US Open Women's Final

[EricLA]

You know, Navritalova beat Chrissy Everett with a record of 43-37. They played over the course of 15 years. On paper, Chris should never have won - Martina had the serve, better net play, and hit the ball harder. But IMHO, she was mentally more fragile than Everett and it's a testament to their great rivalry that their record against each other was so close.

Serena played like she was from another planet for much of the summer, and on paper, she should probably beat everyone in straight sets. she has the physical tools necessary. but it's not she's playing high school kids. these are other pros and any chink in her armor gives an opening for other players to beat her. I can't stand Azarenka's squealing and screaming on the court. but you can't deny the girl's got talent...

 

[Wbbfan1]

When Stefi Graf, Navritalova, and Everett played there were three countries that provided most of the elite tennis players. They were Australia, USA and Great Britain. Now tennis is played in more countries and IMHO the field in the majors are much more competitive then they were 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[alexrgct]

For Serena to win 4 straight games while looking in the face of defeat is incredible. I can't say I've seen Graff, Seles, etc. play because they were before my time. But I have grown up watching Serena play tennis. So for me she's the pinnacle of women's tennis in this generation, with her sister being right up there with her. Other current players have shown flashes but for Serena to still be dominating after all these years and at the age of 30 is amazing.

The eras were very different, but Graf was one of the toughest players mentally that I've ever seen. The last time a women's US Open championship went the distance was 1995. That was a year no one wanted Graf to win (Seles had just come back and people were pulling for her), and her dad was embroiled in a tax fraud situation tha threatened to embroil her as well. Graf won the first set tiebreak by the slimmest of margins and then totally dogged it in the second set, getting bagled. She came back to take the third set 6-3. I'd say that match was very similar to this match for Serena- not her best tennis with (for very different reasons) her legacy on the line, but managed to gut it out under adverse conditions.

The GOAT question gets convluted because people tend to apply different weights to different criteria in making their arguments. Generally, most people have some kind of formula that includes "who would win in a mythical head-to-head match in their primes", overall career accomplishments, and era-specific dominance. Serena probably gets the nod in the first area (though given the changes in equipment and training, that's kind of a weird argument to have). For Serena, she's a bit short on the other two criteria for the same reason, namely, during a five-year stretch that should have been her prime (2004-2008), she won "only" five majors. Amazingly, as you indicated, she's managed to have a second prime at a relatively advanced age in tennis terms, and if she can sustain that, I think the second two criteria get taken care of. She presumably won't get to Steffi's 22 majors, but if she can match Martina and Chrissie at 18 (something I think she really needed to win today to do), her case becomes really, really strong. One glaring hole in her resume: "only" one French Open.

 

[DEK1234]

Azarenka is a more deserving #1 than some who've reached that ranking recently, but the ranking system is jacked up enough that I don't take too much stock in it. Serena has dominated Azarenka head-to-head, including absolutely embarrassing her in the Olympics. On this day, she didn't serve well and hit more errors than she usually does. Some of that absolutely had to do with the amount of pressure Azarenka applied, but some of it was just poor play.

By winning, she gets to #15 in terms of major titles, which is one more step closer to GOAT. But in order to be considered thusly on a consensus basis, she will need to match the career accomplishments of the women she's trying to pass or simply be more dominant. Today was one step closer to doing the former, but not the latter.

How do we know that Serena's sitting there waiting to be unanimously considered the GOAT? I promise you even if she had a few more titles, there would still be the naysayers. So maybe she's happy and grateful for winning 15 titles and being one of, if not the greatest, of her generation. And the cherry on top is that she got to enjoy the ride with her sister as well with all those doubles titles!

 

[alexrgct]

You know, Navritalova beat Chrissy Everett with a record of 43-37. They played over the course of 15 years. On paper, Chris should never have won - Martina had the serve, better net play, and hit the ball harder. But IMHO, she was mentally more fragile than Everett and it's a testament to their great rivalry that their record against each other was so close.

Serena played like she was from another planet for much of the summer, and on paper, she should probably beat everyone in straight sets. she has the physical tools necessary. but it's not she's playing high school kids. these are other pros and any chink in her armor gives an opening for other players to beat her. I can't stand Azarenka's squealing and screaming on the court. but you can't deny the girl's got talent...

The Chrissie-Martina overall record is somewhat misleading because Chrissie was dominant in 1970s. Martina needed time to become physically and mentally fit. Once she did, she went on a ridiculous run from 1982 to 1987 where she won 15 of her 18 majors, including six in a row. During that stretch, the only surface where Chrissie really had a good chance was on clay.

 

[alexrgct]

When Stefi Graf, Navritalova, and Everett played there were three countries that provided most of the elite tennis players. They were Australia, USA and Great Britain. Now tennis is played in more countries and IMHO the field in the majors are much more competitive then they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Although the talent pool is deeper, the talent pool at the top is weaker. A lot of fragility, very little sustained excellence other than Serena.

 

[alexrgct]

How do we know that Serena's sitting there waiting to be unanimously considered the GOAT? I promise you even if she had a few more titles, there would still be the naysayers. So maybe she's happy and grateful for winning 15 titles and being one of, if not the greatest, of her generation. And the cherry on top is that she got to enjoy the ride with her sister as well with all those doubles titles!

If she can stay healthy and win a few more slams, there will be very few naysayers.

I don't think she's happy or grateful to have gotten to 15. Obviously, I don't live inside her head, but I doubt she would be pushing herself like this now if she didn't feel like she left something on the table earlier in her career. She kind of joked with BJK when she won her 13th major at Wimbledon in 2010 that she'd surpassed BJK's talley of 12, and I think the number 18 is firmly in her sights right now.

 

[VAUConnFan]

No actually it's not. Not if she wants to be considered better than Martina or Steffi. She played an inferior match in a championship round against a game opponent but not one who should have pushed Serena to the limit.

Azarenka is ranked Number 1, yet you give her no credit at all. Give her some credit. She was outgunned and still found a way to make this competitive. Granted, Serena was no where close to her best and had a ton of unforced errors. Still, let's give the opponent some credit. She was ranked number 1 and made it to the finals in what turned out to be a tougher draw.

Then, you cast aspersions on Serena's legacy as if 15 grand slams in a very competitive field of women over a 13 year period does not impress you.

Steffi Graf at her best might have a chance against Serena Williams. Martina Navratilova, however, with her serve and volley game and lack of power has two chances of beating Serena; Slim and none.

 

[alexrgct]

Azarenka is ranked Number 1, yet you give her no credit at all. Give her some credit. She was outgunned and still found a way to make this competitive. Granted, Serena was no where close to her best and had a ton of unforced errors. Still, let's give the opponent some credit. She was ranked number 1 and made it to the finals in what turned out to be a tougher draw.

Then, you cast aspersions on Serena's legacy as if 15 grand slams in a very competitive field of women over a 13 year period does not impress you.

Steffi Graf at her best might have a chance against Serena Williams. Martina Navratilova, however, with her serve and volley game and lack of power has two chances of beating Serena; Slim and none.

Again, being ranked #1 is completely meaningless. Caroline Wozniacki has been ranked #1. Dinara Safina has been ranked #1. Ana ivanovic has been ranked #1. I believe Azarenka is a more worthy #1 than many recent #1s (something I stated explicitly earlier in the thread), but this match was close because Serena started missing her shots. Azarenka applied more pressure than most (again, something I stated earlier in the thread), but there's a reason she is 1-9 against Serena. She doesn't have the weapons to stand up to her. It's not even a contrast of styles where Azarenka wins with guile and Serena with power. Azarenka can outhit most opponents. Not Serena.

This is NOT a competitive field. The women's draw is weaker than it's been in years. Parity does not mean competitive. It can just mean no one is historically great. When the field was more competitive, Serena did not dominate. A lot of it has to do with injuries and focus on stuff other than tennis, but you can't ignore that from 2004-2008, she won only five majors. No one said 15 majors wasn't impressive. Of course it is. But Steffi and Martina were more dominant in their eras than Serena has been in hers. Serena has a chance to change that over the next few years of her body holds up (and for the record I think she will), but she's not there yet. Her best tennis is better than anyone who has ever played. Her worst tennis is below some of the other all-time greats, and she plays it with somewhat greater frequency. This has to be noted when considering who the best ever is, as is her relative weakness on clay (by contrast, Steffi didn't care for clay either relative to grass and hardcourt and still won the French Open six times).

Saying Martina's game wouldn't hold up to Serena makes little sense. No one serves and volleys anymore. There's no reason to because you can generate power and sharp angles from the baseline (which is a safer place to be). Throw Martina into the modern game, and she would have challenges as a serve and volleyer. Give Serena a wooden racket and catgut strings, and she'd be challenged to beat Martina. Give both of them the same equipment and access o the same training and let them play a year later, and who knows what would happen. Serena would still have more power, but Martina would have a better sense of how to construct a point and have more secondary plans if her Plan A wasn't working. I actually think it'd be a fascinating match.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Alex, although it is easy to disagree it is difficult to argue against a well constructed rebuttal.

 

[VAMike23]

Again, being ranked #1 is completely meaningless. Caroline Wozniacki has been ranked #1. Dinara Safina has been ranked #1. Ana ivanovic has been ranked #1. I believe Azarenka is a more worthy #1 than many recent #1s (something I stated explicitly earlier in the thread), but this match was close because Serena started missing her shots. Azarenka applied more pressure than most (again, something I stated earlier in the thread), but there's a reason she is 1-9 against Serena. She doesn't have the weapons to stand up to her. It's not even a contrast of styles where Azarenka wins with guile and Serena with power. Azarenka can outhit most opponents. Not Serena.

This is NOT a competitive field. The women's draw is weaker than it's been in years. Parity does not mean competitive. It can just mean no one is historically great. When the field was more competitive, Serena did not dominate. A lot of it has to do with injuries and focus on stuff other than tennis, but you can't ignore that from 2004-2008, she won only five majors. No one said 15 majors wasn't impressive. Of course it is. But Steffi and Martina were more dominant in their eras than Serena has been in hers. Serena has a chance to change that over the next few years of her body holds up (and for the record I think she will), but she's not there yet. Her best tennis is better than anyone who has ever played. Her worst tennis is below some of the other all-time greats, and she plays it with somewhat greater frequency. This has to be noted when considering who the best ever is, as is her relative weakness on clay (by contrast, Steffi didn't care for clay either relative to grass and hardcourt and still won the French Open six times).

Saying Martina's game wouldn't hold up to Serena makes little sense. No one serves and volleys anymore. There's no reason to because you can generate power and sharp angles from the baseline (which is a safer place to be). Throw Martina into the modern game, and she would have challenges as a serve and volleyer. Give Serena a wooden racket and catgut strings, and she'd be challenged to beat Martina. Give both of them the same equipment and access o the same training and let them play a year later, and who knows what would happen. Serena would still have more power, but Martina would have a better sense of how to construct a point and have more secondary plans if her Plan A wasn't working. I actually think it'd be a fascinating match.

Lots of good points made here on several interesting aspects of the women's game in recent years. I have a couple of thoughts:

1. While Serena's serve has always been very good, and more fundamentally sound than her sister's, it has not always been universally regarded as the best in the women's game, even if you took Venus out of the equation. Likewise, Serena has always been a power player but recently she has dialed up the power even more, to a quite amazing level, as a function of more confidence and a more attacking mindset. As Errani mentioned after their semi-final match, there are lower-level pros on the men's side that do not hit as hard as Serena. My point is that while Serena's style is much the same as it was in 2004-2008--she was a hard hitter and great server then, too--she is playing at a different level now, IMHO. If you took the 2012 Serena and put her back in 2004-2008, I think she would have a couple more majors in that time.

2. I agree that the parity does not equal quality. To me, this manifests itself more in the semis and finals. However, in tennis as in any other game (golf for example) everyone can have an off day, and I think there are more young baseline-bashers now than ever who can ruin your day and send you packing in the early rounds if you're playing badly. If you, as a great player, make it to the semis/finals as expected, then yes, there are fewer champions out there roaming around. But being great today requires a little higher level tennis and consistency to make it safely to the end than it used to. I was more shocked back in the day when Martina or Steffi didn't make it to the semi or final than I am if Serena or anyone else today has a hiccup early on.

3. Martina/Serena. In general, I would give this one to Serena 2012 because of Serena's stellar return game. HOWEVER, we so seldom see any serve and volleyers in the women's game anymore that we forget how pressure can affect the returner. Serena always appears calm but she has said that she is usually a cauldron of nerves inside, and we see this in tight moments sometimes, especially when she is not hitting her spots. A server/volleyer of Martina's caliber might well cause even Serena's return game to develop some tightness. As I said, I still think Serena's return game would win the day, but I would not just assume her usual return game against Martina. MN was the GOAT in serve/volley on the women's side, and this match would be interesting. I completely agree with your Plan A / Plan B analysis of a MN/SW match as well. Martina had a much better 'feel' game and could improvise better as well as manufacture a wide variety of shots from midcourt, in "no-man's land." (This is not Serena's strength of course, and overall she has fewer dimensions to her game.) Serena has great speed which can help negate those kinds of shots sometimes, but Steffi was even faster and Martina still had great points against her in their matches.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Couple of points:

• Different eras are indeed different eras, and trying to compare Martina to Serena in some weird virtual match when they both were focused on succeeding in different conditions is silly, and to saddle Serena with ancient technology and disparaging her chances of succeeding have more than a silly factor to them. She has succeeded under a variety of today's conditions with brains, muscle, and quickness to such an extent that the knowledgeable tennis veteran pro's broadcasting the match are often acclaiming her the greatest ever.
• Disparaging the quality of today's players and the challenges to Serena is shortsighted. At two weeks shy of 31, Serena has shrugged off a variety of past injuries and is powering through fields that include or have recently included top players with Grand Slam titles that include Clijsters, Sharapova, Azarenka, Stosur, Kvitova, Li Na, and Schiavone, and in the past decade had powerhouses (real ones, not MD type) like Henin, Venus, Capriati, Clijsters again and many other strong players who won the majors. Navratilova's singles titles spanned three decades but were mainly in the 1980s when she was quashing Evert in the mid-to-late years, got passed by the younger Graf at the end of it, and the decade had only the semi-remembered Hana Mandlikova as another multiple majors winner besides those three. Navratilova won her last major against the legendary(?) Zina Garrison, who had no prayer of getting to the that apparently worthless #1 ranking that Azarenka holds (first time I heard of holding a top-ranking as a flaw for a player, especially when much of the scorn heaped on the #1 ranking is simply because Serena gets up to win the majors while being a lot less attentive to the hordes of other tournaments). Serena has faced much stronger competition from a host of young power hitters who often have gotten worn out by the modern era physical stresses of endless schedules and 110-120 mph serves. But at an advanced age, Serena looks better than ever against the young challengers at an age where Navratilova was being passed by Graf, who took that scorned #1 ranking in 1987 on her way to passing Navratilova as the all-time #1 for weeks at top.
• Serena is supremely smart, as was Navratilova. Seeing how Serena has broken down the court and the fundamentals of today's game is breathtaking, and I have absolutely no doubts she could have done the same 20-30 years before. There are some who look upon her as just the power monster who can sweep her opponents off the court by sheer force of titanium swings, but anyone seeing her play knows of the incredible footwork, speed, and brainiac anticipation that make her the best even under trying conditions when she doesn't have her best game.
• And yesterday fighting the winds against a strong and crafty opponent, Serena showed why she's the best ever. She had the brains and will to fight back to the championship when the conditions changed up the strategy needed to win it. I saw Martina win a lot of those matches too through her control of nerves and her ability to play within herself. It's whiny and silly to expect that the greats will always be at their greatest when they are facing top players under adverse conditions, but Serena has done it enough times in my book to let me recognize her as the best ever, just as a long time ago I was forced to give up my childhood allegiances and recognize Michael Jordan as a greater player than my revered Jerry West even if Mr. Clutch never got to use the 3-point shot. Conditions change but we should still try to live in reality.

 

[wallman]

I was a huge fan of Graf and her husband, thought Martina was great but didn't enjoy her as much as Graf. Evert pure class. I think there is a lot of personal preference in the game as far as opinions goes, as I like finesse and power, great returners which there aren't many make the game great to watch IMO, I think Serena has really improved in this area. She has had her down times though, distractions, injuries etc but boy the way she came back in that 3rd set was awesome.

 

[caravaggio]

As a former massive fan of Serena (am still a fan, but no longer as intensely), I too think she has significantly improved her serve and overall game, not only in raw power but very much in point construction and consistency. I believe one significant cause is her change in racquets and strings. She (and Venus) used to use these insanely powerful "improver racquets" that you usually see amongst the "more mature club members" with natural gut. A few years ago, they switched to traditional "players racquets" and modern strings providing more control, feel, and spin.

I tried a few times to use some of their racquets (remember the insanely huge ones they used in the early 2000s). I literally could not keep over 50% of the balls in the court because they were so light and powerful.

Lots of good points made here on several interesting aspects of the women's game in recent years. I have a couple of thoughts:

1. While Serena's serve has always been very good, and more fundamentally sound than her sister's, it has not always been universally regarded as the best in the women's game, even if you took Venus out of the equation. Likewise, Serena has always been a power player but recently she has dialed up the power even more, to a quite amazing level, as a function of more confidence and a more attacking mindset. As Errani mentioned after their semi-final match, there are lower-level pros on the men's side that do not hit as hard as Serena. My point is that while Serena's style is much the same as it was in 2004-2008--she was a hard hitter and great server then, too--she is playing at a different level now, IMHO. If you took the 2012 Serena and put her back in 2004-2008, I think she would have a couple more majors in that time.

 

[VAUConnFan]

I was a huge fan of Graf and her husband, thought Martina was great but didn't enjoy her as much as Graf. Evert pure class. I think there is a lot of personal preference in the game as far as opinions goes, as I like finesse and power, great returners which there aren't many make the game great to watch IMO, I think Serena has really improved in this area. She has had her down times though, distractions, injuries etc but boy the way she came back in that 3rd set was awesome.

Agreed! One can never count her out of a match.

 

[VAMike23]

I believe one significant cause is her change in racquets and strings. She (and Venus) used to use these insanely powerful "improver racquets" that you usually see amongst the "more mature club members" with natural gut. A few years ago, they switched to traditional "players racquets" and modern strings providing more control, feel, and spin.

I tried a few times to use some of their racquets (remember the insanely huge ones they used in the early 2000s). I literally could not keep over 50% of the balls in the court because they were so light and powerful.

I had forgotten (if I ever noticed) that Venus and Serena used oversize (110+) racquets in their early careers...?? The sweetspot on those things is not only massive, it also has a 'hot' spot that will rocket the ball out of the park if you're not careful. At least this is how it was back in 'my day' (80's and early 90s). IIRC, watching Serena last night, she was using a Wilson frame of some sort, that looked fairly good sized. But maybe it's a midsize? I always greatly preferred midsize racquets when I was playing. I still have two old tried and true Prince Spectrum 90 frames in the trunk of my car... haven't gotten them out in at least 2 yrs! Old frames but I like 'em.

RE: strings - it used to be that real gut was superior for control over any synthetic string. I was told that natural gut 'cups' the ball more on impact and that rather than trampolining, this improved control due to greater time on the strings and more spin. Or something like that Maybe new strings have caught up and surpassed gut?

 

[caravaggio]

She uses a midplus now, but it's not only the size but also the string pattern, swing weight, head heaviness that makes her racket much more suitable (more control-oriented). She still uses natural gut for the mains and luxilon for the crosses.

I did make a mistake in my original comment: natural gut still has the most feel...but the modern strings provide more control and spin. For awhile, when the ALU Banger strings first came out, the majority of the tour started using it because they could hit out so much more but still keep the ball in with the extra spin provided by the strings.

I had forgotten (if I ever noticed) that Venus and Serena used oversize (110+) racquets in their early careers...?? The sweetspot on those things is not only massive, it also has a 'hot' spot that will rocket the ball out of the park if you're not careful. At least this is how it was back in 'my day' (80's and early 90s). IIRC, watching Serena last night, she was using a Wilson frame of some sort, that looked fairly good sized. But maybe it's a midsize? I always greatly preferred midsize racquets when I was playing. I still have two old tried and true Prince Spectrum 90 frames in the trunk of my car... haven't gotten them out in at least 2 yrs! Old frames but I like 'em.

RE: strings - it used to be that real gut was superior for control over any synthetic string. I was told that natural gut 'cups' the ball more on impact and that rather than trampolining, this improved control due to greater time on the strings and more spin. Or something like that Maybe new strings have caught up and surpassed gut?

 

[arty155]

...natural gut still has the most feel...

Sufferin Succotash!

My gut reaction is… it "feels" natural right where it is!

 

[Icebear]

Most gut is not cat gut but rather is lamb's gut.

 

[arty155]

Most gut is not cat gut but rather is lamb's gut.

"What is the nice man trying to tell me, Mommy? "

 

[Icebear]

Ewe, too, Brutus.

 

[bbsamjj]

The Williams sisters have always done things differently, but it seems to work out for the most part. Alex is correct that logically, 2004-2008 should have produced better results for Serena. But from 2009-2012, when most players would hit the downturn of their careers, she's won 6/13 grand slams she's played in, and right now, it doesn't seem like anyone can beat her if she's on her game. If she maintains her average right now of 2 grand slams per year (something she's done in 3/4 years, and in 2011 she only played in 2 slams), 18 is very much in sight.

As for Steffi Graf, she was a fantastic player for sure--perhaps the best ever, but who were the other great players during her time? She came in at the tale end of Martina/Chrissy, won 9 grand slams in just about 3 years, saw Seles win 7/9 Grand Slams at one point, and then went back to dominating after the horrific Seles stabbing incident. Seles returned, but never to her form of before, and there wasn't anyone else that great to challenge Graf.

Serena sometimes beats herself, as we all know, but I'd say Venus and Henin were both better players than most of the players Graf faced in her time.

 

[easttexastrash]

The Williams sisters have always done things differently, but it seems to work out for the most part. Alex is correct that logically, 2004-2008 should have produced better results for Serena. But from 2009-2012, when most players would hit the downturn of their careers, she's won 6/13 grand slams she's played in, and right now, it doesn't seem like anyone can beat her if she's on her game. If she maintains her average right now of 2 grand slams per year (something she's done in 3/4 years, and in 2011 she only played in 2 slams), 18 is very much in sight.

As for Steffi Graf, she was a fantastic player for sure--perhaps the best ever, but who were the other great players during her time? She came in at the tale end of Martina/Chrissy, won 9 grand slams in just about 3 years, saw Seles win 7/9 Grand Slams at one point, and then went back to dominating after the horrific Seles stabbing incident. Seles returned, but never to her form of before, and there wasn't anyone else that great to challenge Graf.

Serena sometimes beats herself, as we all know, but I'd say Venus and Henin were both better players than most of the players Graf faced in her time.

Great analysis. I have thought the exact same thing about Graf's career. Her only rival was taken out of the game. BUT, that is not to say that she was not one of the most talented ever. She certainly was the fastest I've ever seen and her forehand and that carving slice backhand were incredible shots.