Quote:
Originally posted by Waffles O'Brien
Not once in Venus's career has she been able to consistently beat her sister.
Hence 17 grand slams vs 7.
|
The delusion
We're talking about peak v peak, which doesn't have to be sustained over a consistent period of time
Besides, do you really think Serena deserved her last 9-10 slams? Benefiting in an era of Jankovic's and Safina's?
Serena took advantage of a weak era just like they did
And don't you realize, Venus has been suffering from Sjoergens since 2005. Don't you understand? Since 2005, yet Venus still has been able to beat Serena at age 34.
Your 17 v 7 argument doesn't even make sense, and is not valid in this discussion. Serena beating Venus or the other way around has nothing to do with their slam count. Sybille Bammer has beat Serena every time they've met. Hence 0 slams v 17. Slams have nothing to do with head-to-head/peak v peak.
Like I said earlier, Wimbledon 2008 (and arguable Miami 2005) were the only true displays of peak v peak from both sisters. Both times Venus won in straight sets. At her peak, Venus has better movement, a better first serve, better net play, and a better backhand. In the Wimbledon first set, Serena was at her absolute peak (2002 level), with 20 winners and 5 unforced errors. Yet Venus still won that set and the match. What is so hard to understand?
Although it hasn't happened...yet 
I didn't know all the mods watched tennis! So cool! 
Like I've always said, Healthy Venus > Peak Serena. Those are the facts 
Also so glad to see Venus was the crowd favorite in today's match 
. Venus would never 
I would have preferred Makarova 
