Henry Kaspar
Rookie
Have your pick... Again only players with major successes in the open era.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.