Best and worst career- Hingis, Davenport, and Sharapova

Best and weakest career out of Sharapova, Davenport, Hingis

  • Total voters
    23
R

rueandre

New User
Out of these 3 who had the best and worst career. Hingis and Sharapova both have 5 slams. Davenport has 3. Sharapova has the Career Slam. Hingis though has 3 YE#1s, Davenport has 4 YE#1s, Sharapova has 0 YE#1s and barely any time spent at #1. Davenport and Hingis have singificantly more career titles than Sharapova.

I would put Hingis as the top career clearly. Between the other two it is a harder call. I might give it to Davenport for being YE#1 4 times vs 0 times for Sharapova, inspite of 2 fewer slams and the Career Slam.
 
I'd take Sharapova over Davenport. 5 slams to 3. Career slam. 10 slam finals to 7. Bear in mind she lost 3 of them to Serena as well. A couple of Davenport's YE#1s weren't exactly impressive as well. In 2004, she didn't even reach a slam final. Sharapova hasn't exactly been consistent and was never that dominant, but on balance, she's had the better career in my opinion
 
Towny said:
I'd take Sharapova over Davenport. 5 slams to 3. Career slam. 10 slam finals to 7. Bear in mind she lost 3 of them to Serena as well. A couple of Davenport's YE#1s weren't exactly impressive as well. In 2004, she didn't even reach a slam final. Sharapova hasn't exactly been consistent and was never that dominant, but on balance, she's had the better career in my opinion
Click to expand...

Good points. I do think Davenport deserved her YE#1 in 98 though, arguably in 2005, and probably should have been for 99.

Sharapova never ending a year #1 is just one sign of her biggest problem. Any lack of even semi dominance in the game. There isnt a year she was ever arguably the best player in the world or even the 2nd best. The best she ever was is some years 3rd best, 3rd best to Henin and Mauresmo for 2006, 3rd best to Azarenka and Serena in 2012.
 
rueandre said:
Good points. I do think Davenport deserved her YE#1 in 98 though, arguably in 2005, and probably should have been for 99.

Sharapova never ending a year #1 is just one sign of her biggest problem. Any lack of even semi dominance in the game. There isnt a year she was ever arguably the best player in the world or even the 2nd best. The best she ever was is some years 3rd best, 3rd best to Henin and Mauresmo for 2006, 3rd best to Azarenka and Serena in 2012.
Click to expand...

She was year-end #2 three times. While I can see that 2012 was an anomaly of the rankings/Serena not playing much, I don't think it's by any means obvious that Mauresmo merits #2 over her in 2006, nor that she didn't merit #2 in 2014.
 
helterskelter said:
She was year-end #2 three times. While I can see that 2012 was an anomaly of the rankings/Serena not playing much, I don't think it's by any means obvious that Mauresmo merits #2 over her in 2006, nor that she didn't merit #2 in 2014.
Click to expand...

Mauresmo was the only player to win 2 slams in 2006. Both she and Sharapova won 5 titles. Neither won the YEC, and Mauresmo also made the U.S Open semis and YEC final. Sharapova only made 1 major final. It is clear as day Mauresmo deserved #2 (atleast) over Sharapova, some even think she deserved #1 over Henin (although not me). Henin and Mauresmo were clearly the top 2 players that year.

I had forgotten she was #2 in 2014. That year was such a garbage year anyway though with Serena in a big slump most of the year, yet still not losing her #1 ranking for even a week.
 
rueandre said:
Mauresmo was the only player to win 2 slams in 2006. Both she and Sharapova won 5 titles. Neither won the YEC, and Mauresmo also made the U.S Open semis and YEC final. Sharapova only made 1 major final. It is clear as day Mauresmo deserved #2 (atleast) over Sharapova, some even think she deserved #1 over Henin (although not me). Henin and Mauresmo were clearly the top 2 players that year.

I had forgotten she was #2 in 2014. That year was such a garbage year anyway though with Serena in a big slump most of the year, yet still not losing her #1 ranking for even a week.
Click to expand...

Right, I was confusing Mauresmo’s 2005 with her 2006. I do agree on 2006.

By the way, AYMID?
 
rueandre said:
Out of these 3 who had the best and worst career. Hingis and Sharapova both have 5 slams. Davenport has 3. Sharapova has the Career Slam. Hingis though has 3 YE#1s, Davenport has 4 YE#1s, Sharapova has 0 YE#1s and barely any time spent at #1. Davenport and Hingis have singificantly more career titles than Sharapova.

I would put Hingis as the top career clearly. Between the other two it is a harder call. I might give it to Davenport for being YE#1 4 times vs 0 times for Sharapova, inspite of 2 fewer slams and the Career Slam.
Click to expand...

Without poring over any stats, I'd go Hingis, then 'Pova, then Davenport - though there may be a slight case for Davenport to be #2 in this group.

If I recall, Hingis won all 5 "slams" and 6 or 7 more finals between age 16 and 21 - something like that. It's a shame that she did have some personal problems, but...what a genius on the court when on her game!
 
rueandre said:
Sharapova never ending a year #1 is just one sign of her biggest problem. Any lack of even semi dominance in the game. There isnt a year she was ever arguably the best player in the world or even the 2nd best. The best she ever was is some years 3rd best, 3rd best to Henin and Mauresmo for 2006, 3rd best to Azarenka and Serena in 2012.
Click to expand...
That Sharapova never dominated is obviously a significant issue. But the slam difference between her and Davenport is more important to me.

With regards to the time at number 1, Hewitt had 80 weeks with 2 YE#1 to Becker's 12 weeks and 0 YE#1 (although you could make an argument he was the best in 89). It's a factor, but I don't think it's enough to make up for Sharapova winning at every slam over an extended period. Davenport won her slams between 1998 and 2000. Sharapova did it 2004-2014. Plus the two more slams and more finals to boot really seal it for me.

Of course, it all depends on what you value more in these kind of discussions.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Without poring over any stats, I'd go Hingis, then 'Pova, then Davenport - though there may be a slight case for Davenport to be #2 in this group.

If I recall, Hingis won all 5 "slams" and 6 or 7 more finals between age 16 and 21 - something like that. It's a shame that she did have some personal problems, but...what a genius on the court when on her game!
Click to expand...
Hingis won her slams at the end of the Graf/Seles era and before the Williams, Davenport, and the Belgians reached their peak.
 
thrust said:
Hingis won her slams at the end of the Graf/Seles era and before the Williams, Davenport, and the Belgians reached their peak.
Click to expand...

Would your order be any different? I think that Hingis (weird career and life, I guess) was a better player than Clijsters, and the equal of Henin, but I'm not too cranked up on this issue.
 
thrust said:
Hingis won her slams at the end of the Graf/Seles era and before the Williams, Davenport, and the Belgians reached their peak.
Click to expand...

You could make that argument for almost everyone.

Even an ATG like Graf won her slams at the end of the Navratilova/Evert era and before Seles reached her peak (and after she was stabbed), then before Davenport, Hingis, etc..reached their peak. Sounds like a carbon copy of what you just wrote basically with a new name inserted.

Relating to this discussion, Sharapova only won her French Opens, which are the trump card to her career with the whole Career Slam, and 4th and 5th majors wins, after Henin retired and in an abysmal clay field. She beat Sara Errani in 1 of her finals, lol!

Davenport I guess had it hardest competition wise of these 3, although she was more or less an exact contemporary of Hingis.
 
Towny said:
I'd take Sharapova over Davenport. 5 slams to 3. Career slam. 10 slam finals to 7. Bear in mind she lost 3 of them to Serena as well. A couple of Davenport's YE#1s weren't exactly impressive as well. In 2004, she didn't even reach a slam final. Sharapova hasn't exactly been consistent and was never that dominant, but on balance, she's had the better career in my opinion
Click to expand...
Davenport's career is rather strange. She only won 3 slams, yet ended 4 years at #1, Maria never did. Lindsay won over 50 tournaments, Maria, just over 30. Hingis has the better stats. on paper, but won against lesser peak players.
 
thrust said:
Davenport's career is rather strange. She only won 3 slams, yet ended 4 years at #1, Maria never did. Lindsay won over 50 tournaments, Maria, just over 30. Hingis has the better stats. on paper, but won against lesser peak players.
Click to expand...
Certainly true Davenport has achievements over Sharapova. I can see why someone might have her ahead. But for me, Sharapova is greater because of what I've already outlined.
 
Hingis has 25 GS titles doubles & mixed including. She's definitely Nr. 1. Sharapova has a career Slam. If you'd compare Agassi and Lendl, Agassi would always come first because he has a career Slam; same with Sharapova and Davenport (and Davenport has "only" 3 GS titles).
 
I am honestly surprised to see 5 people pick Sharapova as the best career. Must be some horny men on this forum who cant look past the hotness.
 
boredone3456 said:
In Singles

Sharapova
Hingis
Davenport

In Doubles

Hingis
Davenport
Sharapova
Click to expand...

Sharapova over Hingis in singles? With all of Hingis's time at #1 and huge edge in dominance, consistency, and titles? All because of the Career Slam (Sharapova's only edge over Hingis) which even Shirley Fry achieved. Hingis even both achieved 3 in a row at a particular slam and 3 slams in one year vs Sharapova who couldnt ever defend a slam, win 2 slams in one year, or even win a slam in back to back years.

PS- even with Sharapova's 2 French Opens and Hingis's 0, having watched both play numerous times I have 0% doubt Hingis is a better clay player hands down. The only surface Sharapova might be better is grass, and even there it is uncertain.
 
Sport said:
WTF? YE #1 without reaching a GS final? Only in the WTA...
Click to expand...

Davenport had some horrible luck in 2004. She was whipping Sharapova in their Wimbledon SF, had destroyed her in the first set and I think was up a break in the 2nd, when the rain started to fall. This cooled Lindsay off and allowed Maria, who was a total mess, to get it together and come out swinging in the 2nd set when it resumed. Lindsay Then totally fell apart in the 3rd set.

At the US Open that year similar horrible luck. Went in the huge favorite after winning the US Open series, scoring victories over both Williams sisters building up a 17 match winning streak. Ran it up to 22 straight wins going into the US Open SF against Kuznetsova, where she suffered an injury after winning the first set 6-1 over Kuznetsova.

As for why she ended 2004 #1....none of Henin, Myskina, Kuznetsova or Sharapova did anything outside of winning a major. Davenport won a tour high 7 titles that year and won more matches than any other player, winning 63. She lost to the Eventual champion at 3 of the 4 majors, and at the French lost to the eventual Finalist.
 
rueandre said:
Sharapova over Hingis in singles? With all of Hingis's time at #1 and huge edge in dominance, consistency, and titles? All because of the Career Slam (Sharapova's only edge over Hingis) which even Shirley Fry achieved. Hingis even both achieved 3 in a row at a particular slam and 3 slams in one year vs Sharapova who couldnt ever defend a slam, win 2 slams in one year, or even win a slam in back to back years.

PS- even with Sharapova's 2 French Opens and Hingis's 0, having watched both play numerous times I have 0% doubt Hingis is a better clay player hands down. The only surface Sharapova might be better is grass, and even there it is uncertain.
Click to expand...

I honestly think its close but Sharapova deserves some credit for winning all 5 of the biggest tournaments offered throughout the year (the 4 majors and the YEC). She is the only one of the 3 able to actually achieve this feat. Plus she beat some big names to win her majors, knocking out Davenport and Serena at Wimbledon, Mauresmo and Henin at the US Open. She had arguably one of the most dominating performances ever at the 2008 Australian, literally and emotionally destroying Henin en route. She made 3 straight French finals 2012-2014, only being best by Serena in 2013 otherwise she arguably would have won all 3. She does have 14 titles classified as Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 level (vs 17 for Hingis, actually rather close) and many runner ups performances at this level as well.

Honestly it could go either way
 
Hingis was born too late. She could have dominated the game in any era before the advent of power tennis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

deacsyoga
Where does Sharapova rank amongst women of the last 15 years if she retired tommorow
2
Replies
90
Views
6K
deacsyoga
deacsyoga
deacsyoga
Who was the rightful #1 (in your view) each year of the last 20 years
Replies
3
Views
506
K-H
K-H
B
  • Poll Poll
Where does Sharapova rank in the Open Era
2
Replies
87
Views
4K
thrust
T
deacsyoga
If Sharapova is an all time great, then is Murray as well?
Replies
28
Views
2K
Dope Reign
Dope Reign
M
  • Poll Poll
Sharapova vs Hingis vs Clijsters vs Davenport
Replies
16
Views
1K
skaj
skaj
Back
Top