Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo, Clijsters, what order?

[grafselesfan]

At this point in time what order would you rank Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo, and Clijsters. I think nearly everyone agrees Capriati is the weakest of all the 3 slam winners. Pierce, Mauresmo, and Clijsters each have won 2 slams, Clijsters still with the potential to add multiple more of course in the future. However as it stands now what order would you put all 4 in though. This would be mine:

1. Clijsters
2. Mauresmo
3. Capriati
4. Pierce

I had put Pierce over Capriati in some other lists but having thought it over more that probably is a mistake. My discovery of Pierce holding the record for most round of 16 losses in a slam perhaps in history has lowered my opinion of her as a player somewhat. My ranking Mauresmo over Capriati is based in large part on Mauresmo's owning Capriati in head to head even when Capriati was at her best and Mauresmo wasnt necessarily. My ranking of Clijsters tops is based on the fact that she seemed more of a consistent major threat than Mauresmo during the period both were playing and contenders, though it did go back and forth in that regard somewhat too.

 

[drwood]

At this point in time what order would you rank Capriati, Pierce, Mauresmo, and Clijsters. I think nearly everyone agrees Capriati is the weakest of all the 3 slam winners. Pierce, Mauresmo, and Clijsters each have won 2 slams, Clijsters still with the potential to add multiple more of course in the future. However as it stands now what order would you put all 4 in though. This would be mine:

1. Clijsters
2. Mauresmo
3. Capriati
4. Pierce

I had put Pierce over Capriati in some other lists but having thought it over more that probably is a mistake. My discovery of Pierce holding the record for most round of 16 losses in a slam perhaps in history has lowered my opinion of her as a player somewhat. My ranking Mauresmo over Capriati is based in large part on Mauresmo's owning Capriati in head to head even when Capriati was at her best and Mauresmo wasnt necessarily. My ranking of Clijsters tops is based on the fact that she seemed more of a consistent major threat than Mauresmo during the period both were playing and contenders, though it did go back and forth in that regard somewhat too.

Capriati's gold medal beating prime Vicario and prime Graf on clay to do it puts her ahead of Mauresmo and Clijsters (she was already ahead of Pierce w/o the gold medal). Clijsters needs to win another slam to pass Capriati IMO.

1. Capriati
2. Clijsters
3. Mauresmo
4. Pierce

 

[Wuornos]

At their respective peaks I would have to go for the following order:

1 Jennifer Capriati 2739
2 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
3 Kim Clijsters 2705
4 Mary Pierce 2678

Tim

 

[Datacipher]

Clijsters
Capriati
Mauresmo
Pierce

 

[Henry Kaspar]

1. Capriati
2. Clijsters
3. Pierce
4. Mauresmo

... but it's close.

 

[boredone3456]

1. Klijsters
2. Pierce
3. Mauresmo
4. Capriati

Its tough, all are really close in terms of everything you could judge them on. Kim is number 1 because of her accomplishments at such a young age, even though there was only one slam before her first retirement, coming back and winning one in three months gives me come confidence to say she will stand a good chance of being quite clearly number 1 of these women in the future.

The other 3...I guess I put Pierce at number 2 because at her absolute peak (Ala 1994 french style play), I feel she is better than Mauresmo and Capriati. She never got to number 1, but that was because Vicario and Graf were both far more consistant than she ever was( Pierce circa 1994-1996 would probably be able to get number 1 at some point today, and probably more than 2 majors because at her peak she was just amazing to watch), evidenced by all those rd 16 losses you found grafselesfan. But she still won 2 slams and was able to make 2 finals in 2005 at 30 years old, and 2005 was really the last really good year in womens tennis up to now.

Mauresmo has talent, but I feel it kinda took her a little longer than it should have for her to cash in on it...2004 really should have been her year to win a major. She had oppurtunities at 3 of them and just was unable to step up and bring it home. 2006 was an excellent year for her, but that really should have happened a couple of years earlier and should have built up on. Her performances at her home major and her 2 slam defenses (where she lost to Safarova and Vaidisova, who have amounted to nothing so far), also kind of lower her a bit for me.

Capriati, I like her a lot, more than Mauresmo if I am being honest, but really she should have only won the one slam, and ones she should have won (or at least done better at) she didn't. The olympic gold in impressive, but that doesn't do enough to make up for other things. During her best year of 2001, while she won 2 slams, she only managed 1 non slam title, and after the french she went title-less the rest of the year, losing to unheralded Henin at Wimbledon after winning the first set, and than getting annihilated by Venus at the US Open. When she finally got number 1 near the end of the year...she didn't even deserve it anymore as Venus was quite clearly better.

 

[grafselesfan]

Capriati, I like her a lot, more than Mauresmo if I am being honest, but really she should have only won the one slam, and ones she should have won (or at least done better at) she didn't.

I feel similar about Capriati as I do about Kuznetsova. Both won 1 or 2 slams they really shouldnt have won (or in Kuznetsova's case of the 09 French that she didnt win due to circumstances or luck but had no competition) and missed out on opportunities to win other slams that would have been far more impressive than some of the very lucky ones they did win (eg- Capriati 02 French, one of those U.S Opens; Kuznetsova- 04 or 05 French, 08 Australian). Similar to Martinez in her one and only slam win, when she ought to have won atleast one but just not that particular one.

 

[jrepac]

ranking

A lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda going on here...

U have to consider what they won, not what they didn't (or should have)

Kim, is likely the best player of the bunch, but right now (for the moment) only holds two slams...

Pierce = 2 slams (FO & AO)...never ranked #1

Capriati = 3 slams (1 FO, 2AO), 1 Olympic Gold (over Steffi)...ranked #1

Clijsters - 2 slams (USO)...ranked #1

Mauresmo - 2 slams (AO, W)...ranked #1

for the moment, pending further accomplishments from Kim:

Capriati
Clijsters
Mauresmo
Pierce

 

[flying24]

There is far more to consider than just slam titles. Capriati has 1 more slam, that doesnt automaticaly put her over those who have 1 less. If slam titles were all that mattered Court would be the female GOAT, and Molla Mallorey would be greater than Henin, Goolagong, Venus, and Bueno.

Capriati- 3 slams, only 3 total slam finals, no year end Championship titles/finals, 14 tournament titles, only 2 years ended ranked in the top 5. Like I said the Olympic Gold is not a big deal in tennis, it is less value than a tier 1 title.

Clijsters- 2 slams, 6 slam finals, two year end Championship titles, 37 tournament titles, 4 years ended ranked in top 4. Spent more time at #1 than Capriati, not sure about Mauresmo.

Pierce- 2 slams, 6 slam finals, two year end Championship finals, 18 tournament titles, 4 years ended ranked in top 5. Spent no time at #1.

Mauresmo- 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 1 year end Championship title, 24 tournament titles, 5 straight years ended in WTA top 4. Probably spent most time at #1 of this group.

Clijsters by a long ways, and arguably both Mauresmo and Pierce as well, make up the difference of 1 slam title with all their other edges on Capriati.

 

[jrepac]

Slams should count for more...

There is far more to consider than just slam titles. Capriati has 1 more slam, that doesnt automaticaly put her over those who have 1 less. If slam titles were all that mattered Court would be the female GOAT, and Molla Mallorey would be greater than Henin, Goolagong, Venus, and Bueno.

Capriati- 3 slams, only 3 total slam finals, no year end Championship titles/finals, 14 tournament titles, only 2 years ended ranked in the top 5. Like I said the Olympic Gold is not a big deal in tennis, it is less value than a tier 1 title.

Clijsters- 2 slams, 6 slam finals, two year end Championship titles, 37 tournament titles, 4 years ended ranked in top 4. Spent more time at #1 than Capriati, not sure about Mauresmo.

Pierce- 2 slams, 6 slam finals, two year end Championship finals, 18 tournament titles, 4 years ended ranked in top 5. Spent no time at #1.

Mauresmo- 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 1 year end Championship title, 24 tournament titles, 5 straight years ended in WTA top 4. Probably spent most time at #1 of this group.

Clijsters by a long ways, and arguably both Mauresmo and Pierce as well, make up the difference of 1 slam title with all their other edges on Capriati.

So, under this approach, where does Lindsay Davenport rank? I would still put Capriati ahead of Pierce....the Olympic gold IS significant since she beat Arantxa and Steffi, in succession, on red clay during their prime time....

 

[boredone3456]

So, under this approach, where does Lindsay Davenport rank? I would still put Capriati ahead of Pierce....the Olympic gold IS significant since she beat Arantxa and Steffi, in succession, on red clay during their prime time....

Maybe today the olympic gold could be arugued as significant for the sake of this argument because all players in this discussion had oppurtunities in their careers to win it. But in terms of a GOAT list the olympic gold should not be considered as much more than a tournament victory because not everyone in tennis had the chance to earn a medal. So you could say it was big, but I would just say its another tournament the player won, much like someone won in charleston and someone didn't, simply because not everyone had the chance at an actual medal (King, Court, Connolly etc had no chance at an olympic gold). So for the sake of overall historical usage, an olympic title is just, to me, another tournament won and I don't really treat the medal as anything big.

as for where Lindsay ranks, if she were included in this list she would easily be number 1 at this point. 3 different majors, 56(?) titles (may be wrong on that one...is it 55?), almost 100 weeks as number 1, more competitive over a longer period of time (1998-2005), as was able to win majors and non major titles alike and contend at both throughout that time. Plus Lindsay at her best I think is better than all 4 of those women at their best on every surface except for clay.

 

[grafselesfan]

Clijstres owned Davenport head to head everywhere except for grass. Then again I am not sure if Davenport was really in her prime from 2003 onwards when Clijsters began to completely own her in head to head, and even if she was it can be a matchup thing more than anything.

 

[boredone3456]

Clijstres owned Davenport head to head everywhere except for grass. Then again I am not sure if Davenport was really in her prime from 2003 onwards when Clijsters began to completely own her in head to head, and even if she was it can be a matchup thing more than anything.

Even though Davenport was always a contender at most non clay events from 98-05, 2002 and 2003 were probably her worst years of that time. Davenports best was probably from summer 1998-somewhere mid 2001, regaining some of it around mid 2004-2005(although still injury prone and more susceptable to fatigue during this time than she was before). Clijsters' was playing her best in my opinion in 2003 & and the summer of 2005. 2003 was probably Kim's best year except for not winning a slam, winning 90 matches. Lindsay's best year was probably 2000, she would have done a lot more if not for Venus being on fire that year also...Davenport of 2000 vs Kim of 2003 would be interesting on a hardcourt, as Davenport would win on grass and Kim would win on clay. Thinking it over a bit, I may have been to hasty in my previous comment, Kim would probably at her best still do well against Lindsay at hers...Pierce might be able to as well. Capriati....no, Lindsay really owns her in most every way except in terms of clay, Mauresmo...I just don't think so, not consistantly anyway.

 

[grafselesfan]

Even though Davenport was always a contender at most non clay events from 98-05, 2002 and 2003 were probably her worst years of that time. Davenports best was probably from summer 1998-somewhere mid 2001, regaining some of it around mid 2004-2005(although still injury prone and more susceptable to fatigue during this time than she was before). Clijsters' was playing her best in my opinion in 2003 & and the summer of 2005. 2003 was probably Kim's best year except for not winning a slam, winning 90 matches. Lindsay's best year was probably 2000, she would have done a lot more if not for Venus being on fire that year also...Davenport of 2000 vs Kim of 2003 would be interesting on a hardcourt, as Davenport would win on grass and Kim would win on clay. Thinking it over a bit, I may have been to hasty in my previous comment, Kim would probably at her best still do well against Lindsay at hers...Pierce might be able to as well. Capriati....no, Lindsay really owns her in most every way except in terms of clay, Mauresmo...I just don't think so, not consistantly anyway.

I agree with nearly everything you said. Although regarding Pierce vs Davenport, similar to how a mature Clijsters seemed to be a very bad matchup for Davenport, Davenport was always a bad matchup for Pierce. Their head to head is very one sided, and even on clay I believe it is virtually equal where you would expect Pierce to dominate given her much greater comfort level on that surface. Plus even in 94 when Pierce was in some of her best ever shape and Davenport in gruesome shape Pierce wasnt doing well vs Lindsay. So Lindsay is just a bad matchup for her.

 

[Wuornos]

So, under this approach, where does Lindsay Davenport rank? I would still put Capriati ahead of Pierce....the Olympic gold IS significant since she beat Arantxa and Steffi, in succession, on red clay during their prime time....

At their respective peaks I would have to go for the following order:

1 Lindsay Davenport 2745
2 Jennifer Capriati 2739
3 Amélie Mauresmo 2727
4 Kim Clijsters 2705
5 Mary Pierce 2678

Tim

 

[flying24]

So, under this approach, where does Lindsay Davenport rank? I would still put Capriati ahead of Pierce....the Olympic gold IS significant since she beat Arantxa and Steffi, in succession, on red clay during their prime time....

Davenport ranks easily ahead of this entire group which is probably why the OP did not even include her in the thread. The only one of these 4 who can challenge her position is Clijsters and Kim needs to win atleast 1 more slam before that. If you were to compare Davenport to Capriati the only thing Capriati matches Davenport on is 3 slams. It is a blowout. Davenport has won Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and 3 different overall slams, none of which Capriati has done, has been in more slam finals, more slam semis, won almost 4 times the # of tournaments, owns Capriati head to head, also won the Olympics , etc.....

 

[Steffi-forever]

Lindsay Davenport does not belong in this group!

She leads her Head-to-Head against:
Seles (10-3)
V.Williams (14-13)
Hingis (14-11)
Mauresmo (12-4)
Capriati (9-3)
Pierce (8-4)
Novotna (6-0)
And she is 6-8 against Graf. Pretty impressive.

She won 55 titles in 93 finals!!! She has been the year-end World No. 1 four times and she holds the number one spot at some point during 8 differents years : 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006. She spent more than 240 weeks in the top 2(4 years and a half).
She has the most singles match wins at the Australian open (56).


My ranking :
1. Clijsters
2. Mauresmo
3. Capriati
4. Pierce

 

[jrepac]

Lindsay

Yes, I would also put her ahead of this pack of 4...wanted to know what the original poster thought....Lindsay, despite her many successes, is relatively GS "poor".....I think Capriati generates the most debate from this group....regardless, I would put her in front of Pierce...