exist. You can beat them once in a while but never consistently.

Aloysius
Dec 25th, 2002, 01:56 PM
No one thought Martina Hingis would go slamless for a few years either. But it happened. Circumstances can change in a flash. In other words, you never know.

If Serena wins the Australian Open, she will remain the best player in the world right now. I wouldn't even contemplate comparisons with the greats until her career is over. That often leads to biased arguments.

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 02:01 PM
Agreed Aloysius.Everything can happen, but there is a big difference between Serena and Hingis....Hingis showed signs of vulnarebility to power players, where as now Serena thrives when she is playing other power players. In my opinion this year is the Serena-awakening and the girl won´t go to sleep any time soon! If she keeps her focus......she will go down as the greatest of her generation and enter legend status!!

Cybelle Darkholme
Dec 25th, 2002, 04:29 PM
I thought she would go slamless once the williams sisters picked up their game and got themselves together. Why? Because the sister did not play junior tennis, they were thrown on the tour and had to sink or swim learning as they went unlike martina and the other who were used to playing under pressure from junior tournaments.

I for one could see the potential in venus and serena just waiting to explode and I knew that explosion would wipe martinas career out of orbit. And you know what? They still haven't reached their potential yet.

What also threw me a curver ball was the resurgence of jen, jen bumped martina into the side lines just when it looked like she might score a big Victory again.

Also its not like martina doesnt have problems with davenport and know theres kim, justine, daniela, elena bovina the list goes on and on and these girls are getting better unlike martina who was the best and had no where to go but down.

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 06:42 PM
There you go cybel! The sisters( Serena specially) are just getting started and there is no stopping them for the time being!!

joao
Dec 25th, 2002, 08:08 PM
Serena is already a great player and the best player of the WTA right now. There's not much left for her to achieve (win the AO is one of them)!!! But to be considered as great as the greatests, Serena must defend at least one GS, which she will need to do b4 everybody starts putting her down ...
To win a GS is very difficult, to defend one is even more difficult IMO! Venus has done it, Martina has done it, Capriati has done it, Seles has done it ... and I believe Serena will defend one of hers too but she hasn't yet. That's why IMO, Hingis and Venus' career are still better than Serena's ... longevity and consistency at a high level are always better than ONE flashy fabulous year!!! Hingis was great in 97-99, Venus in 2000-02!

Seles' career will be hard to surpass by anyone ... she hasn't won the career GS (she was very close though) but I don't think anybody will win 7 GS in 3 years ever again ... BTW. Seles has been in 10 consecutive GS finals (and won 8 of them)!

Capriati has 3 GS (+Olympic gold) and a comeback story to put her up-there with the best ... doesn't need anything else to be remembered but will never be the greatest.

Davenport's career will always be below Venus, Hingis, Seles, Capriati or Serena's ...

fhkung
Dec 25th, 2002, 08:23 PM
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....:(

way
Dec 25th, 2002, 08:47 PM
fhkung !!!
Man, that's great!!!
Thanks for the stats!!!
Now throw Preopen Era into this and we finally have the truth!!!
(that is, it's Lenglen-Wills-Connolly-Court-Navratilova-Graf)
:)
REALLY THANK YOU!!!

PhoenixStorm
Dec 25th, 2002, 08:49 PM
I've read this article and find it funny to compare eras. YOU CANNOT COMPARE ERAS. Its like comparing mens to womens tennis. Times are different. The tour is different. Thats just a fact. Also you cannot compare retired players to players who still playing because the ones still active can still do so much.

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 10:06 PM
You´re correct joao! Although I wouldn´t put to much weight in that whole defending titles thing. If she wins the AO she´s already achieved what few other have achieved. I also think she will defende at least her Wimbledon and/ or US open titles.

fhkung
Dec 25th, 2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by PhoenixStorm
I've read this article and find it funny to compare eras. YOU CANNOT COMPARE ERAS. Its like comparing mens to womens tennis. Times are different. The tour is different. Thats just a fact. Also you cannot compare retired players to players who still playing because the ones still active can still do so much.
FINE! Serena is the bestest player TODAY....
now u satisfied?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

way
Dec 25th, 2002, 11:11 PM
Ok, so there's an agreement here, finally.
:)
FhKung, where did you get all these stats?

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 11:55 PM
Way: You can find them on tennisone.com. I wonder what people would be saying if Serena played 13 tourny´s, but no slams. If she won 12 of 13.....that would make her winning percentage 93 % of the tourny´s she played, but yet no one would be calling her dominatin so these statistics don´t mean anything. 3 gs´s are gs´s no matter how many other tourny´s you won or winning percentage!!

PhoenixStorm
Dec 26th, 2002, 12:00 AM
Look the numbers do not lie, 3 grandslams are 3 grandslams in one year. If rita kuti kis had done it I would be saying the same thing about her.

way
Dec 26th, 2002, 12:03 AM
Thanks for the info, Nuri!
:)

nuriboy
Dec 26th, 2002, 12:44 AM
You´re welcome way....

Kiswana
Dec 26th, 2002, 02:16 AM
IF?!

Surely you jest.

Experimentee
Dec 26th, 2002, 01:35 PM
If Serena wins AO i would order them like this:

1. Monica - 9 GS, no one can compete with that
2. Serena (i'd put career slam ahead of weeks at #1)
3. Hingis
4. Venus
5. Davenport
6. Capriati (same no of GS as Davenport, but less titles)