Best female player with 2 or 3 major titles

Who was the best female players with 2 or 3 major titles (open era)?

  • Anne Haydon-Jones

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nancy Richey

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Virginia Wade

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Tracy Austin

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Jennifer Capriati

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • Lindsay Davenport

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • Mary Pierce

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Amelie Mauresmo

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Maria Sharapova

    Votes: 6 20.0%
  • Svetlana Kuznetsova

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30

BTURNER

Legend
No doubt that Tracy had only begun to blossum when injuries did her in. There was lots of room to grow and improve and she already had taken down two all time greats Navratilova and Evert on multiple occasions. The serve could have improved the shot variety, the court and tactical sense, even her volley. Lindsey of course had sever injury problems as well but she had a full career.
 

grafrules

Banned
From best to worst:

1. Lindsay Davenport
2. Ann Haydon Jones
3. Tracy Austin
4. Nancy Richey
5. Mary Pierce
6. Virginia Wade
7. Maria Sharapova
8. Amelie Mauresmo
------huge gap------
9. Jennifer Capriati
10. Svetlana Kuznetsova

The last two are super lucky and as far as slam titles overachieved.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Best with 2 slams: Austin or Pierce

Best with 3 slams: Either Davenport or Jones.

For the 2 slam winners, Austin won 2 US Open's, beating Evert and Martina in the finals. 2 impressive wins and given her age her best years likely we still ahead of her, before hit with injuries that ultimately...along with an untimely car crash, did her in. Pierce was a player who when on fire, was one of the best i've ever seen. Won majors on 2 different surfaces, and made a further 4 finals including 2 at almost 30 years old. It depends what you want to go on...based on accomplishments at the slams...slight edge goes to Pierce for me...but if you factor in Austin's potential at the time she won her 2 majors...than you could give it to her. It could go either way.

For the 3 slam winners, Lindsay won 3 different majors, and made a further 4 finals. One could argue that without the Williams sisters, she would probably have maybe 5 majors, with her at least getting another Wimbledon title. Jones seemed to retire just when she was hitting her stride..and if she continued she also could have won more majors, I would personally lean in favor of Davenport for the 3 slam winners.

I would rate the 2 slam winners as follows
Pierce/Austin (so close its sort of hard to differentiate)
Richey
(Gap)
Mauresmo
Kuznetsova

3 Slam Winners
Davenport/Jones (again...close)
Wade
Sharapova
(Big Gap)
Capriati
 
I wonder why Capriati gets so little love here. In 2001 she was in charge of the game as arguably no other lady in the list ever was, and against strong competition: Hingis, Davenport, Serena, Venus, young Clijsters, young Henin. For me Davenport nicks this one but Capriati isn't far behind, in a pack with Haydon Jones and Sharapova, and ahead of Wade and the two-championship players. Austin is a bit the dark horse with her short but exciting career.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
I wonder why Capriati gets so little love here. In 2001 she was in charge of the game as arguably no other lady in the list ever was, and against strong competition: Hingis, Davenport, Serena, Venus, young Clijsters, young Henin. For me Davenport nicks this one but Capriati isn't far behind, in a pack with Haydon Jones and Sharapova, and ahead of Wade and the two-championship players. Austin is a bit the dark horse with her short but exciting career.
In 2001 Capriati won only 1 non slam singles title and after the French was not able to win a single title for the rest of the year. I find is funny that some people say she was deserving of the number 1 ranking in october when she finally got it despite the fact that Venus won exactly the same number of slams and more titles overall and was at the time clearly the best in world as Jenn hadn't won a singles title in roughly 5 months.

As for owning the game in 2001, Capriati's 2 slams were the australian and the french. At the Aussie she got incredibly lucky her Semi opponent played so poorly, as well as her opponent in the final (Hingis). At the French, she won because Clijsters, playing in her first slam final, gagged horribly after demolishing Jenn in the first set 6-1. Clijsters also gagged at least 3 times in that epic 12-10 final set. Looking at the year as a whole she cannot be said to be in charge of the game, Venus Williams was the clear number 1 in 2001, not Capriati.
 
I wonder why Capriati gets so little love here. In 2001 she was in charge of the game as arguably no other lady in the list ever was, and against strong competition: Hingis, Davenport, Serena, Venus, young Clijsters, young Henin. For me Davenport nicks this one but Capriati isn't far behind, in a pack with Haydon Jones and Sharapova, and ahead of Wade and the two-championship players. Austin is a bit the dark horse with her short but exciting career.
For starters, Capriati was in charge of the game in 2001? Hardly, Capriati won 2 slams like Venus, but won only 3 tournaments all year. Venus won the 2 biggest slams- Wimbledon and the U.S Open, won 6 out of 11 tournaments she played, won Miami- the biggest non slam event, and was 3-0 vs Capriati for the year, destroying her in the U.S Open semis. Venus was by far the true #1 of 2001 whether the deluded computer rankings showed it or not. Anyway the computer #1 wasnt even Jennifer either, it was Davenport. Jennifer also had losing head to heads with each of Venus, Davenport, and a way past her prime Seles for the year. She had tied head to heads for the year with Mauresmo and Henin but Henin won the only match both finished (Capriati's one win was a DNF in the 3rd set from injured Henin), and winning ones vs Serena, Hingis, Clijsters, and Dokic. What kind of a dominant player of the year has a losing head to head vs winning with half of the top 10.

Now onto the rest Capriati was ridiculously lucky to win 3 slams. Looking at the entire 2000s standard of tennis it was one of the biggest injustices ever she somehow won 3 slams. Davenport for example was a much better player all of 2000-2001, late 2002-late 2005 than Capriati was even during her period of 3 slams of 2001-early 2002 yet Davenport won 0 slams this decade and Capriati 3. Even post stabbing Seles of late 95-early 2003 was atleast as good that entire time as Capriati in only that short 2001-early 2002 3 career slams peak, yet Seles won only 1 slam that whole period. Clijsters of 2001-2002 was roughly equal to Capriati, and 2003-2006 was far superior to Capriati of 2001-2002, yet she won only 1 slam total that time. It just baffles to mind how the vagarities of time, place, chance, and luck went so heavily in favor of Capriati and against some of the other women like those I mentioned.

Anyway anytime you win only 4 tournaments over almost 3 years, and yet win 3 slams in only 13 months you know you are darn lucky. Even Serena who tanks all the non slam tournaments (which Capriati did not do) probably never had a run like that. Lets look at her slam wins:

2001 Australian Open- Way past her prime Seles chokes away a 7-5, 4-1 lead
in the quarters. Seles would beat Jennifer in their other 2 meetings that year. Davenport who owns Capriati had the misfortune to play her worst ever slam semifinal or final of her career when her nemisis Williams were out of the way for once. Hingis was mentally broken by now because of the problems she had with both Williams and Davenport for a couple years, and some painful near misses and slams, so now was weakened enough to even be losing to inferior players she should beat like Capriati, and it showed in her pitiful finals performance. Still I will say despite all I said Capriati earned this one as the big 6 or so of womens tennis at the time were all in the quarters, and she was the last one standing. So good, she earned this one, an emotional comeback and everything, it should have been her only slam.

2001 French- Very lucky that Davenport, who owns her even on clay and would have completed her career slam this year, and Seles who Capriati would have no shot vs on clay even at this point in Seles's career, both had to miss the event with injury. Either would have taken it for sure, especialy if they ran into Capriati. Major contenders for the title who own Jennifer head to head like Mauresmo and Venus went out early. Henin who would have beaten Jennifer in the final almost certainly, considering Jennifer couldnt even beat her on grass a few weeks later, choked away her semifinal with Kim and Jen didnt have to play her in the final. Then Kim totally should have won that final but choked each time she was about to close it out. Completely lucky slam.

2002 Australian Open- this has to go down as the worst and luckiest slam win in history by far, even far luckier than much weaker slam players than Jennifer like Majoli and Myskina's lone slams which they atleast did more to actually earn than Jennifer here. First of all Serena and Davenport who both would have been heavy favorites over Jennifer had to miss the event with injury. Venus was heavily favored to win with those two out, and went out in the quarters mostly due to an injury. Seles who played a great match to beat Venus (ableit injured Venus) was definitely playing well enough to probably to beat Capriati in the final if they met, but she ran into a near perfect Hingis who made only 7 unforced errors in 3 sets, and still lost in a tough 3 sets. Poor Seles, as Hingis played 40% that well in the final. Clijsters choked the first set away vs Capriati otherwise would have won in 2 sets in the semis, as she won the second set. Then in the final Hingis played about 40% as well as she did the whole event (playing like she did vs Seles would have won in under an hour), and still had match points in the 2nd sets and choked them all away. The biggest joke slam win in history was Capriati's 2002 Ausse Open.

To put it into further perspective outside of 2001-early 2002 during Capriati's 2 primes in 1991-1993 and 2001-2004 she was always only around the 7th or 8th best player in the World. In 1991-1993 she was inferior to Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Sanchez, aging Navratilova, Novotna, maybe Fernandez. All except Fernandez owned her head to head, all had better slam results including slam finals which Capriati had none of those years. Then after the 2002 Australian Open to end of 2004 she was inferior to Davenport, Serena, Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, and in 2004 Dementieva, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, and Myskina all as well. The majority of good 1 slam winners like Clijsters, Sabatini, Novotna, have winning head to heads with her. Anymore questions?
 
True that Caprati's second half of 2001 wasn't as good as the first half (although semis at both Wimbeldon and the US Open is no mean feat), and true that her prime was short (which explains her poor head-to-head count against many players she beat in 2001).

And yet her run in the first half of 2001 was impressive. I remember Serena saying -- after losing the 2001 Wimbledon quarterfinal to Capriati -- that beating Capriati in this form would be a major achievement for any player. That Capriati was a notch behind a 7-slam champion like Venus over the entire course of 2001 is something I wouldn't hold against any player on this list.
 
True that Caprati's second half of 2001 wasn't as good as the first half (although semis at both Wimbeldon and the US Open is no mean feat), and true that her prime was short (which explains her poor head-to-head count against many players she beat in 2001).

And yet her run in the first half of 2001 was impressive. I remember Serena saying -- after losing the 2001 Wimbledon quarterfinal to Capriati -- that beating Capriati in this form would be a major achievement for any player. That Capriati was a notch behind a 7-slam champion like Venus over the entire course of 2001 is something I wouldn't hold against any player on this list.
In ONLY 2001 if you want to look at that way, which is basically conceding she had a 1 year prime only, she still had:

- 0-3 head to head with Venus
- 1-2 head to head with Davenport who was merely playing at a level she played for atleast 10 years as opposed to 1 (actually 98-2000 and 2004-2005 Davenport was better)
- 1-2 head to head vs a way past her prime Seles, only win she was down 7-5, 4-1 too.
- 1-1 head to head with Henin, a loss in the Wimbledon semis to a pre-prime Henin on grass, Henin's worst surface by far, when Henin was about the half the player she would be from 2003-2007. Her win was not really a win, Henin retiring with injury on serve in a match on clay.
- 1-1 head to head vs a pre-prime Mauresmo
- won her only match with a pre-prime Clijsters 10-8 in the 3rd.

According to you this is tennis she only ever played for a year or even half a year her whole career, yet she was still owned by Venus, Davenport not playing as well as other years, and even a way past her prime Seles. She still only played about equal to a pre-prime Henin, Cljjsters, and Mauresmo, who were nowhere near the caliber of players they would be in a couple years time, so even 2001 Capriati would have regularly begun losing to these players in 2003 when they began hitting their stride.

If you want to restrict it even further into just the first half of 2001, which is basically conceding she only had a half year prime (LOL) then:

-Capriati's only 2 titles in that half year were the 2 slams
-Capriati still was down 7-5, 4-1 in her only slam meeting with a way past her prime Seles, then lost their next meeting
-Capriati still had to go to 10-8 in the 3rd to beat a pre-prime baby Clijsters in her first slam final
-Capriati still lost her one meeting with Mauresmo

Even prime Venus was a mediocrity on slow surfaces who was outstanding on fast surfaces. Of course Capriati in 2001 was nowhere near Venus on any medium to fast surface which 100% of Venus's greatness as a player is based upon anyway, and her being seen as anywhere near was based solely on her winning the 2 slow court slams where Venus is next to irrelevant and crashed out as usual. So if the draws and course of events on the 2 slow surface slams just happen to be such that you could win both than anyone could be just a notch behind Venus for the year on the basis of that alone. Heck even 2004 Myskina with the same draws and performances from opponents at the 2001 Australian and 2001 French Opens as Capriati (and Myskina is one of the worst 1 slam winners in history IMO) probably could have done the same thing.

Anyway you are entitled your opinion on Capriati. If you find her that impressive based upon what you said, then so be it. I and boredone are just explaining why we and many others arent that impressed by her, especialy compared to other 3 and even 2 slam winners.

Watching peak Capriati hit only 2 winners a set vs Venus in all their matches on hard courts, be completely overpowered by Davenport and Seles in her twilight years when they didnt mentally self comubst, and having a hard time trying to beat baby Clijsters and Henin, hardly amazes people to how great peak Capriati must have been.
 
Last edited:
In ONLY 2001 if you want to look at that way, which is basically conceding she had a 1 year prime only, she still had:

- 0-3 head to head with Venus
- 1-2 head to head with Davenport who was merely playing at a level she played for atleast 10 years as opposed to 1 (actually 98-2000 and 2004-2005 Davenport was better)
- 1-2 head to head vs a way past her prime Seles, only win she was down 7-5, 4-1 too.
- 1-1 head to head with Henin, a loss in the Wimbledon semis to a pre-prime Henin on grass, Henin's worst surface by far, when Henin was about the half the player she would be from 2003-2007. Her win was not really a win, Henin retiring with injury on serve in a match on clay.
- 1-1 head to head vs a pre-prime Mauresmo
- won her only match with a pre-prime Clijsters 10-8 in the 3rd.

According to you this is tennis she only ever played for a year or even half a year her whole career, yet she was still owned by Venus, Davenport not playing as well as other years, and even a way past her prime Seles. She still only played about equal to a pre-prime Henin, Cljjsters, and Mauresmo, who were nowhere near the caliber of players they would be in a couple years time, so even 2001 Capriati would have regularly begun losing to these players in 2003 when they began hitting their stride.

If you want to restrict it even further into just the first half of 2001, which is basically conceding she only had a half year prime (LOL) then:

-Capriati's only 2 titles in that half year were the 2 slams
-Capriati still was down 7-5, 4-1 in her only slam meeting with a way past her prime Seles, then lost their next meeting
-Capriati still had to go to 10-8 in the 3rd to beat a pre-prime baby Clijsters in her first slam final
-Capriati still lost her one meeting with Mauresmo

Even prime Venus was a mediocrity on slow surfaces who was outstanding on fast surfaces. Of course Capriati in 2001 was nowhere near Venus on any medium to fast surface which 100% of Venus's greatness as a player is based upon anyway, and her being seen as anywhere near was based solely on her winning the 2 slow court slams where Venus is next to irrelevant and crashed out as usual. So if the draws and course of events on the 2 slow surface slams just happen to be such that you could win both than anyone could be just a notch behind Venus for the year on the basis of that alone. Heck even 2004 Myskina with the same draws and performances from opponents at the 2001 Australian and 2001 French Opens as Capriati (and Myskina is one of the worst 1 slam winners in history IMO) probably could have done the same thing.

Anyway you are entitled your opinion on Capriati. If you find her that impressive based upon what you said, then so be it. I and boredone are just explaining why we and many others arent that impressed by her, especialy compared to other 3 and even 2 slam winners.

Watching peak Capriati hit only 2 winners a set vs Venus in all their matches on hard courts, be completely overpowered by Davenport and Seles in her twilight years when they didnt mentally self comubst, and having a hard time trying to beat baby Clijsters and Henin, hardly amazes people to how great peak Capriati must have been.
Lots of good stuff, but I still have my quibbles. First, your stats are obviously rather one-sided -- what about Capriati's 3-0 score over Hingis in 2001, who had entered the year as the (clear) number 1? What about her 3-1 score over Serena, who began and ended 2001 as #6 and would dominate 2002?

Also, it's not that Carpriati was blasted off the court by Davenport or Seles("owned" and "totally overpowered", as you write, is plain misleading). Capriati beat Davenport clearly when it mattered most -- at the Australian Open --- then lost hard-fougt three-setters at smaller tournaments later in the year. Similarly, Capriati's losses to Seles came at Tier II or Tier III tournaments in San Diego and Okahoma City. It's a trademark of champions that they play their best tennis when it truly matters.

As for 2 slams getting devalued by winning "only" one other tournament -- isn't this exactly what Roger Federer has done thus far this year?

But the more general point is that I feel you measure Capriati against another yardstick than the other players on that list. Your main argument against her, if I understand you correctly, is that she did not dominate the game, not even at her very peak. But none of these players did. Ann Haydon was very strong in the late 60s, but even at her very best entered slams typically as #3 seed behind Court and King (and sometimes Richey and Durr). Wade was famously inconsitent, not once in her slam career did she put back-to-back semifinals together (compared to 6 subsequent semis by Capriati in 2001/02). Mary Pierce is a similar case.

In terms of peak performance, it seems to me only Davenport, Austin and Sharapova are comparable to Capriati; incidentally, they are also 4 of the 5 players from that list who made it to #1 (Mauresmo is the fifth, but in a transitional phase marked by absences of many top players). Now Davenport stands out, given that she was world #1 for some 100 weeks and top 3 material for almost a decade. And Austin and Sharaporva had arguably greater potential than Carpriati, unfortunately their time at the top was cut short by injuries. Against this must be held that Capriati lost much of the years when others have their primes (20-25) struggling with drugs.

Personally I rank

1 Davenport
2 Haydon Jones
3 Sharapova
4 Capriati
5 Wade
6 Austin
7 Pierce
8 Richey
9 Mauresmo
10 Kuznetsova

Many close calls, the only ranks I'm reasonably sure about is #1 and #10.
 
Lots of good stuff, but I still have my quibbles.
Fair enough.

First, your stats are obviously rather one-sided -- what about Capriati's 3-0 score over Hingis in 2001, who had entered the year as the (clear) number 1?
I absolutely did NOT consider Hingis entering 2001 as the clear #1. I considered Hingis ending 2000 as the distant #3 who happened to finish #1 on the computer in the similarily flawed ranking system that makes Safina and Jankovic recent #1s today. Venus won the Olympics, Wimbledon, and U.S Open in 2000, she in my mind and almost everyone elses mind entered 2001 as the clear #1. Davenport had won the Australian Open and been in 2 other slam finals in 2000. She likewise entered the year as the clear #2. Even before 2001 began I considered Venus, Davenport, and maybe Serena as superior to Hingis.

If you just go by the rankings than that would be like saying Hingis was the clear #1 almost all of 2001 also, as she held the #1 ranking almost the entire year. Her slamless streak stretched to almost 3 years before she lost it.

All that being said, I will concede her head to head with Hingis was both surprising and impressive. Personally as someone who watched all their matches I felt it was much more about Hingis's underperforming in their matches than anything else, but the stat is what it is. Still I consider Venus and Davenport especialy better than her at that point anyway, and did even before the year.

What about her 3-1 score over Serena, who began and ended 2001 as #6 and would dominate 2002?
Serena was not even close to the same in 2001 as 2002 or 2003, but yes Capriati has always been a tough opponent or matchup for Serena. Even while Serena dominated they had alot of 3 setters, although Jennifer lost them all during that stretch. I did consider Serena one of the best even in 2001, so yes like the Hingis head to head Capriati's very good 2001 head to head with Serena was both impressive and surprising. Having watched all their matches that year I have a similar feeling to the Hingis-Capriati matches, it was more about Serena underperforming than anything, but that is just my opinion.

So yes Capriati did have good head to heads in 2001 vs 2 of her main rivals. However she still had winning head to heads with only about half of the top 10, and losing head to heads to the 2 best players- Venus and Davenport, as well as a far past her prime Seles who hadnt won a slam in years. That overall is still pretty weak for a 3-time slam champion if that is their 1 year only peak/prime, as you are suggesting for Capriati.

Also, it's not that Carpriati was blasted off the court by Davenport or Seles("owned" and "totally overpowered", as you write, is plain misleading). Capriati beat Davenport clearly when it mattered most -- at the Australian Open --- then lost hard-fougt three-setters at smaller tournaments later in the year.
Did you actually see their Australian Open match? Davenport played absolutely awful that day, gave the match away pretty much with a bazillion double faults, missed returns off mediocre serves, unforced errors. It had nothing to do with Capriati outplaying her really, other than that she was more consistent by default of the two that day. Davenport is still 8-3 vs Capriati lifetime, and won their other 2 matches that year even if they did go 3 sets, Capriati's only prime year according to you. If you have watched them play over the years will see Davenport pretty much always badly overpowered Capriati in their matches, Jen could do nothing except hope Davenport just had a really off day. Jen cant really hurt her with anything it seems. That is why I said it was such bad luck for Davenport to miss the other 2 slams Jen won. Lindsay not winning a slam after the 2000 Australian Open was a crying shame really, and Jennifer' Australian Open semifinal win over a badly off form Lindsay was really a fluke, a completely deserved still win but in the big picture of what happens when the two play a flukish result . I highly doubt it would have happened at the other 2 slams Capriati won as Lindsay playing as bad as she did in that semifinal is 1 in 100 basically and those probably would have been 2 additional and fully deserved slams for Lindsay instead.

Similarly, Capriati's losses to Seles came at Tier II or Tier III tournaments in San Diego and Okahoma City. It's a trademark of champions that they play their best tennis when it truly matters.
Seles is a much greater champion than Capriati ever was, so that would seem to apply to Seles much more than Capriati. If anything Capriati would have much more chance vs the much greater champion Seles in those smaller tourament matches by that logic. In fairness to Capriati that makes it impressive on her behalf she somehow managed that come from behind upset over the far greater champion Seles in Australia that year. If you saw their San Diego match Capriati was not happy about losing to Seles, she was b1tching and moaning up a storm in that match. She hated being outslugged and outsteadied in a 6-3, 6-3 loss by a now clearly past her prime Seles but it is what happened.

As for 2 slams getting devalued by winning "only" one other tournament -- isn't this exactly what Roger Federer has done thus far this year?
Roger Federer has had many years of dominating slams and the other tournaments. In 2003 he dominated Wimbledon, the year end Masters, and many other tournaments for 7 tour titles. In 2004-2007 he dominated the whole year, and in 2005 and 2006 posted unreal W/L marks. At this point it is more ok for him to cruise in the non slam events since he has already more than proven himself on the overall tour. Plus he is a 15 slam winner, not a 3 slam winner who won his only ever 3 slams over just a 13 month stretch while winning only 4 total tournaments over a 30 month stretch at the same time. So sorry there is just no comparision here.

But the more general point is that I feel you measure Capriati against another yardstick than the other players on that list. Your main argument against her, if I understand you correctly, is that she did not dominate the game, not even at her very peak. But none of these players did. Ann Haydon was very strong in the late 60s, but even at her very best entered slams typically as #3 seed behind Court and King (and sometimes Richey and Durr). Wade was famously inconsitent, not once in her slam career did she put back-to-back semifinals together (compared to 6 subsequent semis by Capriati in 2001/02). Mary Pierce is a similar case.
My main argument against Capriati is not that she did not "dominate". I like most do not expect 3 slam champions to typically have dominated at any point in time. It is that she won all 3 of her slams over a 13 month stretch where she was barely .500 vs the rest of the whole top 10, won only 1 other tournament, and was aided by key absences or injuries at the 2 of those 3 slams by multiple players favored over her, which shows an incredible amount of luck I dont think you can say any of the others got to the same degree. It is that other than that 13 month stretch she was never any better than around the 7th best player in the World in any of her other 6 or 7 "good" years of tennis. It is the enormous hole in the middle of those 6 or 7 "good" years she had where she reached embarassing lows, probably worse and longer than anyone on this list (though Pierce had a few doozies too). It is that most good 1 or 2 slam winners have winning head to heads vs a 3 slam winner like herself. It is her lack of extremely impressive wins in winning slams or reaching slam finals compared to almost all of these others. It is that she has won only 14 tournaments in her career (pitiful for a 3 slam winner), only ended 2 years ranked in the top 5 ever, that she has never won Wimbledon or the U.S Open (still considered the 2 biggest events by most people even today), and that those 3 slam wins are her only slam finals (I would be more impressed with the undefeated in finals if even one of them was a prime Serena or Graf for example).

Ann Jones like you said for many years was usually the 3rd best behind first Court and Bueno, then Court and King, usually at worst sometimes 4th or 5th best. That is already a huge step up from Capriati who except for that 13 month stretch I mentioned was always the 7th or 8th best in her other good years. Always behind Graf, Seles, Sabatini (1 slam winner), Sanchez (4 slam winner), Navratilova (mid 30s), maybe Novotna (1 slam winner), and maybe Fernandez (0 slam winner) from 91-93. Then after the 2002 Australian Open clearly behind Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters (1 slam winner), Mauresmo (2 slam winner), and Davenport (3 slam winner) from 2002-2004. Ann Jones beat King and Court in their primes in the semis and finals to win Wimbledon. Capriati has never had a back to back like that to win a major, and no Davenport and Hingis at the 2001 Australian Open does not come close. Ann Jones achieved this on grass despite being at her best on clay, having won 2 French Opens and a total of 5 French Open finals. All in all she reached 9 slam finals, triple what Capriati managed, and 17 total slam semis. I dont think Capriati comes even close to Ann.

continued.....
 
Last edited:
Wade was inconsistent to a degree but who did she beat to win her slams. Jones in the semis and King in the final to win the U.S Open, Goolagong in the final to win the Australian Open (Goolagongs best slam where she would win 4 in a row), and Evert at her peak in the semis to win Wimbedon. Also inconsistent Wade managed the quarters or better of NINE straight Wimbledons. Capriati has never even put more than 4 consecutive decent years of top 10 caliber tennis together. Also before the U.S Open moved to clay, a surface Wade is not at all comfortable on her U.S Open results over 6 year stretch she played 5 of were a win, 2 semis, and 2 quarters. Given the Australian Opens status then, her obvious disdain for clay, and the U.S Open moving to clay in the mid 70s, that is about all you could reasonably expect from her to prove her slams consistency (there were other events bigger than the Australian or French Opens those years anyway). She ended eight different years in the top 5, including five in a row once computer rankings came out from 74-78. In 1978 she was 33 years old. I rate Wade below Jones but clearly over Capriati as well.

Now Mary Pierce. Heck she was inconsistent too, probably the only one of these more inconsistent was Capriati with that 7 year hole of virtually nothing in the middle of her career. However Pierce from 1994-2000 did end 6 of those 7 years in the top 10, and had quality results each year throughout that whole stretch (less so 96, the only year she was out of the year end top 10). Capriati never had a similar stretch this long. Mary has 1 less slam than Capriati, but neither have won Wimbledon or the U.S Open. Pierce has atleast been to the finals of the U.S Open (once) and year end Championships (twice) which Capriati never has been to any of the most important finals on the WTA tour outside of Australian and French Opens. Pierce has twice the # of slam finals with 6. Pierce has more singles titles than Capriati (well I highly doubt anyone in history with 2 slams atleast has less than 14). Pierce had a huge destructing win over prime Graf to reach her first French Open final in 1994. That kind of performance I have NEVER seen from Capriati, who is 1-10 lifetime vs Graf, and 0-10 in sets vs Graf in slams. Pierce destroyed peak Sanchez Vicario in the final to win her 2nd slam, and didnt go beyond 6-4 in sets in any of her matches there. Pierce beat both Seles and Hingis, so same as Capriati did in by far her most impressive slam win at Australia 2001, on her way to winning the 2001 French Open, then beat clay court specialist Conchita Martinez who was red hot that spring in the final. Pierce aging and past her prime in 2005 beat Davenport at the French on her way to the final, and beat Henin, prime Mauresmo, and last years finalist Dementieva on her way to the U.S Open final. So Pierce in total to reach her slam finals or win her slams has: destroyed prime Graf, crushed peak Sanchez, crushed prime Henin, beaten past her prime Seles, beaten prime Hingis, crushed prime Mauresmo, crushed prime Davenport (albeit on clay), beaten prime Dementieva on hard courts, and beaten a very in form Martinez on clay (the only surface she would be worth noting). Capriati in total to reach her slam finals or win her slams has: beaten prime Davenport, beaten past her prime Seles, beaten declining Hingis three times, beaten pre-prime Serena on clay, beaten pre-prime Clijsters twice, and beaten pre-prime Mauresmo. Overall I will take Pierces wins over Capriatis. So I feel she has more great wins in majors, more pretty good wins in majors, more impressive performances in majors, more outstanding tennis at her best, no worse consistency, no worse longevity. What more do I need to explain. Pierce over Capriati for me too.
 
Last edited:
In terms of peak performance, it seems to me only Davenport, Austin and Sharapova are comparable to Capriati; incidentally, they are also 4 of the 5 players from that list who made it to #1 (Mauresmo is the fifth, but in a transitional phase marked by absences of many top players). Now Davenport stands out, given that she was world #1 for some 100 weeks and top 3 material for almost a decade. And Austin and Sharaporva had arguably greater potential than Carpriati, unfortunately their time at the top was cut short by injuries. Against this must be held that Capriati lost much of the years when others have their primes (20-25) struggling with drugs.

Personally I rank

1 Davenport
2 Haydon Jones
3 Sharapova
4 Capriati
5 Wade
6 Austin
7 Pierce
8 Richey
9 Mauresmo
10 Kuznetsova

Many close calls, the only ranks I'm reasonably sure about is #1 and #10.
The only way only Sharpova, Austin, and Davenport are comparable to Capriati in terms of peak performance is if the sole determining factor is majors won in a short time. However there is more to that than what determines peak performance for me, and there is far more I consider to who is better than peak performance as well.

You call Mauresmo reaching #1 in a transitional era is kind of funny if it in comparision to Capriati. Mauresmo reached #1 in 2006, and was the true #1 for the year in the minds of many, when someone named Justine Henin was in her absolute prime, and when Sharapova was at her 2004-2006 peak. Not bad competition for a transitional era. Not that it matters much but Mauresmo is 7-4 lifetime vs Capriati as well, and 1-1 vs her even in 2001. Womens tennis ever since 1996 has been a transitional era. The Williams sisters fade in and out constantly, Hingis was a relative flash in the pan as far as greatness and retired first time at 21 I think, Henin had a great 5 year peak then retired at 25, Davenport had trouble staying healthy the last 8 years of her career. 2001-early 2002 was a transitional era of sorts too. It was before prime Serena and prime Henin took over the game, with Hingis and Davenport already past their peaks and suffering from either confidence (Hingis) or injury (Davenport), after the days of Graf and Seles were done for good. Venus reigned but with even prime Venus weaknesses on slower surfaces the Australian and French Open were an open feast for all the women to try for. Of course once prime Serena and prime Henin arrived, Capriatis chances of winning more slams went out the window.

How is Capriati missing out on years in the game due to becoming a pothead something you use in her defense. That isnt bad luck of any kind, that is foolish life decisions. I dont see how in anyway that be compared with people who have some seriously bad luck with injuries. Anyway I doubt those years would have been particularly fruitful for her anyway as far as any additional slam titles go. She was 1-10 lifetime vs Graf, didnt fare well vs Sanchez Vicario even in the early 90s and Sanchez was much tougher in the mid 90s, she never played Pierce from 94-2000 when Pierce was fit and a true threat, she has a 0-4 lifetime head t head vs Novotna, and she never played peak Hingis of 97-2000 at her own peak (although when she did play this Hingis she lost all 5 matches), and of course fared poorly overall vs Davenport or Venus at all points in her career. She also had stagnated in any improvements until her temporary depature from the game at the end of 1993 ever since late 1991 when she was still only 15. In fact I would argue her best tennis ever was still the second half of 1991 and 1992, she just had tougher competition back then.

Anyway my rankings:

1. Lindsay Davenport- extremely unlucky to not win more than 3 majors, possibly many more. In 2004-2005 alone she was denied 3 or 4 additional slams by the most unforseen circumstances.

2. Tracy Austin- poor girl only really got to play 7 slams at her peak from 79-81. Before that was 15 or younger, and after that she was never healthy until her imminent retirement. Even in such limited opportunity she won 2 U.S Opens by beating giants such as Chris and Martina a total 3 times to do it.

3. Ann Haydon Jones- one of the best clay courters of the 60s who still was good enough to challenge and beat prime Court and prime King on grass. Retired from full time and slam play when she seemingly was hitting her all time prime.

4. Mary Pierce- this is best, not just most achieved. On her best day she could blow absolutely anyone off the court, even if that player wasnt having an off day. You cant say that for many on this list.

5. Virginia Wade- impressive longevity, much better consistency than credited for by many, and when she was on she was capable of taking down anyone as she did to win her 3 slams, despite that she seemingly was consistantly in the shadows of other greater player in her own era.

6. Maria Sharapova- she will probably end up another what might have been.
Still extremely consistent from 2004-2006, and won her 3 slams taking down some big scalps, including the great Justine Henin in her prime twice, and the great Serena Williams in a Wimbledon final.

7. Nancy Richey- she owned teen phenom Chris until Chris was 18 and Nancy was 31 which speaks pretty well to her ability considering Chris was already spanking Margaret and Billie Jean a few times (especialy on clay) at only 16. Great and highly winning clay courter who reached a couple U.S Open finals with big wins on grass.

8. Amelie Mauresmo- blew opportunity after opportunity for years until finally putting it together by winnng 2 slams in 2006, impressive wins over Henin in the final both times (even if Henin quit with fake tummy ache in 1 of them). Was very consistent and posted many quality results and tier 1 titles, slam semis, etc...from 2002-2006, while being a dark horse contender from 99-2001 as well.

9. Jennifer Capriati- ok better than Kuznetsova for now atleast.

10. Svetlana Kuznetsova- just as much luck as Capriati, and 1 less slam. meh to both. Atleast thanks to the very lucky Kuzy for still preventing a far past her clay court prime Serena from winning this years French which would have been kind of embarassing. Too bad she choked vs Serena in Australia this year though.
 
The only way only Sharpova, Austin, and Davenport are comparable to Capriati in terms of peak performance is if the sole determining factor is majors won in a short time. However there is more to that than what determines peak performance for me, and there is far more I consider to who is better than peak performance as well.

You call Mauresmo reaching #1 in a transitional era is kind of funny if it in comparision to Capriati. Mauresmo reached #1 in 2006, and was the true #1 for the year in the minds of many, when someone named Justine Henin was in her absolute prime, and when Sharapova was at her 2004-2006 peak. Not bad competition for a transitional era. Not that it matters much but Mauresmo is 7-4 lifetime vs Capriati as well, and 1-1 vs her even in 2001. Womens tennis ever since 1996 has been a transitional era. The Williams sisters fade in and out constantly, Hingis was a relative flash in the pan as far as greatness and retired first time at 21 I think, Henin had a great 5 year peak then retired at 25, Davenport had trouble staying healthy the last 8 years of her career. 2001-early 2002 was a transitional era of sorts too. It was before prime Serena and prime Henin took over the game, with Hingis and Davenport already past their peaks and suffering from either confidence (Hingis) or injury (Davenport), after the days of Graf and Seles were done for good. Venus reigned but with even prime Venus weaknesses on slower surfaces the Australian and French Open were an open feast for all the women to try for. Of course once prime Serena and prime Henin arrived, Capriatis chances of winning more slams went out the window.

How is Capriati missing out on years in the game due to becoming a pothead something you use in her defense. That isnt bad luck of any kind, that is foolish life decisions. I dont see how in anyway that be compared with people who have some seriously bad luck with injuries. Anyway I doubt those years would have been particularly fruitful for her anyway as far as any additional slam titles go. She was 1-10 lifetime vs Graf, didnt fare well vs Sanchez Vicario even in the early 90s and Sanchez was much tougher in the mid 90s, she never played Pierce from 94-2000 when Pierce was fit and a true threat, she has a 0-4 lifetime head t head vs Novotna, and she never played peak Hingis of 97-2000 at her own peak (although when she did play this Hingis she lost all 5 matches), and of course fared poorly overall vs Davenport or Venus at all points in her career. She also had stagnated in any improvements until her temporary depature from the game at the end of 1993 ever since late 1991 when she was still only 15. In fact I would argue her best tennis ever was still the second half of 1991 and 1992, she just had tougher competition back then.

Anyway my rankings:

1. Lindsay Davenport- extremely unlucky to not win more than 3 majors, possibly many more. In 2004-2005 alone she was denied 3 or 4 additional slams by the most unforseen circumstances.

2. Tracy Austin- poor girl only really got to play 7 slams at her peak from 79-81. Before that was 15 or younger, and after that she was never healthy until her imminent retirement. Even in such limited opportunity she won 2 U.S Opens by beating giants such as Chris and Martina a total 3 times to do it.

3. Ann Haydon Jones- one of the best clay courters of the 60s who still was good enough to challenge and beat prime Court and prime King on grass. Retired from full time and slam play when she seemingly was hitting her all time prime.

4. Mary Pierce- this is best, not just most achieved. On her best day she could blow absolutely anyone off the court, even if that player wasnt having an off day. You cant say that for many on this list.

5. Virginia Wade- impressive longevity, much better consistency than credited for by many, and when she was on she was capable of taking down anyone as she did to win her 3 slams, despite that she seemingly was consistantly in the shadows of other greater player in her own era.

6. Maria Sharapova- she will probably end up another what might have been.
Still extremely consistent from 2004-2006, and won her 3 slams taking down some big scalps, including the great Justine Henin in her prime twice, and the great Serena Williams in a Wimbledon final.

7. Nancy Richey- she owned teen phenom Chris until Chris was 18 and Nancy was 31 which speaks pretty well to her ability considering Chris was already spanking Margaret and Billie Jean a few times (especialy on clay) at only 16. Great and highly winning clay courter who reached a couple U.S Open finals with big wins on grass.

8. Amelie Mauresmo- blew opportunity after opportunity for years until finally putting it together by winnng 2 slams in 2006, impressive wins over Henin in the final both times (even if Henin quit with fake tummy ache in 1 of them). Was very consistent and posted many quality results and tier 1 titles, slam semis, etc...from 2002-2006, while being a dark horse contender from 99-2001 as well.

9. Jennifer Capriati- ok better than Kuznetsova for now atleast.

10. Svetlana Kuznetsova- just as much luck as Capriati, and 1 less slam. meh to both. Atleast thanks to the very lucky Kuzy for still preventing a far past her clay court prime Serena from winning this years French which would have been kind of embarassing. Too bad she choked vs Serena in Australia this year though.
Thanks for many more good arguments. For the most part we can leave there. There are a few minor points where we're still reading from different pages (for example, it's true that the Williams sisters moved in and out of contention repeatedly -- but it matters that there were IN when Capriati had her best run and OUT when Mauresmo had hers). But these are, as said, minor.

The main difference between us seems just how we assess players. For me, it matters a big deal when a player is, for an extended period, a factor in the title race of EVERY major she enters. As Capriati was in 2001 and 2002, making 6 consecutive grand slam semifinals and taking 3 titles (what happens in Oklahoma City is, by comparison, relatively irrelevant). Of the 2- and 3- slam champions, only Davenport (1998-2001, 2004/05), Haydon (1961-63, 66-69), an Sharapova (2005-07) were similarly persistent top-level threats, and for longer periods. Which is why I have them ahead of Capriati.

For you the most important criterion seems to be what players could do at their very best. Sure, when Mary Pierce outmuscled Steffi Graf at Roland Garros in 1994 I wondered whether we had seen the next dominatrix of ladies' tennis (although it's highly debatable whether her opponent was really prime Graf). But how often did Pierce live up to this standard? With her, occasional and unpredictable sparks of brilliance came with long stretches where Pierce was frustratingly incoherent and often plain ordinary.

The other point I'd like to comment on is that 18 months is too short to be considered a proper "prime". Well, in the case of Capriati this is just how it is, imo. A handful exceptional figures apart, most slam titles are won between ages 20 and 25. Capriati was 17 when she dropped out of the game, after an impressive early career (far better than Davenport's teenage years, for example). She came back in serious when she was 24. It's plausible, if not likely, that the Capriati we saw in 2001/02 is the Capriati we would have seen for several years had her life not taken a wrong turn as a teenager.

I'm not giving her extra points for this, as I don't give Austin or Sharapova points for the forces they could have been absent injury (5-slam plus winners for sure). But when the best years are, for whatever reason, taken out of the life of an athlete, it's clear that what is left is incomplete.
 
Goodness, I'm the first to give Kuznetsova the nod? It was tuff list to choose from. But based on versatility and the way she constructs points, the fact that she isn't uncomfortable at net and to the fact that I don't remember seeing matches and/or footage from the first 3 ladies in the poll, I chose Kuznetsova.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Goodness, I'm the first to give Kuznetsova the nod? It was tuff list to choose from. But based on versatility and the way she constructs points, the fact that she isn't uncomfortable at net and to the fact that I don't remember seeing matches and/or footage from the first 3 ladies in the poll, I chose Kuznetsova.
Kuznetsova was helped in her 2 slams by quite a bit of luck. At the 2004 US Open her semifinal opponent, Lindsay Davenport, came into the match with a 22 match winning streak and was the favorite to win the tournament after winning the US Open series. Davenport was up a break (4-2) in the 3rd set before aggravating an injury that in the end cost her the match as it made her movement and serving go down the tube, allowing Kuznetsova to roll off the last 4 games of the match. Than in the final she played Dementieva, who herself was hampered by an injury and in the 2nd set did her usual serving herself into defeat after a rather tight first set loss. Not to mention the fact that she got a little lucky that Wimbledon Champ Maria Sharapova, who was her slated 4th rd opponent, somehow lost to Mary Pierce...who tanked horribly against Kuznetsova after losing a tight first set.

At this years French, the field was weakened by not having Henin there, yes she beat Serena...but than she almost lost to Stosur...who is by no means a really good clay courter, than it helped quite a bit than her opponent in the final was Safina, who went to pieces, cried, asked why she was such a coward, and played horrendous tennis after steamrolling through the early rounds. Granted it is impressive that she didn't choke horribly against Serena like she did in Melbourne, but her draw other than that was not spectacular, and in all honesty...anyone in the draw could have beaten Safina in the final the way she played...it just so happened it was Kuznetsova on the other side of the net.

Neither of Kuzzy's slam wins are markedly more impressive that the wins on that list. They are tantamount to Capriati's slams in reality. The only slam win by any one of those women hers can be concidered more impressive than is Mauresmo's 2006 Australian, and thats only because 3 of her opponents retired either before or during the matches against Mauresmo so Mauresmo didn't have to play them out, but even then her draw was stronger by quite a bit than the French draw and slightly better than the US Open draw.
 
Last edited:
Goodness, I'm the first to give Kuznetsova the nod? It was tuff list to choose from. But based on versatility and the way she constructs points, the fact that she isn't uncomfortable at net and to the fact that I don't remember seeing matches and/or footage from the first 3 ladies in the poll, I chose Kuznetsova.
boredone has already explained it beautifully but anyway Kuznetsova's 2 slam wins had Capriati esque like luck almost, particularly the 2004 U.S Open:

2004 U.S Open- round of 16 opponent was supposed to be Sharapova but Sharapova was upset by a grossly out of shape Pierce who wasnt even top 25 ranked and wasnt a contender that year. She has never beaten Maria in a slam. quarterfinal opponent was supposed to be Henin who she would have almost zero chance against, but Henin dealing with a viral condition was upset by Petrova so Kuznetsova got Petrova in the quarters instead. In the semis Davenport that years favorite to win the U.S Open pummeled her 6-1 in the first set then reaggravated an old injury seriously and was hobbling around the court the last 2 sets, still nearly won the 3rd set. In the final she played Dementieva who still many years later hasnt won a slam, and who was coming off two really long 3 setters so was majorly worn out, and also had a thigh injury which excaberated by the weariness made her movement and ability to use her legs to get power into her shots (both musts in the game of the weak serving Dementieva) nearly impossible.

2009 French- well she earned it but it was a really weak clay court field. She choked in the 2nd set when she should have finished off Serena, same as she did in Australia, then Serena shockingly returned the favor and choked once building a big lead in the 3rd set. Semis she took 3 sets to beat a doubles specialist, then in the final Safina stunk it up again all but handing Kuznetsova the final.

Between the 2004 U.S Open and 2009 French Open she had NO big wins in majors. By that I mean she never in that span beat Venus, Serena, Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Clijsters, heck I dont even think Ivanovic, Jankovic, or Dementieva. She made her 2 slam finals in between by the draws collapsing and struggling to beat people she was supposed to beat like Vaidisova and Chakvetadze, not by big wins.

I do agree she is a talented player who in some ways is an underachiever. However many times when she should have beaten a big name in a slam on her way to a potential slam win she choked. She choked when she should have finished off Henin in the round of 16 of the 2005 French, choked when she should have finished off Serena in the quarters of Australia this year, choked when she should have finished off eventual champion Myskina in the round of 16 of the French in 2004. She might have won all 3 of those slams, and if she won any of them with those more legit "big wins" her record would probably be alot more respected than it is now. As it is with all her blown opportunities that her talent and game might well have provided her, and not producing hardly any bigs in slams even in her 2 wins that didnt involve real luck (her biggest are a badly injured Davenport who was killing her before the injury, a way past her clay court prime Serena on clay, and the still slamless Dementieva and Safina in slam finals where both were subpar for various reasons) she is very lucky to even win 2.
 
Last edited:

Wuornos

Professional
Post World War II, I would say

1 Ann Haydon Jones 2752
2 Lindsay Davenport 2745
3 Jennifer Capriati 2739
4 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
5 Maria Sharapova 2725
6 Lesley Turner Bowrey 2723
7 Nancy Richey Gunter 2720
8 Tracy Austin 2715
9 Darlene Hard 2712
10 Kim Clijsters 2705

Tim
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I don't know exactly where Clijsters would stand in this group but Kim is one of the most talented tennis players I've ever seen. It was something watching Clijsters and Serena play the semi-final the other night. Incredible power, accuracy, court movement and athleticism by both players. Very few could stand up to Serena's play that night. Serena was great. It's too bad that it had to end on such a sour note. I felt bad for Clijsters.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
I am not sure where Clijsters would stand here now either. Personally I would rate Davenport, Austin, Jones, and maybe still even Pierce Higher than Clijsters, but she would definitely now be above Capriati, Kuznetsova, and Mauresmo.
 
I am not sure where Clijsters would stand here now either. Personally I would rate Davenport, Austin, Jones, and maybe still even Pierce Higher than Clijsters, but she would definitely now be above Capriati, Kuznetsova, and Mauresmo.
Pierce higher than Clijsters? I am not sure if I agree there. Clijsters overall achievements as far as tier 1 titles, overall titles, being ranked #1 or #2 quite a bit of time, slam semis and quarters, are all well beyond Pierce. Both have 6 slam finals and 2 slams. Clijsters has won the WTA Championships twice too, Pierce has lost in the finals twice there. Despite winning only 2 slams so far Kim seemed to be much stronger a contender to win each slam she was in, and to contend for the #1 ranking, than Pierce ever was. Then again Pierce probably played in a tougher era, and her very best tennis was probably still a bit more devastating.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Pierce higher than Clijsters? I am not sure if I agree there. Clijsters overall achievements as far as tier 1 titles, overall titles, being ranked #1 or #2 quite a bit of time, slam semis and quarters, are all well beyond Pierce. Both have 6 slam finals and 2 slams. Clijsters has won the WTA Championships twice too, Pierce has lost in the finals twice there. Despite winning only 2 slams so far Kim seemed to be much stronger a contender to win each slam she was in, and to contend for the #1 ranking, than Pierce ever was. Then again Pierce probably played in a tougher era, and her very best tennis was probably still a bit more devastating.
Well thats why I said Maybe, both in terms of slams are close, and both really could have (well yeah in Kim's case probably should have), won more. Kim did get to number 1, Pierce even on fire was held back from getting higher by the overall more consistant Vicario and Graf...so it really could go either way. I would probably if pressed give it to Kim, but I could see it either way. I would at this point put Davenport, Austin, Jones, Wade, Pierce...and ok maybe Sharapova...all right up there with Kim..with everyone else a pretty big notch below.
 
Well thats why I said Maybe, both in terms of slams are close, and both really could have (well yeah in Kim's case probably should have), won more. Kim did get to number 1, Pierce even on fire was held back from getting higher by the overall more consistant Vicario and Graf...so it really could go either way. I would probably if pressed give it to Kim, but I could see it either way. I would at this point put Davenport, Austin, Jones, Wade, Pierce...and ok maybe Sharapova...all right up there with Kim..with everyone else a pretty big notch below.
Yeah Pierce in 94-95 could have maybe been #1 in another field, even in 2000-2005 which was a strong field but Serena limits her schedule enough to give others a chance (outside of 2002), and Venus struggles enough on slow surfaces and limits her schedule enough to do likewise. Henin was healthy and rock solid the whole year only in 2003, 2006, and 2007. Honestly it will probably be moot though as Kim will probably be out of the 2-3 slam winners list eventually anyway. At least joining the 4-5 slam winners list. She like everyone else will reap the benefits of the weak womens field today, and it was a very smart decision of her to come back against this particular field to bolster her previously underachieving career.
 
Top