Originally Posted by lloyders76
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.