i haven't seen the final, and even if i had, it won't change my opinion
it's the fact she hardly works for it , wich shows how low the level of the others are
and the fact she's back cause the real top player who trains every day like she should be is gone

I think she has worked very hard for it this year. Most of the commentators were saying that she is thoroughly deserving of the title after the work she has put in. She is more motivated than ever in my oppinion and her reaction after the match confirms this. Maybe you should watch the match! lol
It was a good final with great shot-making from both players. Certainly better than the 2005 and 2007 finals (that Clijsters and Henin played in).

i haven't seen the final, and even if i had, it won't change my opinion
it's the fact she hardly works for it , wich shows how low the level of the others are
and the fact she's back cause the real top player who trains every day like she should be is gone

I think she has worked very hard for it this year. Most of the commentators were saying that she is thoroughly deserving of the title after the work she has put in. She is more motivated than ever in my oppinion and her reaction after the match confirms this. Maybe you should watch the match! lol
It was a good final with great shot-making from both players. Certainly better than the 2005 and 2007 finals (that Clijsters and Henin played in).

1. like i said before, one good match won't change my opinion
2. a boring final doesn't mean you are a worse number one ? for a good final you need two players , It's not Kim and Justine their fault that Pierce and Kuznetsova played awfull and let their opponents roll over them. It just shows how good and untouchable they where at their best.

two lower ranked players can play a fantastic match aswell , it's indeed a fact that we hardly get a great slamfinal between topplayers but that won't change anything to the quality of the player.

Kallur, how do you know Serena doesn't work hard everyday? Just because she doesn't play a tournament every week like JJ doesn't mean she isn't working hard. And you say she is out for photoshoot and acting etc, well so is Sharapova who you so desperately wants to be number 1. Sharapova withdrew from Doha or Dubai some years back because she had to model for a swimsuit magazine. She started designing and having perfumes when she had only won one! GS. And she has done numerous appearances on American TV e.g. Letterman, Ellen. If Serena is not a worthy number 1, well neither is Sharapova then.

there's a difference between Serena and Maria if it comes to that kind of activities.
It's a known fact that Serena spend way more time in that then Maria.
I don't like her aswell but she spends all her other time in training wich isn't the fact for Serena
Serena doesn't life like a sportswomen should life. It's not normal going to clubs at night and being drunk
about the perfumes , that have hardly anything to do with off court activity, that's a lot of work from other people , when they are finished
she can smell the bottles and choose wich one.
I have nothing against sporters who go to a tv show like Letterman. They have free time aswell, that's not the problem. That won't affect her results


And why is it a bad thing that the number 1 has only played 13 tournaments within the last 52 weeks? As long as she goes deep in those tournament. Would you rather have someone like Bartoli being number 1? She has played 28 tournaments within the last 52 weeks - losing in the first round 11 times of those 28 tournaments, but in the rest has done pretty well, e.g. 1 RUP and 5 SF.

sorry but i never said that it's a problem for me that she only plays 13 weeks cause so did Henin and Maria
And they had enough with 13 tournaments to be 100's or more points ahead of all the others.


And players change. Yes Safina and Dementieva was nowhere near battling for the number 1 spot a few years ago when Henin and Clijsters were active, but them doing so now, I wouldn't blame it on the retirements, but rather on them improving. Dementieva has worked on her served and in most matches now, she hardly makes any doubles fault. And Dementieva's ground strokes have always been great, and now she has the serve to do well.

it's not cause they improved (and it's not that much , it only seems so cause now they win a lot) that are topplayers now who are worth to fight for the number one. Her service is indeed improved, but the whole package is still not good enough to be number one.If she played like that during Henin's period , she was still no conterder for Justine. I still stay with my opinion that they only have a chance for that position cause Henin is out , Serena is not the 2002 Serena (same for Venus) and Maria is injured.

And Serena only dominated because Henin was still coming into form. Please. I could just as easily claim that Henin only won so much because Serena was injured (see I don't think this, but it can be claimed - I think Henin was a very worthy number 1 last year and she beat Serena many times and she deserved it).

If Justine started at the same year as Serena she wouldn't have so many slams im sure of that. You had the williams area 00-beginning of 2003, and then the Belgian period half 2003-end 2007. They never have been at their best level at the same time apart from Roland Garros and Wimbledon 2003 . RG was a Belgian final and Wimbledon a Williams final. It would have been like this every tournament if they had there best form at the same time for years in a row.

I don't wanne say Serena would have been history when Henin started to play like she did the previous years, it would have been a awesome battle like Graf vs Seles. But it was Serena who started to have interest in other things wich is also one of the reasons why she had so many injuries. Not the biggest reason but it aint helping. When your not fully fit you can't reach the same level , it have consequences for your body.

Compare the Serena periods to each other : 00-03 vs 06-08 (i don't gonna count the other two years cause of the injury's)
a fit and healthy Serena who trains for it vs someone who already had her peak , have found other interests , and isn't working for it anymore like she used to do. You as a fan should know if she did that , she would be back at her old form again , and roll over every opponent especilly now if you look to the quality of the opponents.

And of course, the Belgians will say that Henin and Clijsters were the best and all that. I would find it weird if they didn't. I like Clijsters and all, but I don't understand how she can be ranked so high as better than Serena, she only won 1 slam. Sure she won Indian Wells and Miami back to back in 2005 (but using this as saying she is better than Serena because Serena never did that is b***s*** because Serena never plays Indian Wells), but Clijsters weren't able to hold on to that level of play for the rest of the year. After US Open she wasn't all that.

Kim 2003-2006 (except the injury year 2004) was indeed better then Serena at that time but i never said better then Serena 00-03. That she won only one slam is mostly cause of Henin , she was just so good that she always won the final of her. It's not that she only played one slam final , she played five of them. Lost 3 of them vs Henin , lost also two slam semi's vs Henin. Since Berlin 2003 Henin always had the mental advantage on Clijsters. (7-4 for Kim before that tournament, 3-8 for Justine since that match)

Justine was the best player that time followed by Clijsters and the a big gap to Mauresmo and Sharapova (not consistend enough , Mauresmo one season , Maria in the year the Belgians were injured 2004 and in the year she fought great battle's with them in 2006) and a much bigger gap to all the others.

Williams sisters 00-03 vs Belgians 03-06 at the same time would have been the best years ever , and it's hard to say who would be the best, i think they would have won all slams. But i never made a point about those to time periods , it's about Serena last years

so it's not necessary to bring up Indian Wells and Miami (wich i never talked about) if that was the case then what to say about Daniela
They both were better then the sisters during 03-06. And their level then would still have been better then the level Serena now have.

Clijsters couldn't play like that for a full season ?
2003: AO semi's, RG final, Wimbledon semi's , US Open final , many titles during the whole season like the US Open Series , Luxembourg, Sydney, Rosmalen, Rome, Filderstadt and being world number one till Henin had that position after winning Zurich and Kim losing to Dokic in the semi's. Those tournaments are spread over the full season

2004 was a year with lots of injury problems, mostly cause of the battle she had with Justine the year before , one week Justine won a title, the other week Clijsters, it was every week like this, probably the best Belgian season ever if you combine both their results compare to the other years. She started injury free with a final at the Aus Open and title in Paris and Antwerp.

2005: She still won a lot of tournaments aswell spread over the season , Indian wells,Miami , Grass tournament of Eastbourne i believe, some US open series tournaments , if im not wrong she beat Henin in one of those (Toronto i believe) and some indoor events (ok Hasselt isn't from a high level ...) and of course the US Open. She didn't lost one final that season She only didn't play well during the clay season but like i said before:henin won 4 tournaments in a row during that part of the season.

2006: was the beginning of the end , Sharapova and Mauresmo take over her role as Justine's biggest contenders for the title.

Kim at her best vs Serena at her best is probably Serena the better player. But that wasn't the point, but i have no problem with admitting that , but i won't admit the same fact if you compare Justine at her best vs Serena at her best . I think that would have been 50-50 , compared to Venus , it would have been Henin

i haven't seen the final, and even if i had, it won't change my opinion
it's the fact she hardly works for it , wich shows how low the level of the others are
and the fact she's back cause the real top player who trains every day like she should be is gone

I think she has worked very hard for it this year. Most of the commentators were saying that she is thoroughly deserving of the title after the work she has put in. She is more motivated than ever in my oppinion and her reaction after the match confirms this. Maybe you should watch the match! lol
It was a good final with great shot-making from both players. Certainly better than the 2005 and 2007 finals (that Clijsters and Henin played in).

1. like i said before, one good match won't change my opinion
2. a boring final doesn't mean you are a worse number one ? for a good final you need two players , It's not Kim and Justine their fault that Pierce and Kuznetsova played awfull and let their opponents roll over them. It just shows how good and untouchable they where at their best.

two lower ranked players can play a fantastic match aswell , it's indeed a fact that we hardly get a great slamfinal between topplayers but that won't change anything to the quality of the player.

1. Exactly - probably not the best attitude to have.
2. I think Serena is the better number 1 player. She has done way more for the game, and has been competing for over a decade now. The Belgians played at their peak for a couple of years and then went off the tour. If either of the Williams' sisters retired you would see a much bigger impact on the game than when the Belgians retired.

1. so you base your judgements on one match ? i think that's the wrong attitude
if i have to use my judgement on Daniela vs Kuznetsova at IW then she's a top 3 player, but im smarter then that

WTA is a poor level at the moment and Serena is the less weakest of the top players atm , i can't use the words 'the best'.
If she wins the masters and AO for example with good tennis i will change my view on that

2. well i disagree on that but ok , everyone has his opinion , ive learned to respect that but not to agree with it

There have been a lot of good points made on both sides. I do think this is one of the more fallow periods in womens tennis, at least at the very top, and for the number 1 to lose in consecutive slams to players ranked outside the top 100 is unprecedented. I'd also say that six players having the chance to be ranked number one after the US Open indicates at the very least a big state of flux at the highest echelon of the womens game. Having said that, the final was a good match with both Serena and Jankovic playing well, and Serena won because she played well, not because Jelena played badly. Also, the quality of most of the finals in slams and tier 1s this year has been at a pretty good level.

Navratilova and Evert absolutely dominated women's tennis in the early and mid 80s. Was this because they were great players who made the competition look ordinary or was it because the competition was ordinary that they were so great?

It seems that when there's one or two dominant players in a sport, not just tennis, then the complaint is about a lack of competition and how the other players aren't that good, but when there are a lot of evenly matched players at the top, then the complaint is that there's too much mediocrity and a lack of great players.

At her best and when she's healthy and motivated, Serena is an absolutely devastating player. If anything, I feel that her Australian Open wins in 05 and 07 encouraged complacency in her as I felt she probably believed that all she had to do was turn up and she could turn it on and win, which she couldn't. This year, she's leaner and fitter and she's been able to sustain her results throughout the year winning Miami, thrashing Henin there; Charleston and the US Open while losing a quality Wimbledon final to Venus. I don't thinks she's as dominating as she has been in the past, but she's playing very well this year. She's played 15 tournaments for her ranking, Ivanovic has played 16, Dementieva and Kuznetsova have played 18 while Venus and Shazza has played 13. Out of the top 8 players, only Jankovic and Safina have played more than 20. If someone wins big tournaments, then they don't need to play smaller tournaments.

Justine was crushed by Serena in Miami and Safina beat Justine in Berlin. She was also thrashed by Shazza at the Australian Open and lost to Schiavone in Dubai. Justine is a great player and easily the best claycourter of her era, but she was slumping badly in the tournaments she played before she retired. Her retirement has left a big void at the top of the women's game, but other players had caught up to and often surpassed her level in 2008. Justine had the skills and mental strength to rebound but she choose another path in life, so we'll never now what would have happened. But Justine was far from dominant when she retired.

One thing that you have to give the Williams sisters a lot of credit for is that they overcame family tragedy after the murder of their sister to win slams and in Serena's case get back to number 1. They both had slumps in form and sabbaticals in the years after that but look at what they've achieved since that as well.

It says a lot about the strength of character of both Venus and Serena that they can overcome adversity like that and also be successful over the best part of a decade. Venus was US Open finalist in 1997 while Serena won it in 1999 and they both won slams this year and last year.

some pics of Iveta Benesova