Tennis Forum banner

Who is the best?

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

Registered
Joined
20,165 Posts
Re: Who os the better grasscourter: Venus or Serena?

Close.... but Venus. Beat Davenport in final X 2. Played higher level tennis in most of them probably.
 

Registered
Joined
3,764 Posts
Re: Who os the better grasscourter: Venus or Serena?

After that, please don't tell me that Serena is the best on grass. Except her serve, she is very poor
 

Trainwreck
Joined
60,170 Posts
Vee's last remaining wig and Ree just snatched it :sobbing:.

For all of Vee's game better suited for grass, Serena's 3-1 against her in Wimbledon finals (3-2 at Wimbledon overall), and now that she's equalled her title count there's really no argument for Venus anymore. A game more suited to the surface means nothing if you can't implement it more times than your sister who's only serve is really suited for grass.
 

Premium Member
Joined
40,209 Posts
Venus still has that extra final 5-3 vs 5-2 for Serena
Isn't it more impressive that she won as many titles in 8 finals as Venus did in 9? :shrug:
 

Premium Member
Joined
40,209 Posts
:spit:

I guess Myskina must be greater than Serena then, seeing as she has a 100% winning record in Slam finals and Serena doesn't :hearts:
Really?! :weirdo:


Serena's seen 17 more major finals than Myskina.


I know you're pressed, but come on.
 

Registered
Joined
1,606 Posts
Isn't it more impressive that she won as many titles in 8 finals as Venus did in 9? :shrug:
No.

That would only make sense if Serena had only entered 8 Wimbledon tournaments and those were her results every time (being a finalist or winner).

With your logic, in this scenario of Wimbledon results for two players:

Player A: Winner - Lost 1R - Lost 1R - Lost 1R - Lost 1R
Player B: Winner - Runner Up - Runner Up - Runner Up - Runner Up

Player A would be better than player B for having won the title once in 1 Final, whereas player B won the title once in 5 finals.
 

Premium Member
Joined
8,951 Posts
No.

That would only make sense if Serena had only entered 8 Wimbledon tournaments and those were her results every time (being a finalist or winner).

With your logic, in this scenario of Wimbledon results for two players:

Player A: Winner - Lost 1R - Lost 1R - Lost 1R - Lost 1R
Player B: Winner - Runner Up - Runner Up - Runner Up - Runner Up

Player A would be better than player B for having won the title once in 1 Final, whereas player B won the title once in 5 finals.
Eh, that's not really fair, comparing winning something once, to having MULTIPLE Grand Slams. I rather win 5/7 than 5/8, you know?
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top