[forehand27]

I think this is their best match vs each other. Neither in their prime but both still at a high level and not a huge amount from their best (well a considerable amount but the closest they would ever be together probably). Very hard hitting, both in decent shape for their standards (considering both can be walruses at various points of their careers, lol), great angles, great movement and defense when needed from Serena, great serving from Serena and sometimes from Seles, great returning, very good mental focus and fight from Seles, and some nice volleys and all court play from Serena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-i8SlKbYcI

[forehand27]

Originally Posted by Matt01

Pierce in 1997 wasn't even close to her peak.

To borrow your reference from the peak Pierce thread who was closer to her peak in 1997, Pierce or Seles? Obvious answer is Pierce by a landslide, that was Seles's worst year of professional tennis until her final year in 2003 where she was 30, and both too old and injured for the game by then.

Secondly Pierce's peak is not dependent on an overall year or time frame, you obviously know that otherwise you wouldnt even dare try to argue peak Pierce is superior to all. It is dependent on her form in completely random and rare matches or tournaments, which can take place any year she is even in the top 10. I wouldnt say the 97 U.S Open and Pierce's match vs Seles was absolute peak Pierce, but it was a very good Pierce who wasnt a huge margin below her peak. If you will notice from watching the match Pierce was playing very well, and you will note Mary Carillo is raving about how well she is playing, yet she still got well beaten and thumped in the last 2 sets by a very fat and slumping Seles in one of her worst years ever. So any question who would win between them at their peak is not even worth discussing.

Lastly it could easily be argued 1997 is one of Pierce's best years. She made both a slam final and a WTA Championship (the biggest non slam event) final. In her career she has only made 8 of those, and 2 of them were this year alone, and this is one of only 2 years she made 2 or more of such major finals in the same year. She also won a tier 1 event, something she only did 4 years of her whole career (5 total tier 1 titles in her career), reached 5 finals of tier 2 caliber or higher, one of the only times she managed that. She reached atleast the round of 16 of every major event, one of only two years she managed that. The only years she could be argued to have had a better year than 1997 are:

1994- Yet that said she didnt even win a tournament that year.
1995- Yet that said she did poorly in almost all the major events after the Australian Open.
2000- Although did nothing and eventually got injured after Roland Garros.
2005

Oddly enough 2005 on paper is her best year ever despite being age 30. 3 major finals (including the WTA Championships), only year ever with two tier 1 titles. Yet despite this she got destroyed in both her slam finals and never got higher than #5 in a weak disoriented year for womens tennis. So if are narrowing peak Pierce down to years as you seem to wish this was probably the all time peak Pierce, year end #5, loser of 3 major finals, and a 2 times slam final smackdowned in a bad year for the WTA. So yep Peak Pierce = peak GOAT.

As this topic isnt about peak Pierce I will not mention her again in this thread but thanks for that, this was alot of fun.

[tonybotz]

95 Seles would win majority.

[Joelina]

only peak Bammer can beat peak Serena, deal with it.

[Chrissie-fan]

Grass - Serena
Clay - Seles
Hardcourt - Let's get ready to rumble.

[Tag]

but peak seles couldn't even beat injured graf

serena easily

maybe seles might win sometimes on clay, but this peak, so serena

[forehand27]

Here are how some of their stats compare peak to peak:

Serena in 2002-2003: Won 5 of 6 slams played (83%), won 2 of 3 WTA Championships/Miami/Olympics (67%), 56-5 in 2002 (91%), 8 of 13 tournaments played won in 2002 (61%), 2003 singles record 38-3 (92%), won 4 of 7 tournaments played (57%)

Seles in 2002-2003: Won 6 of 8 slams (75%), won 3 of 4 WTA Championships/Miami/Olympics (75%), 74-6 in 1991 (92%), 10 of 16 tournaments played won (62%), won 10 of 15 tournaments played (67%)

So very close stats all around. The biggest difference is Seles's winning 67% of tournaments played in 1992 vs 57% for Serena in 2003, but the clay season had just finished so Serena's percentage was likely shooting way up had she been able to complete the year. That and Serena winning 83% of the slams she played in 2002-2003 vs Seles winning 6 of 8 slams (missing Wimbledon is basically a write off as she was never winning it anyway) for 75%.

Overall I would still give the edge to Serena since she had tougher competition, faced a stronger and deeper field. Also since she could win on all surfaces, unlike Seles. She also owned her biggest rivals moreso than Seles, the only top player or any player for that matter to beat Serena more than once was Henin on clay 3 times, and Henin could not come close to Serena on any other surface then. Seles meanwhile lost 3 times to Graf (3 out of 4 matches), 4 times to Navratilova, 2 times to Capriati, 2 times to Sabatini, and once to Sanchez Vicario. Lastly I am completely sure had Serena been able to play the 2002 Australian, 2003 U.S Open, and 2004 Australian Open she wins all 3 and wins 8 of 9 slams, which is greater than Seles's peak streak of 7 of 9.

[homogenius]

it's not just a question of surfaces or match-up.Peak Seles brought so much intensity in her matches (especially the big ones)from first point to the last one.I think Serena would have a hard time dealing with that even on hc so I'd say :
clay : seles
grass : serena
hc : 50/50

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by forehand27

Lastly I am completely sure had Serena been able to play the 2002 Australian, 2003 U.S Open, and 2004 Australian Open she wins all 3 and wins 8 of 9 slams, which is greater than Seles's peak streak of 7 of 9.

[forehand27]

It seems you take issue with what I said but who was ever going to beat her at any of those events. The 2002 Australian Open doesnt even warrant a discussion, Serena was completely dominant that year, of her closest rivals Venus was injured and not a factor there and Davenport didnt even play. Furthermore nobody was even playing well at the event, the final between Capriati and Hingis was absolutely terrible.

The 2003 U.S Open and 2004 Australian Opens were won by Justine Henin. Justine Henin did not post her first win over Serena on hard courts until 2007. No further explanation needed.

[markdelaney]

Why do people keep making polls with Peak Serena against another player ? Peak Serena has taken the game to a level never seen before. Nobody can live with her when she plays her best, not even Venus.