PDA

View Full Version : Top 10 Female players of this decade (2000-2009)


drwood
09-16-2009, 10:35 AM
Inspired by federerfanatic's thread. Now that all of the slams of this decade have been completed, what is your top ten for female players of the decade (2000-2009)?

Here's my list (only accomplishments in the decade included):

1. Serena Williams (10 slams + 3 finals, YE #1 in 02, Career grand slam, Serena slam in 02-03)
2. Justine Henin (7 slams + 4 slam finals + Olympic singles gold, YE #1 in 03, 06 and 07)
3. Venus Williams (7 slams + 6 slam finals + Olympic singles gold, but far fewer weeks at #1 than Henin)
4. Kim Clijsters (2 slams + 4 slam finals, #1 during 03 and 06)
5. Maria Sharapova (3 slams + 1 slam final, #1 for several weeks)
6. Jennifer Capriati (3 slams + no slam finals, #1 during 02 year)
7. Lindsay Davenport (1 slam + 4 slam finals, YE #1 in 01, 04 and 05)
8. Amelie Mauresmo (2 slams + no slam finals + Olympic singles silver, #1 for several weeks)
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova (2 slams + 2 slam finals, never #1)
10. Ana Ivanovic (1 slam + 2 slam finals, #1 in 08.)

Honorable mention:
Mary Pierce (1 slam + 2 slam finals, never #1)
Anastasia Myskina (1 slam + 0 finals, never #1)
Elena Dementieva (0 slams + 2 slam finals, Olympic singles gold, Olympic singles silver, never #1)
Martina Hingis (0 slams + 3 slam finals, YE #1 in 00)
Dinara Safina (0 slams + 3 slam finals + Olympic singles silver, #1 for most of 09)
Jelena Jankovic (0 slams + 1 final, YE #1 in 08.)


This thread is for mature posters only -- no WTA bashing, hating or trolling please. Thank you.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 10:40 AM
Inspired by federerfanatic's thread. Now that all of the slams of this decade have been completed, what is your top ten for female players of the decade (2000-2009)?

Here's my list (only accomplishments in the decade included):

1. Serena Williams (10 slams + 3 finals, YE #1 in 02, Career grand slam, Serena slam in 02-03)
2. Justine Henin (7 slams + 4 slam finals + Olympic singles gold, YE #1 in 03, 06 and 07)
3. Venus Williams (7 slams + 6 slam finals + Olympic singles gold, but far fewer weeks at #1 than Henin)
4. Kim Clijsters (2 slams + 4 slam finals, #1 during 03 and 06)
5. Maria Sharapova (3 slams + 1 slam final, #1 for several weeks)
6. Jennifer Capriati (3 slams + no slam finals, #1 during 02 year)
7. Lindsay Davenport (1 slam + 4 slam finals, YE #1 in 01, 04 and 05)
8. Amelie Mauresmo (2 slams + no slam finals + Olympic singles silver, #1 for several weeks)
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova (2 slams + 2 slam finals, never #1)
10. Ana Ivanovic (1 slam + 2 slam finals, #1 in 08.)

Honorable mention:
Mary Pierce (1 slam + 2 slam finals, never #1)
Anastasia Myskina (1 slam + 0 finals, never #1)
Elena Dementieva (0 slams + 2 slam finals, Olympic singles gold, Olympic singles silver, never #1)
Martina Hingis (0 slams + 3 slam finals, YE #1 in 00)
Dinara Safina (0 slams + 3 slam finals + Olympic singles silver, #1 for most of 09)
Jelena Jankovic (0 slams + 1 final, YE #1 in 08.)


This thread is for mature posters only -- no WTA bashing, hating or trolling please. Thank you.

That looks about right. I would switch Capriati and Davenport though only since Capriati was the luckiest player of the decade and Davenport about the unluckiest.

Actually I would put Hingis and Pierce above Kuznetsova and Ivanovic since Ivanovic caught on easy ride with a weak field during her 15 month blip of best play, and Kuznetsova flat out got lucky with how things played out to win her first slam and the field in winning her second while blowing her opportunities for more impressive fashion big wins.

Tanya
09-16-2009, 10:44 AM
Ivanovic should be replaced with Hingis.

drwood
09-16-2009, 10:59 AM
That looks about right. I would switch Capriati and Davenport though only since Capriati was the luckiest player of the decade and Davenport about the unluckiest.

Actually I would put Hingis and Pierce above Kuznetsova and Ivanovic since Ivanovic caught on easy ride with a weak field during her 15 month blip of best play, and Kuznetsova flat out got lucky with how things played out to win her first slam and the field in winning her second while blowing her opportunities for more impressive fashion big wins.

Kunetsova is above Hingis b/c she made more slam finals and won more slams even though she never became #1; Ivanovic made 2 slam finals before Henin and Sharapova imploded, so the field wasn't weak then.

Pierce is a lot like Kuzzy -- head case with a lot of talent -- Kuzzy won more slams and made more slam finals -- neither reached #1 -- that's why I have Kuzzy ahead of Pierce also.

I'd love to put Davenport over Capriati, but 3 slams vs. 1 is tough to denigrate -- Capriati repeatedly came through when it mattered most, while Lindsay did not (at least in this decade). However, Lindsay's superior consistency probably makes this a toss-up.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 11:16 AM
IMO Capriati won 2 of her 3 slams because Davenport had to miss those 2 with injury. If Davenport had been able to play those 2 I bet their slam count this decade is reversed. Davenport owned Capriati, and the 2001 AO semis was a fluke (Davenport played her worst match ever that day pretty much).

drwood
09-16-2009, 11:23 AM
IMO Capriati won 2 of her 3 slams because Davenport had to miss those 2 with injury. If Davenport had been able to play those 2 I bet their slam count this decade is reversed. Davenport owned Capriati, and the 2001 AO semis was a fluke (Davenport played her worst match ever that day pretty much).

The 2001 AO SF Davenport brought on herself by disparaging and being dismissive of Capriati before the match (Serena-style). If she had taken that match more seriously, she probably would have won the tourney (b/c she had handled Capriati in the SF the year before). I'm sure she regrets her attitude before that match probably more than any other in her career.

No way does Davenport beat Hingis in the 01 French like Capriati did, and no guarantee that Davenport beats Hingis and Capriati in the 02 Australian.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 11:24 AM
Ivanovic is the hottest #1 of all time.

Henry Kaspar
09-16-2009, 11:27 AM
Clijsters is a couple spots too high.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 11:55 AM
The 2001 AO SF Davenport brought on herself by disparaging and being dismissive of Capriati before the match (Serena-style). If she had taken that match more seriously, she probably would have won the tourney (b/c she had handled Capriati in the SF the year before). I'm sure she regrets her attitude before that match probably more than any other in her career.

No way does Davenport beat Hingis in the 01 French like Capriati did, and no guarantee that Davenport beats Hingis and Capriati in the 02 Australian.

Davenport owns Capriati on all surfaces including even clay. Hingis was out of it mentally by 2001 which is why she was now even losing to lesser players like Capriati, and in no condition to beat any of the big guns in a slam. So yeah I am pretty sure Davenport could have also beat her at the French that year too. As for the 2002 Australian Open Capriati was in mediocre form and it was the luckiest and biggest joke slam win ever. No way she beats Davenport who owns her and who would never play that poorly in a big match again, nor does a mentally flaked out Hingis beat Davenport either.

Wuornos
09-16-2009, 12:03 PM
I would have to go with:

1 Serena Williams 2785
2 Venus Williams 2770
3 Justine Henin 2747
4 Lindsay Davenport 2745
5 Jennifer Capriati 2739
6 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
7 Maria Sharapova 2725
8 Kim Clijsters 2705
9 Ana Ivanović 2685
10 Svetlana Kuznetsova 2671

Based on their peak playing standard rather than their total achievement.

Tim

Henry Kaspar
09-16-2009, 12:05 PM
I would have to go with:

1 Serena Williams 2785
2 Venus Williams 2770
3 Justine Henin 2747
4 Lindsay Davenport 2745
5 Jennifer Capriati 2739
6 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
7 Maria Sharapova 2725
8 Kim Clijsters 2705
9 Ana Ivanović 2685
10 Svetlana Kuznetsova 2671

Tim

I love your rankings, I would encourage you to start an own website with this.

As for this one, could you add the date of the peak value (for example, is the Davenport figure her all-time high, or her high in the 2000s?)

DRII
09-16-2009, 01:50 PM
Why not include doubles in these rankings. Venus has an olympic gold in doubles and I believe 7 slams in doubles; putting her on top of Henin.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 04:36 PM
Why not include doubles in these rankings. Venus has an olympic gold in doubles and I believe 7 slams in doubles; putting her on top of Henin.

People dont usually factor doubles in hardly any when comparing singles greats. Especialy not today where the doubles fields and play are a sham.

boredone3456
09-16-2009, 04:54 PM
1. Serena Williams
2. Justine Henin
3. Venus Williams
4. Maria Sharapova
5. Lindsay Davenport (about the worst luck you could get went to her, everything that could go wrong for her between injuries, weather, and all else, did, but in terms of level of play she goes higher than she would based on her results)
6. Kim Clijsters
7. Amelie Mauresmo (lucky Australian, but redeemed herself big time at Wimbledon later that year.)
8. Jennifer Capriati (luckiest three slam winner ever, only really should have 1 slam)
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova (lucky 2 slam winner)
10. Mary Pierce (here over Ivanovic because Ivanovic got lucky in some of her accomplishments, the number #1 ranking eventually fell to her because Sharapova got hurt after Henin retired, she got a little luck in the 2008 french open, and the 2008 Australian she should have lost in the semi-finals to Hantuchova who performed a Novotna-esque choke while up 6-0 2-0.)

Steffi-forever
09-16-2009, 04:59 PM
I would have to go with:

1 Serena Williams 2785
2 Venus Williams 2770
3 Justine Henin 2747
4 Lindsay Davenport 2745
5 Jennifer Capriati 2739
6 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
7 Maria Sharapova 2725
8 Kim Clijsters 2705
9 Ana Ivanović 2685
10 Svetlana Kuznetsova 2671

Based on their peak playing standard rather than their total achievement.

Tim

I'm with on this one! :)

Steffi-forever
09-16-2009, 05:00 PM
I love your rankings, I would encourage you to start an own website with this.

As for this one, could you add the date of the peak value (for example, is the Davenport figure her all-time high, or her high in the 2000s?)

I think it's only for 2000.

edmondsm
09-16-2009, 05:32 PM
I would have to go with:

1 Serena Williams 2785
2 Venus Williams 2770
3 Justine Henin 2747
4 Lindsay Davenport 2745
5 Jennifer Capriati 2739
6 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
7 Maria Sharapova 2725
8 Kim Clijsters 2705
9 Ana Ivanović 2685
10 Svetlana Kuznetsova 2671

Based on their peak playing standard rather than their total achievement.

Tim

People are really putting Sharapova very low for some reason. 3 slams, and remember she beat Serena to win one of them. I think the only other player to beat Serena in a slam final on that list is Venus. I can't believe the OP put Clijsters above Sharapova.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 05:36 PM
1. Serena Williams
2. Justine Henin
3. Venus Williams
4. Maria Sharapova
5. Lindsay Davenport (about the worst luck you could get went to her, everything that could go wrong for her between injuries, weather, and all else, did, but in terms of level of play she goes higher than she would based on her results)
6. Kim Clijsters
7. Amelie Mauresmo (lucky Australian, but redeemed herself big time at Wimbledon later that year.)
8. Jennifer Capriati (luckiest three slam winner ever, only really should have 1 slam)
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova (lucky 2 slam winner)
10. Mary Pierce (here over Ivanovic because Ivanovic got lucky in some of her accomplishments, the number #1 ranking eventually fell to her because Sharapova got hurt after Henin retired, she got a little luck in the 2008 french open, and the 2008 Australian she should have lost in the semi-finals to Hantuchova who performed a Novotna-esque choke while up 6-0 2-0.)

I disagree Mauresmos Australian Open title was lucky. So what if her opponents retired. She was leading Kim in the 3rd set, up a break of serve, when Kim retired. Kim still had a shot if she didnt get hurt but the odds were in Mauresmos favor at that point. Justine wasnt injured or ill at all, she simply was embarassed someone she considers a lesser player was kicking her butt badly that day so faked being sick and quit. Then one other girl who wasnt even a name player and had no shot vs her that year quit, who cares. Dont lowball Mauresmos Australian Open victory just because some nobody quit, Clijsters got hurt while likely on the way to a narrow 3 set defeat, and because Henin faked being sick since she was a sore loser.

Tanya
09-16-2009, 07:58 PM
um... didn't Mauresmo 'beat' Henin the AO final (after Henin retired the match)?

Where did Clijsters come from

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 08:12 PM
um... didn't Mauresmo 'beat' Henin the AO final (after Henin retired the match)?

Where did Clijsters come from

Mauresmo beat Clijsters in the semis and Henin in the final. Clijsters retired in the 3rd set of their semifinal down 1 break of serve after falling and legitimately (unlike Henin) injuring herself.

drwood
09-16-2009, 08:19 PM
People are really putting Sharapova very low for some reason. 3 slams, and remember she beat Serena to win one of them. I think the only other player to beat Serena in a slam final on that list is Venus. I can't believe the OP put Clijsters above Sharapova.

Well, as the OP, I put Clijsters ahead b/c she's been on top slightly longer, has been in more slam finals, and has done better at the YEC -- this makes up for her one fewer slam IMO.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 08:25 PM
People are really putting Sharapova very low for some reason. 3 slams, and remember she beat Serena to win one of them. I think the only other player to beat Serena in a slam final on that list is Venus. I can't believe the OP put Clijsters above Sharapova.

I dont know why you think people are putting Maria very low. She most certainly cant be put in the top 3 with Serena, Henin, and Venus overall in a completely different league altogether from her. Most everyone is putting her at #4 or #5, I dont know what else you would expect. I hope you arent implying you expected anyone to put her higher than #4 at the absolute highest.

Putting her below Clijsters is hardly crazy. Maria has 1 more slam but Kim has a winning head to head with Maria, has been in more slam finals, I believe more slam semis, has won the WTA Championships twice, has so many tier 1 and overall titles. 2005 was the year they played each other both closest to their best and Kim won both their meetings on hard courts including the U.S Open semis. She isnt that far ahead of any of Clijsters, Davenport, maybe even Mauresmo and Capriati, and she is really far behind Venus, Serena, and Justine.

Wuornos
09-16-2009, 11:23 PM
I love your rankings, I would encourage you to start an own website with this.

As for this one, could you add the date of the peak value (for example, is the Davenport figure her all-time high, or her high in the 2000s?)

Thanks for that. I wouldn't know where to start in creating a web page. I'm just a maths and tennis nut.

To answer your question about when these players reached their peak ratings please see the following. However it must be remembered that the peak ratings were achieved based on the previous few years results with a diminishing return applied to the more distant results in respect of time.

1 Serena Williams 2785 post Wimbledon 2003
2 Venus Williams 2770 post French 2002
3 Justine Henin 2747 post U S 2007
4 Lindsay Davenport 2745 post U S 2000
5 Jennifer Capriati 2739 post Australian 2002
6 Amélie Mauresmo 2727 post U S 2006
7 Maria Sharapova 2725 post Australian 2008
8 Kim Clijsters 2705 post Wimbledon 2006
9 Ana Ivanović 2685 post French 2008
10 Svetlana Kuznetsova 2671 post French 2009

Take care

Tim

Henry Kaspar
09-17-2009, 11:13 AM
Putting her below Clijsters is hardly crazy. Maria has 1 more slam but Kim has a winning head to head with Maria,

Well Clijsters is 4-3, and the first two wins came when Sharapova was a chicken of 16 years, brand new on the tour, and ranked outside the top 30. In matches when both were ranked in the top 5 Sharapova is 3-1.

I also think one walks on rather thin ice when argueing that Clijsters should be ranked above Sharapova for career achievements to date. These are both fabulous players and among my top favorites, both underperformers to some extent, but at this stage Sharapova still has the edge. And given that she is 4 years younger than Clijsters, I wouldn't bet that it will be different when both careers' end.

grafselesfan
09-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Well Clijsters is 4-3, and the first two wins came when Sharapova was a chicken of 16 years, brand new on the tour, and ranked outside the top 30. In matches when both were ranked in the top 5 Sharapova is 3-1.

I also think one walks on rather thin ice when argueing that Clijsters should be ranked above Sharapova for career achievements to date. These are both fabulous players and among my top favorites, both underperformers to some extent, but at this stage Sharapova still has the edge. And given that she is 4 years younger than Clijsters, I wouldn't bet that it will be different when both careers' end.

LOL so when Maria won her first slam at barely 17 2 wins over her at 16 dont count, yet on the other side you are even discrediting a win for Kim when Maria was World #3 and reigning Wimbledon Champion and Kim was World #38 working her way back from a long injury layoff since both werent in the top 5 at the time. Classic. For the record Maria was playing better tennis at 16 than she has any of her comeback to the game this year. If we want to limit it in that fashion though Kim was going through the motions her last few months on tour and not even trying anymore which everyone who follows tennis realizes, so if we take away Marias last 2 wins for that reason it is again 2-1 for Kim. Heck many would even say she was going through the motions immediately after winning the 2005 U.S Open when she immediately fired her longtime coach, never again hired one, and seemingly cruised to retirement with no hunger to win a big title ever again, though she continued to make slam semis regularly in this state which was merely exposing the beginnings of the current WTA non existent depth. In this case it would now be 2-0 Kim but I disgress. My perspective is this, 4-3 is the official head to head, 2-1 is the head to head when both were sort of normal, and 2-0 is the head to head in the year both were near their best at the same time (2005).

Marias only edge is 1 more slam title. However 1 more slam title is not the be all and end all. You of all people should know this starting a thread grouping all the 2-3 slam winners together. Kim Clijsters has more slam finals, more slam semis, has been #1 many more weeks, has almost double the titles, many more tier 1 titles, has won the WTA Championships once more, is move versatile as far as all surface ability. Those edges all together certainly can overcome Marias one and only edge of 1 more slam title. And remember I never said it was wrong to put Maria over Kim, I only said to put Kim over Maria is also within reason. I fail to see how 1 additional slam title alone makes that not within reason.

As for who will end up with the better career that is very much up in the air. There are many people who believe Maria is already done as a slam winner after her shoulder surgery and the problems she has had with her serve ever since. She also appears to have been a very early bloomer. Kim looks strong in her comeback and certainly looks more likely now to be able to win slams in the next few years than does Maria.

Maria is only an underperformer in the sense she was unlucky to be injured. Granted the longer her injuries impair her from playing her best (the rest of her career according to some as I said) the bigger an underperformer she will be, but in her case through no fault of her own really. When Maria was healthy she was not at all an underperformer, really an overachiever if anything. Hard work and mental toughness were her trademarks.