Which 3 fill out the top 10 all time for women

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by illusions30, Oct 12, 2013.

?

Which 3 women fill out the remaining top 10 all time for women

  1. Henin

    43.5%
  2. Venus

    30.4%
  3. Bueno

    13.0%
  4. Connolly

    47.8%
  5. Seles

    65.2%
  6. King

    58.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    If we concede the obvious that the top 7 female players of all time are (in no particular order- Steffi, Navratilova, Serena, Evert, Court, Lenglen, and Wills Moody which 3 players round out the top 10. The 6 main candidates for the remaining top 10 players all time would probably be Connolly, Seles, Henin, Venus, King, and Bueno. Which of those would you pick for top 10.

    It is multiple choice so please pick 3, the 3 you believe would be the ones to make it. According to Tennis Channel it would be King, Seles, and Venus in that order with Henin and Connolly just missing I believe.
     
    #1
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Connolly and King are granted.Henin is not in this league by far.Venus had the potential, Bueno never won RG and Seles dominated too shortly.I really can´t decide fairly.2 Williams is too much for a top ten anyway....But Connolly is probably top 5-6 ever and King is a fixture.
     
    #2
  3. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    I went with Henin, Venus, and Connolly. Seles misses out for me since her Wimbledon record is so poor, not only not winning a title, but only 1 time past the quarters there. Granted Venus's French Open record is barely any better so I could have easily left her out too. I left out King since I dont think in any other era that didnt have 3 of the 4 majors on grass (her best surface by far) she would win anymore than 5 or 6 majors.
     
    #3
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Bueno,King and Connolly.Seles is 11 th and Venus 12 th along others like Marble,Ryan,Lambert,Betz...Henin is around 20 or 22.
     
    #4
  5. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    Henin apologizes for kicking your dog.
     
    #5
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Why? she wasn´t even better than Clijsters...
     
    #6
  7. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    Yeah she just won 7 slams in the same era Clijsters won only 1 since she has a horseshoe up her arse I guess. :lol:

    I wont bother getting into topics that involve Henin with you at all from now on. It is clear you have a hate on for her similar to what Xavier has for Steffi, what Sharpshooter might have for Sabatini and so on. When you arent talking about Henin you are a good poster and interesting, so I will just ignore anything Henin related in your future posts.
     
    #7
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I have nothing against her, she is a bit overhyped.But many like you just enjoy belitteling Hingis, don´t you?

    BTW, I would consider an honour being the 20 or 22 best ever over more than 100 yrs.if I was a painter, that would place me at Monnet or Miro´s level; if I was a compositor my name would be Hendel or Debyussy.As I said, what a honour¡¡¡
     
    #8
  9. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    You are entitled your opinion of Henin but I cant imagine 20 women who would be over her. Could you name the 20 women you would rank over Henin.

    Saying someone like Clijsters who was Henin's lapdog in big matches when both were in their primes (watch their 3 slam finals at the 2003 French Open, 2003 U.S Open, and 2004 Australian Open), and who in the same era won only 1 major to Henin's 7 (even though she did pull up to 4 in her comeback in a weaker era) is ridiculous. What is your basis exactly for saying someone like Clijsters is better?
     
    #9
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I gave you some names.If that makes you happy, she could be co 17 th few some others...
     
    #10
  11. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,545
    Location:
    OREGON
    There are 8 top names and two also rans. Mo Connolly has as good a case to be GOAT as those other 7 as for the other two, we can quibble all year long, but illusions you need to take a closer look at Connolly if you think she belongs on some second tier with King or Seles, or Henin. She was the Lenglen and Wills of the 50's but for that accident, there just aren't records of losses. How close to perfect can one get for three years and really travel the globe, and these were not journeywomen in those semis and finals. Big big names. We count the games and sets with Little Mo.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2013
    #11
  12. Vanhool

    Vanhool Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,927
    Location:
    Aloha State
    I just can't see how King is not included in the for sure list. Choice should be for the remaining 2.

    Edit: Just voted and saw I'm the only one that picked King so far. 12 singles slams, 16 doubles slams, 11 mixed doubles slams, 8 fed cups (4 as captain, 4 as player and captain), took huge risks to found Virginia Slims tour and later WTA, founded World Team Tennis, and avenged Court's embarrassing loss to Riggs. None of those other women come close to those achievements.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2013
    #12
  13. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,545
    Location:
    OREGON
    Actually I meant to vote for King but pushed the wrong button. I view doubles as separate, the Riggs exhibition as just that, and see her political accomplishments for the WTA as irrelevant to the question of playing tennis,, but the woman still won 12 majors and was #1 for years.
     
    #13
  14. Vanhool

    Vanhool Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,927
    Location:
    Aloha State
    Yes, she qualifies on her singles record alone! The other stuff is to mitigate any of the other players' claims against her if people want to play games with what ifs.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2013
    #14
  15. Graf1stClass

    Graf1stClass Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    401
    pretty obvious, but anyway:

    1. Steffi
    2. Kournikova
    3. Connolly
     
    #15
  16. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,545
    Location:
    OREGON
    Those folks can play "what if BJK's knees had not gone bad' requiring two surgeries, but its not usually my style. I wanted to pick Connolly, King and Seles but Henin and Bueno are right there! This is very very close.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2013
    #16
  17. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    I agree she is the best of this group. She was the easiest one for me to vote for. I dont agree she is up with the other 7 though for the simple reason I dont base ones career off of what ifs, and she is a what if case. Similar to how Seles is, but Connolly due to her dominance of all surfaces is superior to Seles IMHO as Seles even in her own brief allowed peak as a teenager (almost carbon to Maureen's, both ended by circumstances out of their control) never dominated on all surfaces as she was never close to dominant on grass. She also didnt return and seemingly have her skill set eclipsed by the next guard of players (even considering ones weakened state) the way Seles was. Still with 9 slams and only 3 years of being able to play it would be impossible for her to be a GOAT candidate along with the other 7 for me, but others who believe more in peak level play, what would happen if you take one in their best years vs others, she could be.
     
    #17
  18. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I went with Connolly then King and Seles.
     
    #18
  19. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    It seems the consensus so far is Bueno isnt even a serious contender for top 10 all time.
     
    #19
  20. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,545
    Location:
    OREGON
    I think the comparison between Seles and Connolly really illuminates a cavern not a crack. Connolly had the kind of dominance no one past Wills can claim during her time. Seles no only could not win on grass, but still had problems with Graf and even the odd loss on clay to a Sabatini or a Sanchez. Seles was a normal modern champion with a pattern faux 'invincibility similar to Graf, or Evert or Navratilova in their early dominant period. Connolly was something different.
     
    #20
  21. illusions30

    illusions30 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    351
    I had the Seles vs Connolly debate on another board with one of the older people who actually was alive when Maureen was dominant. This person suggested to me while Maureen was more dominant her competition was not comparable to Seles's. Basically breaking it down player for player this individual put it:

    Steffi >>>>> Doris Hart
    old Martina >>>>> old Louise Brough
    Peak Sabatini >>>> 35 or 36 year old Osborne du Pont who wasnt even a contender by that point
    Sanchez Vicario > Fry

    Not sure if you have any feelings on that matter or not. I had originally thought Maureen had the tougher competition since I thought of 4 all time greats like Brough, Hart, Du Pont, and Fry, while Seles only had Graf. I had forgotten though that Brough and Du Pont like Martina were quite gold by then (and Du Pont was really not even a factor anymore by Maureen's era looking at results), and I had forgotten about Sanchez Vicario who was already strong during the Seles era, and that Sabatini who was really peaking then was even ranked above Navratilova and Sanchez during this time. I am still not sure if this individual is right that Maureen's competition was that much easier than Seles's, but that is how this person layed it out to me, and they are more informed of Connolly's era than I am.
     
    #21
  22. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    UK
    Unless you include Connolly in your list of 'obvious' top players then I would say your definitions of 'top' or 'great' have no validity.

    Who else has such a near-perfect record over an extended period? And if her opposition was so weak, why didn't someone else amass such a fantastic record? And why was she voted American Sportswoman of the Year three times over if she was playing in a weak sport?

    By any standard her record was 'great'.
     
    #22
  23. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Mo Connolly was devastating in her prime (before her accident).

    How many slams in a row? Eight.

    (She lost one set in her 1953 Grand Slam.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2013
    #23
  24. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    IMO Betz should be at least in this poll and possibly a lock.

    She may have been #1 in the world from 1943 until 1956. That includes all of Connolly's career. We'll never know. But Betz was dominant in her prime, beat Doris Hart (Connolly's top competition) on the pro tour when she was 37yo while Hart was 31yo, and Betz still kept up with Gibson at age 40.

    Betz also played in a men's pro tournament in 1950 and made the 3rd round. Kramer called her the 2nd best woman he's ever seen behind Wills Moody. There's a lot of love for the men's players who spent most of their careers in the pro ranks, and I think Betz deserves the same treatment.
     
    #24
  25. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    To even make a poll suggesting Connolly,Bueno and King are not top ten ever is a bad taste proof.Seles could have a chance but stabbing ruined it; Venus was talented but far from the above mentioned trio...and Henin, those boots are too big for her to fill...
     
    #25
  26. Chico

    Chico Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    Silly thread. Obvious and only correct answer is:
    Seles, Connolly and King
     
    #26
  27. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Connolly and Bueno, had not been cruelly treated by destiny would be seriously considered for GOATNESS...and King was the most longevous champion of the modern era.Plus all of them played brilliantly on grass, which Monica did not.Seles and Venus Williams come next but are not in the former´s league.
     
    #27
  28. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,545
    Location:
    OREGON
    Connolly was on an entirely different level than Bueno. While there were times when Maria was healthy and strong, there was never a time she was literally unbeatable on any surface by anyone for years. There were no threats to the dominance of Little Mo, there were always threats to Bueno. Bueno might have interfered with the GOAT status of Court with better luck and surely remained number one in the world longer, but she never would have gained GOAT status for herself. You over romanticize her, I think.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
    #28
  29. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Why is Bueno even on the poll? Great player but definitely not top 10 all time above Seles, Connolly, King level players. Not surprised she only has 2 votes, probably both from Brazilians.
     
    #29
  30. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    The 8th, 9th, and 10th best have to be:

    8. Connolly- dominated like none of these other women did. Could even be easily put higher than 8th.

    9. Seles- Martina Navratilova is generally regarded as the 3rd best of all time behind Graf and Serena. Seles is considered better than her on 2 of the 3 major surfaces- hard courts and clay, and far better on the latter. How can a player who is considered superior to the 3rd best ever on 2 of the 3 main surfaces, not atleast be considered 9th or 10th best and in the top 10.

    10. King- 12 slams in singles and all her doubles success, is too much to ever put her below a bunch of women with only 7 slams, some who didnt even play doubles. Yes had she been in another era with more hard courts and less grass, she likely would be nowhere near top 10 all time, but whats ifs are everywhere in the tennis World. She did even manage 1 French Open on her worst surface of all- clay.

    I thought of putting Henin above King, but 7 singles slams with no doubles success just cant be over 12 singles slams, a bunch of doubles majors, and all King did off court as well. Venus and Bueno arent even really close. Venus should have been but wasted her talent.
     
    #30
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Henin is lucky to be top 20.No grass for the little lobster.
     
    #31
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Evertilova: the ()lesbic-abortionist coalition
     
    #32
  33. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    It has to be Connolly, King, and Seles. I don't see why Henin or Venus are any higher than Evonne Goolagong. Martina Hingis is also roughly on a par with them.
     
    #33
  34. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Seriously? How do you figure that? I always cheered for Kim against her, and would say Henin is one of my four least favorite tennis players (alongside Muster, Graf, and Nadal), but I don't see how Kim achieved as much. 3 fewer slams and no year-end #1s. And Henin beat her in three straight slam finals.

    It'd say it's close between Henin, Venus, and Hingis for 2nd best player of the era. For 5th, I'm not entirely sure I'd put Kim above Lindsay Davenport.
     
    #34
  35. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Evonne Goolagong won over half of her 7 slams at the Australian Open, which back then was a not real slam, the same reason Court is viewed as inferior to Graf and Navratilova despite 24 slams. Add to that Goolagong was probably never the best player in the World (one could argue 1971 I guess) and Henin and Venus are way ahead of her. Any all time lists I have seen have Goolagong 6 or more places behind both.

    Hingis won 5 slams so would have to have something else extraordinary to deserve to be above Venus and Henin with 7. Henin and Hingis were both 3 times year end #1, but unlike Hingis who was usually a controversy fuelled #1 after mid 98, Henin was really the best and deserved all 3 (arguably deserved 2004 also). Venus has just as many doubles achievements as Venus, plus all her Olympic titles, and amazing longevity in the sport, as compared to Hingis's fast rise and fizzled career.

    Hingis also probably benefitted some from the Seles stabbing, and if that is held against Graf and Sanchez it should be her as well. By contrast Venus and Henin did not benefit one iota from it.


    As for Davenport and Clijsters, Clijsters should be higher. 1 more slam, 2 more WTA Championships, and just like Hingis the #1 stats of Davenport are deceptive as she spent a large amount of time as a highly controversial #1. Clijsters was Player of the Year twice in 2005 and 2010, and Davenport was twice in 1998 and 1999, so really both were the Worlds best 2 years. No difference there. Clijsters dominated a prestigious slam (U.S Open) which Davenport was never able to do.
     
    #35
  36. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Sorry I meant to say Venus has just as many or more doubles achievements as Hingis. I would add Henin's 5 year stretch of consistently great, not just good, performance:

    2003- winner of 2 slams, year end #1, best player of year.
    2004- winner of Olympics, Australian Open, and 5 overall tournaments. Even ill most of the year, best year of anyone really.
    2005- subpar year overall, but unbeaten on clay for year, something the likes of Graf and Seles never achieved.
    2006- all 4 slam finals, French, WTA Championships, and year end #1.
    2007- total year of dominance.

    Is well above any 5 year stretch Hingis could come close to approaching. Venus you cant really say that for, but as mentioned she had the dominance by a long way over both Henin and Hingis (Hingis being the poorest of the three in that), and her peak level of play was the most devastating, followed by Henin, and Hingis again last in that too.
     
    #36
  37. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    I wouldn't count doubles stats or peak-level performance.

    It's hard to rate Venus over Henin if you don't include those two. (Besides, henin's highest level may actually have been higher and more polished than that of Venus.)

    Davenport won three of the four slams, and clijsters did not. The 2011 ao probably takes Kim past her, but I'm not sure. Replace it with a 4th us open, and davenport is ahead for sure.

    Of course Venus benefitted from the Seles stabbing. Monica was only 26 in 2000. If Hingis benefitted, so did Venus. There's no real reason to think Monica's career would have ground to a halt between 1997 and 2000. Now, if you say it based on level, then it's hard to know how to proceed. Venus had a lot of power, but was always very error-prone, and her technique was not that complete. Hingis may have been a tougher matchup for Monica, but it's hard to tell how fitness, confidence, and focus affected that.
     
    #37
  38. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Venus won 5 of her 7 slams at Wimbledons, the other 2 at the U.S Open. All from 2000 onwards. Venus was an absolutely horrendous matchup for Seles in general. Combine surfaces, time, matchup, no sorry there is no way in hell Venus benefited from the Seles stabbing. To suggest Seles was going to win a Wimbledon anytime by beating Venus, or a U.S Open on fast hard courts in 2000 or 2001 by beating Venus is well......

    Hingis though most likely did. She won 3 Australian Opens in a row in the late 90s where Monica probably would have been something close to prime-ish and on Monica's best surface. 1997 might also have been a chance (albeit not a great one) of Seles winning the U.S Open and to a lesser degree Wimbledon.
     
    #38
  39. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Anyway it is safe to conclude Venus would still for sure have 7 slams even without the Seles stabbing. Hingis might have 3 or so. However with 3 slams she would be the one being compard to Cliljsters and Davenport today.

    Back to Davenport vs Clijsters. Yes Davenport won 3 of the 4 slams. However she never could defend a slam title. Never could win 2 slams in the same year. Won all her slams in a 18 month stretch which some might say impressive, but with none being in the exact same year despite that, it kind of just doesnt come across the best all around. She doesnt really show any of longevity as a winner, dominance of a particular slam, a brief period of dominance. Clijsters atleast shows dominance of 1 slam. When you combine that with her having more slams and WTA Championships (the next biggest event) and it really isnt that close unless you heavily credit Davenport's doubles play (which you already dismissed as important) or mostly farcial time at #1 (when in reality Lindsay was no more often the real #1 than Kim was).
     
    #39
  40. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Per-stabbing, Monica was twice reigning champion of the us open and three times reigning champion of the wta tour championships on fast carpet. Graf's slice made her look worse on fast courts than she actually was.

    It's unclear whether Venus, with her erratic technique, would have been a bad matchup for Monica but for the stabbing.

    Why would Monica have been "close to prime-ish" in the late 1990s? Graf's most complete performances may well have been in 1995 and 1996, years she started aged 25 and finished aged 27. They were certainly her best years post 1989. Way above her 1993, a year in which she didn't actuall play any better than in 1992. There's a good chance Monica of 1997 or 2000 would have been better than the per-stabbing Monica, and a decent chance she'd have been much better.
     
    #40
  41. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Change one fact in history and you potentially change many others. Had Monica not been stabbed, Serena might have been much better in 2001 than she was and might have beaten Venus at Wimbledon. There's no particular reason to think that, but it is possible. And there are countless possibilities, an ever-increasing number as you spin out from the date of the change.

    Sorry for typos, it's had to type on an iPad!
     
    #41
  42. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Venus won 5 of her 7 slams at Wimbledon, so that already makes her a non factor when it comes to Seles. If I have to explain that to you any further than you are too out of touch with reality to even go any further with. As for the WTA Championships, Venus hardly ever did anything there even in her peak years (most years didnt even play) so again immaterial.

    Venus was a virtual non factor on slower surfaces where Monica excelled most so even if in some fantasy World Seles was hitting her real peak in the early 2000s, it still wouldnt have mattered any to Venus. They wouldnt have even played much on slow surfaces, as Venus was too poor on those to even reach the late stages much, and was never winning anything there even those rare times she did, with or without Seles.
     
    #42
  43. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    I think you're right bout davenport and clijsters. I guess one reason I'm unsure is that much of Kim's success came after 2009, when the field wasn't as strong as I had been in davenport's best years and Kim's earlier ones. Would Kim have won the 2010 us open or 2011 Australian had Serena not been injured? Perhaps, but she lost her main rival and there was no one to replace her. 10 years earlier, the field was much stronger.
     
    #43
  44. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Please cut the condescending tone. I assure you that my knowledge of recent tennis is very thorough. I was talking about the us open. I see no reason why Monica couldn't have troubled Venus there. In 2000, Venus only beat Hingis 46 63 75. That doesn't suggest that she was unbeatable. You may be sure that Venus would have beaten Monica there, but you have only assertion to back you up and being incredulous that I would think it possible doesn't constitute an argument.
     
    #44
  45. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Well if it is possible Monica as late as 2000 or 2001 could have stolen 1 U.S Open title from Venus (very unlikely IMO but I could concede it is a very small possability), then it is probably just as likely, or much more, that Seles from 97-99 would have been so strong, especialy on her preferred courts which Hingis tended to win her major titles on, that Seles could have even denied Hingis as many as 4 of her 5 slams and left her with only 1. So now going to the most extreme of possabilities we have Venus with 6 slams and Hingis with 1.

    I think the most likely scenario though is Venus still with 7 and Hingis with around 3. I think that is something the vast majority of people would agree on as the most probable estimate. Either way the likelihood Hingis did not benefit from the Seles stabbing to a far far greater degree is close to nothing. Even in the hypothetical Venus would be no tougher an opponent for Hingis overall, there is a world of difference of a player winning 3 of their slams in 1997, and 3 of their 5 slams at Monica's favorite slam from 97-99, and a player who won all their slams from 2000 onwards, 5 at Wimbledon, and 2 U.S Open. Given that the likelihood Hingis did not benefit far more than Venus from the Seles stabbing is about the odds of a winning lottery ticket.
     
    #45
  46. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    I agree Kim benefitted from a weakened field in 2009-2011. However Kim was also very unlucky in her prime. She had her peak years when the Williams and Henin were at their absolute best, when Sharapova was at her true best (way better than she is now). She also missed 4 straight slams from 2004 French-2005 Australian Open. Looking at how those slams break down she would have had a good shot at winning atleast 2 of them. Instead she only played slams she kept losing to a Williams or Henin in the semis and finals most of the time.

    Davenport by contrast did not win her slams when the Williams were at their best. Venus began to play her best tennis in 2000, and Serena in 2002. Once that happened Davenport stopped winning slams. Then even when the Williams fell off, with Henin, Clijsters, and Capriati around she still wasnt winning slams. Davenport won her slams in a field stronger than Kim won 3 of her 4 in 2009-2011, but she was held back by the same strength of players when she was truly at her best.

    Two subjective things I would hold against Davenport as well. She blew alot of opportunities to win additional slams. 2004-2005 especialy. She could have easily won all of Wimbledon 2004, U.S open 2004, Australian Open 2005, Wimbledon 2005. She found a way to blow, choke really, in all 4. Some say the same about Clijsters but it isnt really that clear to me. She isnt certain to beat Henin in a slam final no matter how she plays, and her chokes against Serena in the 2005 Australian Open, and injured Venus at 2005 wimbledon, were in semis. Her other biggest chokes are not in finals, as she never blew a big lead in any final. There is no certainty of her winning those events even had she won those matches (I guess you could say the same about Davenport Wimbledon 2004 and U.S Open 2004 but seeing how terrible Serena was in the Wimbledon final and an injured Dementieva in the U.S Open final, it seems a no brainer).

    Another though is Clijsters's 8 match win streak vs Davenport on hard courts, their mutual best and favorite surface. This is huge, especialy as it carried into 2005 when Davenport was still playing great (evidenced that she was ranked #1). Even if Davenport wasnt at her absolute best that whole time, that is impossible for me to just ignore.
     
    #46
  47. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    True, I suppose, but note other more likely ramifications. It's possible that in a parallel universe in which Seles wasn't stabbed, Graf wouldn't retire in 1999. Now, surely you can admit that graf's form in 1999 was good enough that she could have been a major threat to Venus in 2000 and 2001 at all Venus's slams. (2001 less so, as Graf turned 32 before Wimbledon an Venus played much better in 2001).

    Also, note that in this stalled universe the Seles of 2000 would be one if the dominant players of the last decade, a mature woman of 26, facing a kid with just one slam to her name. Then it looks very different from the washed-up, out of shape, has-been that actually entered the 2000 us open.

    Still, the chances are certainly that hingis's success in 1997 was more likely to have been affected by the stabbing.
     
    #47
  48. robertharris

    robertharris Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Sorry I meant her chokes in the Australian and Wimbledon semis in 2003. Even had she won those she was unlikely to beat very in form Venus at the 2003 Australian Open (by far her best slow court tennis ever, only lost due to mental block with Serena) and Serena at Wimbledon 2003.
     
    #48
  49. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    2004 us open and 2005 Wimbledon are IMO the biggest blown chances for davenport. 2004 Wimbledon, you don't know how Serena would have shown up against a different player, and 2005 Australian, she Gould have made the third set closer, but old still likely have lost. Serena was a terrible matchup for her, as her technique advantage wasn't great enough to compensate for her movement disadvantage. With Venus, the technique advantage in davenport's favor was greater, so Lindsay could sometimes win despite the movement and fight disadvantages.

    2004 us open, Lindsay got injured. So 2005 Wimbledon is the real choke.
     
    #49
  50. helterskelter

    helterskelter Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    N. b. yes, I really do hunk that davenport had better technique than Venus and Serena. The latter could be argued, given Serena's serve and return, but davenport's groundies were roughly as powerful and much cleaner. Hd davenport had better footwork, fitness, speed, and mental toughness, she'd have been quite the player.
     
    #50

Share This Page