PDA

View Full Version : Who ranks higher all time- Lindsay Davenport or Virginia Wade


thalivest
04-12-2009, 03:39 PM
Probably this is a better poll than the Capriati vs Wade one as it seems the consensus is Capriati is not even in Virginia Wade's league. Of course it is again a comparision between two women who each won 3 slam titles.

grafrules
04-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Davenport by a hair. Wade was a great player but Davenport is one of the greatest ball strikers in history. Wade was definitely a better athlete and probably a better all around player, but Davenport actually is also a better competitor I think. Wade was famous for nerves and crumbling under pressure a bit, especialy when she faced the more dominant players of her era that people often refer to.

grafselesfan
04-12-2009, 04:10 PM
I voted for Wade since she fulfilled all her potential pretty much while Davenport did not do all she could have. I actually like Lindsay alot, she was one of my favorite players, so I am actually a bit frusterated she didnt do even more despite that she had a great career.

navratilovafan
04-12-2009, 05:09 PM
I think Davenport at her peak would be a bit too strong for Wade at her peak most times, even with a wood racquet. Wade was a great player though and it is close, but I just think Davenport's peak level of play was a better higher even if translated into the same time. It took Serena and Venus at their scariest peaks to stop Davenport from winning alot more slams.

flying24
04-12-2009, 09:04 PM
This is a much better poll than the Capriati vs Wade one which was simply a joke. I am not sure on this one. I will give it some thought before casting a vote.

egn
04-12-2009, 09:17 PM
Davenport at a point in time was the best player on the circuit. Only reason I gave it to Davenport. They were both at the same level, had long careers, won a lot of titles, and have 3 slams. Both were really good, though Davenport also I feel had more potential and I always felt should have had more slams.

boredone3456
04-13-2009, 09:14 AM
This is a much tougher choice than comparing Wade to Capriati. Davenport is one of the best ball strikers in the games history, and I would say she hit a cleaner ball than Wade. Wade though was overall a better athlete and mover than Lindsay was I think, so in my opinion those things sort of balance each other out. Davenport spent 90-something weeks as the number 1 player in the world, but Wade in my opinion had tougher competition during her prime years than Davenport did during hers.

In comparing the slams, Davenport won all 3 of hers in a 3 year span, while Wade's last was 9 years after her first. So you could argue for Wade's longevity as well as the fact she won all 3 slam finals she played. They won the same 3 slams, so no way to argue relative importance. Davenport did however make it to the French Open Semi's..Wade was never able to, although again field quality could be used to explain that. Its kind of funny though, not only did they win the same 3 slams, they each won 55 singles titles if my count is right.

In the end...I gave it to Davenport by a hair. I did so because she made more slam finals than Wade did, achieved the number 1 ranking, and in my opinion was slightly more competitve against her contemporaries than Wade was. They are extremely close though, depending upon how you look at it. You could just as easily say Wade because she had tougher competition, but Davenport's achievements in my opinion slightly outweigh that.

CEvertFan
04-13-2009, 01:56 PM
I'm going to go with Davenport.

flying24
04-13-2009, 01:56 PM
Having thought about it some I have to go with Lindsay. She lost out on winning alot more majors by some bad luck, the same kind of bad luck that allowed Capriati to win more than she should have during the same time period.

I cant really say Wade was ever unlucky in a grand slam. Maybe Wimbledon 1975 where she played an amazing quarterfinal and still lost to Evonne Goolagong. She had beaten King in Eastbourne just before Wimbledon so maybe could have gone on to do so again in the Wimbledon final had she gotten past that one. Bad luck isnt really the right term to use even for that though.

CEvertFan
04-14-2009, 08:23 AM
Having thought about it some I have to go with Lindsay. She lost out on winning alot more majors by some bad luck, the same kind of bad luck that allowed Capriati to win more than she should have during the same time period.

I cant really say Wade was ever unlucky in a grand slam. Maybe Wimbledon 1975 where she played an amazing quarterfinal and still lost to Evonne Goolagong. She had beaten King in Eastbourne just before Wimbledon so maybe could have gone on to do so again in the Wimbledon final had she gotten past that one. Bad luck isnt really the right term to use even for that though.


It wasn't just bad luck it was also injuries. Davenport was injured A LOT during her career and for the last 5-7 years of her career it seemed as if she was always getting another injury every time she started to get on a roll and build some momentum and confidence. That, combined with some bad luck is why she doesn't have more than 3 majors.

Nevertheless even with all her injuries her four year end #1 rankings can't be brushed aside (even though there are those of you who would like to) and that is something Wade never even came close to doing.