Serena has now got 8 Grandslams and her acheivements at the moment are 'out of reach' for the current players. Her next obstacles is history. With 9 Grandslams is Monica Seles. This thread is to compare their acheivements, ability and if Serena will surpass her.

(N.B. I never saw Seles play so have only got half of the picture)

It is general consent that Seles would have won more slams if she had not been stabbed. She never won Wimbledon however, and whilst some people beleive she would have, I think with Steffi around she was never going to win the grass slam. Serena on the other hand has won all four and she did that consecutively.

Seles was perhaps the first real 'power player' so she brought something new to the game. Serena did the same with Venus, renewing the power game again and perhaps with more athleticism. So they both brought something new to the game.

My verdict is that at the moment Seles edges it (not just because of #slams). Serena I beleive will go on to be greater than her increasing her singles slams (and she already beats her on doubles acheivements). Another thing in Serena's favour is that in my opinion on her day she is unbeatable and her peak play is higher than Graf's, Navritalova's, Evert's, Seles etc.

All subjective opinion of course. Your veiws.

I wouldnt say out of reach, henin, venus or hingis can just come and take the next 3 slams. Now thats what I call tennis everthing is in reach for everyone.

I said 'at the moment'. Hingis hasn't won a slam since what 1999? Venus is much more capable than Hingis to win say Wimbledon or the US 'out of the blue' but has won 1 slam since 2001. Henin despite reaching 4 finals last year has won only Roland Garross since early 2004.

At the moment it is looking at a minimum of 2-3 years for any of them to reach 8 slams and that is if Serena herself doesn't win anymore.

So with a +3 differential she is quite far ahead of the field at the moment making this debate worthwhile.

seles over serena - for now.

You dont say :doh:

I think there's a very good chance that Serena will end her career with more slams than Seles; she has already surpassed some of Seles' achievements.

I think their legacies are on a par for the moment, but Serena should move herself up in the list of all time greats hopefully.

Seles' achievements are unique though, she was so dominant 1991-1993 and was such a great advocate of the game, and still is of course. I have a lot of respect for Monica and she was robbed really, as she *could* have been up there with Graf, Navratilva, Court and Evert as the best of all time. Sadly she isn't quite in their league in the current standings I feel :(

Here's hoping Serena continues to move up the Slam List though :yahoo:

The thing with Seles is that she will always be considered one of the greats in peoples hearts, even if not in the record books. I just hope people still talk about her in 100 years time :wub:

Well she's definitely one of the greats. I just don't think she's quite on the highest level with Graf and Navratilova etc. Mainly because she never won Wimbledon I guess :(

Did anyone else hear Serena call Seles her all time great? Is it that may be serena thinks Mrs Agassi also took advantage of WEAK era like I do.

Justine could surpass Serena or Seles for that matter. She already has 5 slams ad remember she was in the finals of all the slams last year. She could easily do better than that and win more slams. Her game is suitable for all surfaces and she is a real threat on Rolland Garros.
Now, Seles vs Serena: Its tough. I would go with seles because she played whilst the great steffi was still playing and still wo those grand slams. Serena didnt have any oponent of steffis quality whilst she was dominating. Now, even thiugh she won the A.O, she hasnt played Justine or Mauresmo or shall I say Lindsey!. And on her day Sharapova can give her a run for her money.

I think its a tough task for Justine to surpass Serena. If Serena stays on tour again then Justine can hope to split their matches 50-50 AT BEST. Even then she has to catchup 3 slams and make breakthroughs at slam finals. She was weak mentally last year and Serena's final percentage just shows her tougher mentality.

ANd playing devil's advocate on your Serena Seles thoughts. Whilst Monica had the great Steffi, during Serena's slams there was a host of good players generally making it one of THE toughest era's. Davenport, Venus, Hingis, Justine, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Capriati and even Seles and Graf at the beginning though not when she was dominating.

As for Sharapova taking on Serena when she has a good day. Well Sharapova has shown that ONCE in my opinion and Serena just didn't turn up. It depends on what form they are in. Sure Sharapova will give her a run for her money if Sharapova is 'on' and Serena is 'off' - Wimbledon 2004. The other times Serena is most likely to win. She leads the H2H 3-2 and Sharapova's YEC win in 2004 was when Serena got a little injury at 4-0 up in the third.

If Serena ties Monica, which I'm sure she will, then I place Serena above her, by virtue of the 'Serena Slam', also the fact that Serena has won the Slam in doubles, but Monica :( Should have won so many more major titles, even in the early 00s, she should have won the '02 Aussie Open, she was playing so well :(

I agree that its a tough ask for Justine but she could well win the F.O which leaves her 2 short. But of course you can say Serena has more chance in USO.
I dont rate any of the players you mentioned (Venus, Lindey, Hingis, clisters, Justine etc) in the same class as Steffi. Well, none of them are no were near steffi. You need only one player to stop a person winning a GS. SO having a single steffi is more than enpugh to stop Seles win her Slams. If she was good enough to win against steffi, she would have beaten JHH, Venus, Davenport etc. (Now, iam not comparing eras. I know steffis era is different from Serena's era. But both are strong in their respective eras).

You could also say that Steffi didn't have any opponents of Serena's quality when she was competing ;) Apart from Monica of course!

Im not quite sure I understand your point about Serena not having to face Justine, Momo or Lindsay to win the AO either. Lindsay has retired, and either way she's proven herself against all three more than adequately time and time again. Sharapova can indeed give Serena a run for her money, if Serena decides she wants the extra exercise. On the otherhand she may decide she wants the money right off and make short work of her, a la AO 2007 :P

Serena could well win the FO which would tie her with Seles :D

Not according to your sig . . . :P

Is no one answering me? I bet you all think the same then. Steffi is another federer if she was in this era she would be steamrolled.

Chairman, you are a mindless troll.

I wonder what it makes you. To be frank I think I should tell the mods to keep an eye on you because you seem to have some kidda fixation on me. You better not be some kind of perve. I turn 19 this year anyway therefore I might be too old for whatever you are planning.

:doh:

:doh:

Steffi spanned more than one era anyway so you cant call it weak. She had Navvy to contend with, then ASV, Seles, Pierce and Hingis and Davenport towards the end. I have never been a Steffi fan, but she constantly beat just about everyone so theres nothing weak about it

I kind of agree with this. Seles achievements would have been up there with those others had she continued to play at her best and not suffered the stabbing. But in my opinion she is already up there with them in terms of skill and ability.

I remember when she won the French in 1990. She was amazing and the whole tennis world was talking about her. Steffi was scared of her, there was no doubt about that. Steffi could unravel Monica's game on grass, but on any other surface Monica owned Steffi and just about everyone else. Such a shame what happened in the end. It's my opinion she would have had at least 7-9 more grand slams and reduced Steffi's total on the way, but that's simply a matter of opinion.

Monica over Serena for now in my opinion. But let's see what happens over the next few years.

An one more thing, I agree with Liam about Steffi. No way was this woman playing in a weak Era. She played many top players throughout her career. The only time I think she benefited was from Seles's stabbing, and I am sure Steffi would rather that did not happen.

Oh, for *god's* sake, chairman. Steffi was an amazing player, just like Federer is now.

She also happens to be one of my all-time favorites.

How sad it is that, when someone extraordinary comes along and dominates the players in their time, some always have to try and talk their achievements down. :shrug:

That being said, how would Steffi do in today's era? Hard to say. I think considering how much talent she had, and how much she was able to dominate in her time, she would easily be able to hold her own. However, whether she would be able to dominate like she did ... :shrug:

(BTW, that last remark does not reflect an opinion that Steffi's era was in any sense 'weak'; rather it reflects my belief that tennis evolves and the depth of talent, in both the men's and the women's game, has increased, if anything, since the nineties.)

One of my all time highlights in watching sports was the 1988 Wimbledon final. Steffi served for the first set but ended up losing it and found herself 0-2 down in the second. She changed her racket and then twelve of the next thirteen games with an athletic exuberance that I've not seen matched since by anyone of either sex. She wasn't a refined talent in the sense Federer is, more a force of nature. The end results were pretty identical though.

than semi-final against hingis was pretty sweet, too bad there had to be a loser ;)