yatestwile
Rookie
Looking at all the ATP, WTA, and ITF winners over the years which ones do you strongly disagree with or single out at the worst. Mine would be:
WTA-
1. Virginia Wade over Chris Evert in 1977. While Wade's Wimbledon win is one of the most exciting moments ever in tennis, this on the whole makes no practical sense whatsoever. This is by far the most worst choice, Evert was by a huge margin the best player that year, perhaps the biggest margin of all her years of dominance from 74-76.
2. Jennifer Capriati over Venus Williams in 2001. This will come up again as Jennifer basically swept the awards this year, but didnt deserve any of them. Venus won 2 slams and 6 tournaments, Jennifer won 2 slams and 3 tournaments and went 0-3 vs Venus this year. The only case for Jennifer is Venus losing 1st round at the French and Jennifer making the semis of all slams, but still not enough really.
3. Steffi Graf over Aranxta Sanchez Vicario in 1994. The ITF named Sanchez its player of the year over YE#1 Graf and IMO the WTA also should have. Sanchez flat out had the better year, far and away a better year in slams and almost the same tournament wins and W-L to boot. Honestly when I look at their results that year I am surprised Sanchez didnt have the points to end #1 on the computer, and wasnt even that close.
These 3 are the only ones ever I strongly disagree with. The rest are minor.
-Tracy Austin over Chris Evert in 1980. While I know Tracy had a great record vs Chris that year she didnt win a slam title and Chris won two, and their huge U.S Open match should have cemented it for Chris.
-Lindsay Davenport over Martina Hingis in 1998. IMO despite Davenport ending the year #1, Hingis's YEC win cemented her as having the superior overall year and she should have won atleast one of the WTA or ITF awards.
-Amelie Mauresmo over Justine Henin in in 2006. I see why Mauresmo won as she won 2 majors, beating Henin in the finals of both but I still think Henin's year with all 4 slam finals, her RG and YEC wins, and 8 tournament titles (nobody else including Mauresmo had more than 5) was enough to back up her #1 ranking and she should have won the Player of Year honors to go with that. The ITF agreed but not the WTA.
-Victoria Arazrenka in 2012. I think it is just wrong and flat out unfair when Wozniacki in 2010 and Jankovic in 2008 managed to win an award with their YE#1, Azarenka who won a slam and had a far better year than both does not. I would have given Azarenka the WTA for how solid she was on tour all year, and Serena the ITF for her performance in the major events.
Considering the ITF covers both men and women, and the WTA only the women, the WTA awards have been the worst over the years. In most cases (a few exceptions obviously) probably based on an attempt to camaflouge and justify their generally poor ranking system which has not been on par with the ATP in fairness, even taking into account the general oft injuredness and inconsistency of many of the best women in recent times.
ATP-
1. Borg over Connors in 1976- This was a strange choice as while most of Connors time at #1 was controversial, I do think it was acknowledged this year he was the best and deserved his #1 ranking. Borg did win 2 majors, so there is a possible case, but this is mostly about the long rift between Connors and the ATP I believe.
This is really the only one ever I strongly disagree with. The rest are all minor at most.
-Borg over Vilas in 1977- I think Vilas definitely deserved it this year. I feel awful for him he lost out on both the ATP #1 ranking and their Player of Year honors which went to Connors and Borg respectively despite that Vilas was the most dominant and successful player this year. Yes if Borg and Vilas play one another you would still back Borg, but Vilas still had the best year.
-Safin vs Kuerten 2000- IMO these two were so close they should have split the ITF and ATP awards for the year with the ITF maybe going to Kuerten and ATP maybe to Safin.
Really the ATP awards over the years have been pretty solid.
ITF-
1. Djokovic over Nadal 2013- Just ridiculous someone who won more slams, more Masters, more tournaments, and ended the year #1 would not win any award. Pretty much a bad joke all around.
2. Myskina 2004- While this was a crazy and open year for the women Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Henin, Serena, and possibly Kuznetsova and Dementieva were all more worthy of Player of year honors than she was. Inexplicable choice.
3. Capriati over Venus 2001- Again part of Capriati's parade of undeserved Player of Year or Athlete of Year wins, which are rooted mostly in sentiment and her whole story which was remarkable yes.
4. Hingis over Venus (and Davenport) 2000- Hingis probably deserved her #1 ranking but there is no question Venus was by a huge margin the best player in the world this year and had a far greater year. 2 slams to 0 and Venus's 3-4 month stretch of summer dominance already easily trumps Hingis's consistent year and YEC title. Even Davenport would have been a better choice than Hingis if you were insistent on giving it to someone who was consistent and played a whole year. Davenport won a slam (with a fierce drubbing of Hingis) and was the only women in 3 slam finals (Hingis made 1, the aforementioned loss to Davenport)
Those are the only four ever I strongly disagree with. The rest are minor.
-Davenport over Hingis in 1998. Again I dont think Davenport deserved to sweep the awards at all and Hingis with her YEC title had the better year.
-Jelena Jankovic over Serena Williams and Venus Williams in 2008- I dont think not winning a slam and reaching only 1 final she was worthy of the award. She probably deserved the #1 ranking but that is different from being a worthy Player of Year. The popular choice is Serena, but I think Venus winning both Wimbledon and the YEC has a good case too. The WTA and most others went with Serena.
-Clijsters over Davenport in 2005- I agreed with the WTA award to Clijsters, but would have given the ITF to YE#1 Davenport for Kim's poor performance in big events outside her U.S Open win (yes I know Davenport didnt win a slam this year, but atleast she made a final unlike 2004). Clijsters DNP the Australian, lost round of 16 at the French and Wimbledon (to Davenport of all people), and flamed out at the YEC. I also think they deserved to split the awards this year. With the same results and the YE#1 I would have gone with Kim, but with her not being YE#1 I dont think she then deserved to sweep the awards with her year.
-Tracy Austin in 1981. I think Austin deserved the ITF award in 81 for winning both the US Open and YEC when 4 different women won slams, and find it unfair they said if Navratilova had won the YEC she would get it over Evert despite being nothing this year until the U.S Open (even moreso than Tracy) yet did not give the same conditions to Tracy. Mostly based on the bias of Chris's friend Steve Flink who ran the ITF then and loved Chris, was also friends with Martina, Hana, and Pam, and hated Tracy.
WTA-
1. Virginia Wade over Chris Evert in 1977. While Wade's Wimbledon win is one of the most exciting moments ever in tennis, this on the whole makes no practical sense whatsoever. This is by far the most worst choice, Evert was by a huge margin the best player that year, perhaps the biggest margin of all her years of dominance from 74-76.
2. Jennifer Capriati over Venus Williams in 2001. This will come up again as Jennifer basically swept the awards this year, but didnt deserve any of them. Venus won 2 slams and 6 tournaments, Jennifer won 2 slams and 3 tournaments and went 0-3 vs Venus this year. The only case for Jennifer is Venus losing 1st round at the French and Jennifer making the semis of all slams, but still not enough really.
3. Steffi Graf over Aranxta Sanchez Vicario in 1994. The ITF named Sanchez its player of the year over YE#1 Graf and IMO the WTA also should have. Sanchez flat out had the better year, far and away a better year in slams and almost the same tournament wins and W-L to boot. Honestly when I look at their results that year I am surprised Sanchez didnt have the points to end #1 on the computer, and wasnt even that close.
These 3 are the only ones ever I strongly disagree with. The rest are minor.
-Tracy Austin over Chris Evert in 1980. While I know Tracy had a great record vs Chris that year she didnt win a slam title and Chris won two, and their huge U.S Open match should have cemented it for Chris.
-Lindsay Davenport over Martina Hingis in 1998. IMO despite Davenport ending the year #1, Hingis's YEC win cemented her as having the superior overall year and she should have won atleast one of the WTA or ITF awards.
-Amelie Mauresmo over Justine Henin in in 2006. I see why Mauresmo won as she won 2 majors, beating Henin in the finals of both but I still think Henin's year with all 4 slam finals, her RG and YEC wins, and 8 tournament titles (nobody else including Mauresmo had more than 5) was enough to back up her #1 ranking and she should have won the Player of Year honors to go with that. The ITF agreed but not the WTA.
-Victoria Arazrenka in 2012. I think it is just wrong and flat out unfair when Wozniacki in 2010 and Jankovic in 2008 managed to win an award with their YE#1, Azarenka who won a slam and had a far better year than both does not. I would have given Azarenka the WTA for how solid she was on tour all year, and Serena the ITF for her performance in the major events.
Considering the ITF covers both men and women, and the WTA only the women, the WTA awards have been the worst over the years. In most cases (a few exceptions obviously) probably based on an attempt to camaflouge and justify their generally poor ranking system which has not been on par with the ATP in fairness, even taking into account the general oft injuredness and inconsistency of many of the best women in recent times.
ATP-
1. Borg over Connors in 1976- This was a strange choice as while most of Connors time at #1 was controversial, I do think it was acknowledged this year he was the best and deserved his #1 ranking. Borg did win 2 majors, so there is a possible case, but this is mostly about the long rift between Connors and the ATP I believe.
This is really the only one ever I strongly disagree with. The rest are all minor at most.
-Borg over Vilas in 1977- I think Vilas definitely deserved it this year. I feel awful for him he lost out on both the ATP #1 ranking and their Player of Year honors which went to Connors and Borg respectively despite that Vilas was the most dominant and successful player this year. Yes if Borg and Vilas play one another you would still back Borg, but Vilas still had the best year.
-Safin vs Kuerten 2000- IMO these two were so close they should have split the ITF and ATP awards for the year with the ITF maybe going to Kuerten and ATP maybe to Safin.
Really the ATP awards over the years have been pretty solid.
ITF-
1. Djokovic over Nadal 2013- Just ridiculous someone who won more slams, more Masters, more tournaments, and ended the year #1 would not win any award. Pretty much a bad joke all around.
2. Myskina 2004- While this was a crazy and open year for the women Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Henin, Serena, and possibly Kuznetsova and Dementieva were all more worthy of Player of year honors than she was. Inexplicable choice.
3. Capriati over Venus 2001- Again part of Capriati's parade of undeserved Player of Year or Athlete of Year wins, which are rooted mostly in sentiment and her whole story which was remarkable yes.
4. Hingis over Venus (and Davenport) 2000- Hingis probably deserved her #1 ranking but there is no question Venus was by a huge margin the best player in the world this year and had a far greater year. 2 slams to 0 and Venus's 3-4 month stretch of summer dominance already easily trumps Hingis's consistent year and YEC title. Even Davenport would have been a better choice than Hingis if you were insistent on giving it to someone who was consistent and played a whole year. Davenport won a slam (with a fierce drubbing of Hingis) and was the only women in 3 slam finals (Hingis made 1, the aforementioned loss to Davenport)
Those are the only four ever I strongly disagree with. The rest are minor.
-Davenport over Hingis in 1998. Again I dont think Davenport deserved to sweep the awards at all and Hingis with her YEC title had the better year.
-Jelena Jankovic over Serena Williams and Venus Williams in 2008- I dont think not winning a slam and reaching only 1 final she was worthy of the award. She probably deserved the #1 ranking but that is different from being a worthy Player of Year. The popular choice is Serena, but I think Venus winning both Wimbledon and the YEC has a good case too. The WTA and most others went with Serena.
-Clijsters over Davenport in 2005- I agreed with the WTA award to Clijsters, but would have given the ITF to YE#1 Davenport for Kim's poor performance in big events outside her U.S Open win (yes I know Davenport didnt win a slam this year, but atleast she made a final unlike 2004). Clijsters DNP the Australian, lost round of 16 at the French and Wimbledon (to Davenport of all people), and flamed out at the YEC. I also think they deserved to split the awards this year. With the same results and the YE#1 I would have gone with Kim, but with her not being YE#1 I dont think she then deserved to sweep the awards with her year.
-Tracy Austin in 1981. I think Austin deserved the ITF award in 81 for winning both the US Open and YEC when 4 different women won slams, and find it unfair they said if Navratilova had won the YEC she would get it over Evert despite being nothing this year until the U.S Open (even moreso than Tracy) yet did not give the same conditions to Tracy. Mostly based on the bias of Chris's friend Steve Flink who ran the ITF then and loved Chris, was also friends with Martina, Hana, and Pam, and hated Tracy.
Last edited:
