Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
I think Mauresmo is an overrated player. People talk about her amazing talent and that she should have won more than 2 slams yet so many things stand out that indicate she wasnt that good and was perhaps lucky to even win 2 slams:
-The 2002 U.S Open Semifinal. Mauresmo was playing her very best tennis, and her best ever fast hard court tennis. Venus was playing so incredibly poorly that revered tennis expert and historian Mary Carillo in the booth said it would be a sombre and depressing win for Venus even in victory. So for Mauresmo to play her very best and Venus to play so poorly that the hugely respected tennis expert Mary Carillo claimed it would be extremely depresing for Venus to win playing that horribly, shows just how far from the best players she is, and is embarassing to lose in such circumstances for a top 5 player, no matter how dominant the Williams were at the time.
-Her lifetime 2-11 record vs Serena, and losing a bagel set to a semi retired Serena in her worst physical shape and form ever at the 2006 U.S Open.
-In her best year ever losing two bagel sets to Sharapova at the U.S Open.
-In 2004 she had a golden opportunity to win 2 or 3 slams, her chance of having her best year ever, even better than 2006. Yet she blew chances to win the French (played tame wimpish tennis and lost to Dementieva, would have had to only beat Dementieva, Saurez, and Myskina for title), Wimbledon (where she couldnt even close out a subpar Serena after being a set, a break, and points for 2 breaks up, and would have had Sharapova who she won her first 3 matches against all the way up to September 06 in the final), and the U.S Open (where she lost a 3rd set tiebreaker to injured and double faulting Dementieva, after wasting tons of chances to close the match out).
-The 2002 Wimbledon semis she was playing her best ever grass tennis and lost 6-2, 6-1 to Serena. So in conjuction with the 02 U.S Open semis in short Mauresmo at 100% barely gets games off a Williams at 100%, and Mauresmo at 100% still cant even beat a Williams at 30% which doesnt speak well to her abilities.
In 2006 she found herself with a great situation since she was always a somewhat bad matchup for Henin due to her heavy topspin shots being a big problem for Henin with her lack of height (the same reason Stosur who is an even weaker player than Mauresmo has a great record vs Henin), and even at that she still has a losing record with Henin but the bad matchup means she is much happier when Henin is the one to beat than a slew of others, the Willimas being AWOL, Clijsters past her prime and unmotivated, Davenport who even in old age owned her out injured most of the year, and also having the upper hand on Sharapova early in their rivalry. She played well but had she not had a year that presented itself with the favorable matchups and opponents late in her career like it did, she might have even gone slamless, especialy after choking her big opportunity year away in 2004.
It seems most rate her above Capriati and Pierce. I understand as she has 27 titles to Capriati's 14 despite having 1 less slam, and she has more success than Pierce in every respec other than slam finals. However those two at their best were more devastating and competitive the top players than Amelie.