PDA

View Full Version : Better Career, Malivai Washington or James Blake?


bjk
03-30-2009, 02:15 PM
Malivai Washington
Singles
Career record: 254–184
Career titles: 4
Highest ranking: 11 (October 26, 1993)
Grand Slam results
Australian Open QF (1994)
French Open 4R (1993)
Wimbledon F (1996)
US Open 4R (1992)

James Blake
Singles
Career record: 298–177
Career titles: 10
Highest ranking: No. 4 (November 20, 2006)
Grand Slam results
Australian Open QF (2008)
French Open 3r (2006)
Wimbledon 3r (2006, 2007)
US Open QF (2005, 2006)

Blake reached a higher ranking, and has a higher winning percentage and six more titles, but Washington outperformed at the majors (even reaching a Wimbledon final). I call it for Washington.

Kobble
03-30-2009, 02:23 PM
James Blake.

bjk
03-30-2009, 02:24 PM
Can anyone foresee a circumstance in which Blake makes it to a GS final, like MW did? And it wasn't like he was playing scrubs . . . that was the Agassi/Sampras era.

GameSampras
03-30-2009, 03:14 PM
Washington all the way. Blake is a scrub. Always has been. His strategy in tennis is strictly... hit the cover off the ball. THATS IT.

Nanshiki
03-30-2009, 03:19 PM
Nothing wrong with that. If anything, it's more fun to watch than someone who just hopes the other guy misses.

flying24
03-30-2009, 04:57 PM
Washington all the way. Blake is a scrub. Always has been. His strategy in tennis is strictly... hit the cover off the ball. THATS IT.

So atleast Blake is really good at one thing, hitting the cover as the ball. Was Washington great at anything? He was just an ok solid player, nothing special in any respect. His Wimbledon final was a huge fluke, and something that makes me wonder about this supposed amazing depth of the 90s.

GameSampras
03-30-2009, 05:02 PM
So atleast Blake is really good at one thing, hitting the cover as the ball. Was Washington great at anything? He was just an ok solid player, nothing special in any respect. His Wimbledon final was a huge fluke, and something that makes me wonder about this supposed amazing depth of the 90s.


Washington has had more success at the slams. Thats the bottom line. Blake has done almost nothing to warrant consideration in this case at least when it matters most. At least Washington MADE A FINAL

flying24
03-30-2009, 05:06 PM
Washington has had more success at the slams. Thats the bottom line. Blake has done almost nothing to warrant consideration in this case at least when it matters most. At least Washington MADE A FINAL

Washington has only one edge in anyway over Blake's career and that was his fluke Wimbledon final appearance. Other than that Blake's career easily trumps Washington's in everyway. Even his performance in the slams overall is weaker too outside of that one fluke Wimbledon final.

I remember thinking before that final that Krajicek could have shown up in a wheelchair and still won. It was a crime that Todd Martin and even unknown Radulescu in the quarters both choked so badly and let a boring middle aged journeyman be in the Wimbledon final.

EtePras
03-30-2009, 05:24 PM
Blake easily, making a Wimbledon final against 90s competition is about as difficult as qualifying for a challenger in Blake's era.

gj011
03-30-2009, 05:37 PM
I would say Blake. One Wimbledon final is not enough to offset other parameters which are all in Blake's favor.

PERL
03-30-2009, 05:53 PM
Can anyone foresee a circumstance in which Blake makes it to a GS final, like MW did? And it wasn't like he was playing scrubs . . . that was the Agassi/Sampras era.

USO ’05 was his only shot. He dominated Agassi in the quarters but was not able to finish him off. He would have faced Ginepri in the semis and the odds would have favored him. And then he would have lost in straights vs Federer in the final. Now it’s too late. Clearly Blake had a better career and the better weapons. Would you favor Schuettler or Verkerk over Blake ? Dozens of players better than Washington never reached a slam final.

PERL
03-30-2009, 06:06 PM
His Wimbledon final was a huge fluke, and something that makes me wonder about this supposed amazing depth of the 90s.

The big guns were in the other half of the draw : Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, Pioline or even Philippoussis. In the other half, Agassi and Courier lost in the first round to journeymen and Becker retired. Pure "circumstances".

egn
03-30-2009, 06:12 PM
I would say Blake. One Wimbledon final is not enough to offset other parameters which are all in Blake's favor.

Yea have to second that and on top of that the 96 wimbledon was amazingly awful. Sampras was not on his game, Krajicek was the only good one and the rest of those other all stars bounced. Just look at the semifinalists.. Rank 17 Krajicek, Stoltenberg who never passed rank 19, Todd Martin (decent but nothing noteworthy) and MaiVai..3 of the 4 that was their best appearance at a slam. It was probably one of the worst set of players to make it to the semis exception of those awful australian opens of the 1970s. It was a sad slam and I don't think that it helps MaiVai's case against Blake.

GameSampras
03-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Washington did alright for himself. He was around the first half the 90s competing. Certainly not a weak era by any means. One of the stronger ones actually.

Early-mid 90s more depth and more competition IMO than early to mid 00's

mental midget
03-30-2009, 06:26 PM
blake's a better player, i'd say that much for sure. malivai was quick around the court, but no real weapons. whatever you think of his game, blake can (could?) bring it when he's on.

Eviscerator
03-30-2009, 06:30 PM
Blake easily, making a Wimbledon final against 90s competition is about as difficult as qualifying for a challenger in Blake's era.

:roll::roll::roll:

GameSampras
03-30-2009, 06:30 PM
blake's a better player, i'd say that much for sure. malivai was quick around the court, but no real weapons. whatever you think of his game, blake can (could?) bring it when he's on.

Well.. true.. But Blake was one way all the time usually. Power!! Power!! Power!!! Sometimes having well rounded game is better than having a powerful game yet lacking all around capabilites.

See Roddick. 1 slam due to not possessing a decent enough all around. Blake the same way with NO SLAM FINALS APPEARANCES.


Unfortuantely when that game isnt working.. There isnt much for the likes of Blake and Roddick to fall back and other players with gaping holes in their game