Davenport: Over or under-achiever?

[soyizgood]

Lindsay is one of my all-time favorite players. No-nonsense, down-to-earth approach on and off the court. Wicked pace off both wings, strong first serve, primarily a baseliner but adept at the net, and a model of consistency for such a long period. 4 years ended as #1, 3 slams, Olympic gold, 55 singles and 37 doubles titles. Not too shabby.

Still, I feel she should have won more slams. She could slug Venus to a draw, but often withered against Serena. I think she was the anti-Williams in that she'd play a ton of tournaments year in and out. That probably affected her stamina in slams. And to think she only missed out on RG for a career slam.

What do you guys and ladies think?

 

[boredone3456]

I dunno if I would call Davenport either of those things. 3 slams is a pretty impressive feat. Lindsay however has always had a problem facing the Williams, especially at slams. I mean, she lost 3 slam finals to venus and 1 to Serena. Although Serena just had Lindsays number as she had a 10-4 h2h advantage. However, Lindsay has the edge over Venus 14-13...only problem is most of those wins come at smaller tournaments. If you took the Williams out of the equation, Lindsay probably would have 6 or 7 majors right now, I mean, 1997-2001 were Lindsay's prime years, and sadly 2000 was also prime Venus time, and even in those years the. from 2000-2004 the Williams were running the show and Lindsay was sort of fighting Henin, Clijsters, and a few others for best of the rest. Take out Venus Lindsay probably would have won 3 of the 4 majors in 2000. Heck, Lindsay probably could have won Wimby 2005 playing anyone but Venus in the final the way she played that match.

overall, I don't think Lindsay is either. Lindsay is probably the third best Wimbledon/grass player of this Generation, behind the Williams sisters. She has always been one of the most consistant hard court competitors, and well as for clay she just wasn't that great on the stuff as evidenced by her 1 semi appearance at RG, and even in her best year, 2000, she lost in the first round at the the french. Lindsay achieved what she could, considering early on she had to deal with Hingis & Graf among others, and then she dealt with the Williams, Henin, Clijsters and a whole slew of others.

 

[egn]

Her achievements are right but 4 years as no.1 is far off. 2004+2005 she was number 1 soley due to lack of a consistent threat. Henin was not develeoped, the Williams did not play enough same for Clijisters, Sharapova was still not ready yet, Kuznetekova could not maintain consistency. She finished number 1 3 times without winning a slam in that year. 2000, 2004, 2005. So in that I would make her an over-achiever, but I think she achieved what she should have. She had 3 slams and was consistent, but still those 4 year end no.1 years are nothing to rave about when you look at the seasons behind them. Serena is a far better player than her but only has one, same goes for Venus who has zero. The Williams did not play enough tournaments and Davenport benefited. 2000 Venus was definitely the best player on the tour, but she played 10 tournaments and won 6 Davenport played 19 and only won 4, but it goes to show you if you play more you will finish higher.

 

[soyizgood]

Davenport played the system, dominated the summer hard court circuit, often went deep at majors not named RG, and took advantage of the competition for the most part. Given her talent, she should have done so in a more convincing manner. Still, she basically had two full-time careers as she was a solid doubles player.

 

[CEvertFan]

Davenport was injured a lot during her career and she also had some mental issues (a tendency to get down on herself when things weren't going well) or she would have been more dominant and achieved more than she did. Also, her lack of footspeed really hurt her, especially as she got older.

She was always one of my favorite players to watch. Such clean crisp powerful hitting off the ground. I used to love when she would make it a power hitting match instead of a running match and players would fall into the trap. If she had greater footspeed she would have been #1 for many years and would have way more than 3 Grand Slam singles titles.

Still, 55 singles titles, 3 majors and four year end #1 rankings is pretty impressive.

 

[LeeD]

If any of you guys were/are saddled with her athletic skills, her movement, or her footwork, you'd barely get out of 3.5.
At 6'2" and 160 or so, she was the giraffe out there amongst gazelles and lions.
She did great, was oft injured....and that includes mentally, so who's to complain? She won some $$$$, travelled the world, and ingrained her name in our memories.

 

[TennezSport]

Great player but...........

Lindsay is a great player with exceptional hitting talent. Lindsay could control the court like no one else when she was on with her groundies. Lindsays problem was always her movement. When younger it was her weight and movement, but she worked very hard to get in shape as she got older. However, it was then the problem with movement and age in an era with other big hitters that could really move.

Lindsay gave it all that she had and came away as one of tennis' greats. Maybe she should have had 1 or 2 ,more slams but she did great anyway.

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[bluetrain4]

It would be tempting to say underacheiver since after her 3rd Slam at Wimbledon in 2000, she was a few other finals, and a lot of SFs, QFs and could never seem to get over the hurdle. Other people brought up the Williams and that's a good point. They hit as hard as Lindsay and had 10 times the athletic ability, so beating them was always going to be tough. The 2005 Wimbledon final I really felt for Lindsay losing to Venus.

Given her limited ahtletic ability compared to her peers, I will say overachiever. In the mid-90s she was overweight and very easily could have settled for a comfortable life as a perpetual 4th Rnd or QF finisher at Slams, maybe occasionally making a SF. But, she put in the work, she got into shape and became as good as an athlete as she could, even if that was far below other players. She didn't settle and she became a 3-time Slam champ and future HOFer as a result. I mean, we can say she could have more Slams, but she could also very easily have less.

She literally could not play defense, she just didn't have the movement. Even if she did run in one direction for the ball, she couldn's stop and run back to the other side with any sort of consistent result. She had to dictate and she had to be an incredible ball striker. She had no other choice. Can you imagine playing at that level and acheiving what she did with athletic skills that paled in comparison to most of her rivals. I know Steffi was at the end of her career and not in perfect health at 2000 Wimbledon, but just think of the hitting it took for Davenport to beat the fleet-footed Graf.

So, I'd say overachiever or neither given her physical limitations

 

[grafrules]

She was both an overachiver and underachiever.

She was an overachiever to do so much with very little natural athletic ability, and not great natural self confidence, things that players like the Williams and Graf and others had in abundance in addition to many of her own qualities.

She was an underachiever since she lost alot of big opportunities to win many major titles both by her own blown leads or failure to close out some big matches, and also by some bad luck. It seems ridiculous she has the same # of slams as Capriati when she played at a very high level so many more years, and even when Jennifer and Lindsay were both playing at a high level from 2001-2004 Lindsay was clearly the better player of the two if you look past Jennifer's hype. Someone like Jennifer basically somehow managed through alot of luck, circumstances, and timing to win 3 slams to Lindsay's 0 during a time period Lindsay was still by far the better player and beat Jennifer almost everytime they played; and this was enough to catch Lindsay is something like # of slam singles titles won, even adding to all those other years Lindsay was a top player and Jennifer was nowhere. So when I compare her to someone like Capriati, having the same # of slams she seems like a big underachiever, based on the tennis abilities both had (not neccessarily perceived talent or potential, but abilities as was).

She was quite unlucky in a sense to have alot of her peak when the Williams reached the apex of their dominance from 2000-2003. Also unlucky to miss 2 of the 3 slams someone Jennifer Capriati won with injury, and playing her worst match ever in a slam semifinal in the other of the 3 slams Capriati won (2001 Australian Open). She was also unlucky quite a bit in 2004-2005, 4 times to varying degrees:

2004 Wimbledon- the rain delay changed the momentum of the Sharapova-Davenport semifinal

2004 U.S Open- an injury almost certainly cost her the semifinal match to Kuznetsova
(considering she won the first set 6-1 before being injured) and the title.

2005 Australian Open- hit the wall of fatigue after long quarterfinal and semifinals, and a long doubles match, when she was dominating Serena Williams for the first half of the final.

2005 Wimbledon- alot of people forget she injured her back up 4-2 in the 3rd set and still very nearly won. There is definitely a great chance she would have finished the match without the back injury flaring up.

 

[danb]

She is a fine player but I can't call her neither an under-achiever nor a over-achiever.

 

[Fintendo]

Slow, slugging, boring, grass herding sea lion. She makes a dead whale look athletic.

 

[boredone3456]

2004 Wimbledon- the rain delay changed the momentum of the Sharapova-Davenport semifinal

2004 U.S Open- an injury almost certainly cost her the semifinal match to Kuznetsova
(considering she won the first set 6-1 before being injured) and the title.

2005 Australian Open- hit the wall of fatigue after long quarterfinal and semifinals, and a long doubles match, when she was dominating Serena Williams for the first half of the final.

2005 Wimbledon- alot of people forget she injured her back up 4-2 in the 3rd set and still very nearly won. There is definitely a great chance she would have finished the match without the back injury flaring up.

Yeah Lindsay had quite a lot of bad luck in her career. Sharapova is lucky to have her Wimbledon title, Kuznetsova is even luckier to have her US Open. As for 2005...I don't know if she would have beaten Serena even if she hadn't been Fatigued, I mean yes thats why the score was so lopsided in the end, but in slam Finals Serena turns into a completely different woman, as does Venus. Although the 2005 Wimbledon final is still the best Womens grand Slam final of the past like....4 years. I like Venus...but I really wanted Lindsay to win that one, especially after her great someback against Mauresmo in the semis.

I agree to a degree Lindsay is an overachiever because of her early weight issues. But to point to her movement, that is what happens when your tall, tall players historically move in a substandard way. Safina, Sharapova, to an extent Venus, are all pretty slow footed movers. That is really not something that can be faulted as its really a result of genes. It really does aggravate me that her and Capriati have the same number of slams..as Lindsay is by far the better player...but Jennifer just got lucky while Lindsay obviously at times did not. I give Lindsay credit though, through all that she kept her head high and gave credit where credit is due to sharapova, Kuznetsova and all the rest.

 

[thalivest]

from 2000-2004 the Williams were running the show and Lindsay was sort of fighting Henin, Clijsters, and a few others for best of the rest.

That accessment is very generous to the sisters, and extending it to 2004 is enormously kind on your part. 2002 is obvious, and the only year I entirely agree with. First of all in 2004 the sisters were not running anything.

Serena's slam results in 2004- quarters, final, quarters
Venu's slam results in 2004- 3rd round, quarters, 3rd round, 4th round

There were probably 7 players that had better years than Serena in 2004- Henin, Myskina, Kuznetsova, Mauresmo, Davenport, Sharapova, Dementieva. There were probably all those plus Serena, plus a few others, who all had better years than Venus who was close to irrelevant that year. So at the very least cut that span down to 2000-2003. In additions to the fact they were far from the 2 players to beat in 2004, Venus and Serena were a combined 0-5 vs Lindsay in 2004 as well so they were irrelevant to her lack of success that year. That year her problems were Henin (when healthy), Clijsters (when healthy), the emerging Russians, and her own constant choking/bad luck pointed out before.

In 2000 and 2001 Venus most acknowledged as the #1 player that year, not in official ranking but in practical terms. However Serena was certainly not the #2 either year. In 2000 Hingis and Davenport both had a 1-1 head to head vs Serena, but far more success in the slams and overall. In 2001 Capriati was 3-1 head to head vs Serena, plus had more successful overall results, so Serena in no shape or form was over her that year. I would put Serena over Hingis and Davenport in 2001 personally because of all her tier 1 titles that year (Indian Wells, Canada, year end Championships). Serena was really #4 in 2000 and #3 in 2001.

In 2003 Serena and Henin were the 2 top players really, not Venus. Both won 2 majors of course. Venus and Serena both had to miss the U.S Open by injury, but Justine was not the same Justine by then as she was in Australia when she lost to Venus in the semis. Venus also was injured and very subpar at Wimbledon but was lucky Clijsters choked in the semis, and Serena took pity on her ailing and struggling sister to let the final go 3 sets. I have little doubt Justine would have beaten Venus in the final or semis there had the played, despite that she was stomped by a blazing Serena in the semis.

Then again if you are talking about atleast 1 being dominant than 2000-2003 would still be a fair period. Definitely not 2004 though. The sisters have ruled in the last year about 7x more than they did in 2004.

 

[boredone3456]

Then again if you are talking about atleast 1 being dominant than 2000-2003 would still be a fair period. Definitely not 2004 though. The sisters have ruled in the last year about 7x more than they did in 2004.

Thats what I meant, for those years the sisters were in the limelight even if they weren't always winning the tournaments. They were the ones that people perceived as running things even if the numbers prove they weren't. I know not everyone felt this way but know quite a few people that do and to try and convince them otherwise is like trying to talk to brick. Regardless of their results, people always seem to portray Williams as the best and most consistant things in womens tennis in the last like....decade, depending on who you talk to, and I agree apart from 2000-2003 this is really not the case. However if the Williams weren't in the equation in those years, Davenport's chances at the majors other than the French go way up, and she probably could have at least 2 maybe 3 more slams, although maybe that just applies to Wimbledon.

on a Side note...the players in 04 list. Henin, she was about even with Serena in terms of results (a win, no play, 2r, 4r...not that impressive a year for her) and miles better than Venus. Myskina...a lucky slam winner who to me was a big flop compared to all the hype...same can be said for Kuznetsova. Sharapova I think got a little lucky herself, if mother nature hadn't intervened I seriously doubt she would have won Wimby as I think Davenport would have beaten her, but that is of course speculation. Dementievas year probably could have been better...those 2 slam finals probably still give her nightmares.

Overall though..Davenport was as unlucky (rain in 04 Wimby, injury at 04 US Open) at times as Capriati was lucky(2 of her 3 slams). I do get what your saying though and I guess I should have been clearer.

 

[Steffi-forever]

I would put Serena over Hingis and Davenport in 2001 personally because of all her tier 1 titles that year (Indian Wells, Canada, year end Championships). Serena was really #4 in 2000 and #3 in 2001.

In 2001, Lindsay won 7 titles, made 11 finals and 17 quarters. She was 62-9.


She was an underachiever. She have wasted a lot of time by getting in shap by only at the end of the 90. From 94-97 she was in poor shape and she was still in the top 10.
And like CEvertFan wrote, she was injured a lot during her career, most of this decade actually and it had cost her a lot of wins.

I think that if during her career she would have been as fit as she were at the summer 2004 (her absolute peak to me) her history would have been different.

 

[TheTruth]

I'm only glad that she played. She was, and will always be one of my top favorites.

 

[JohnnyCracker]

Underachiever?? Prior to this year's Australian Open Davenport was the all time leader, #1 on the list, in career prize money earnings of $22,144,735. That's #1 all time in the history of the WTA. (By winning the AU Open this year Serena has now surpassed Davenport.) I'd say Lindsay has done very well for herself. Underachiever...NOT.

 

[Rhino]

How anyone can call someone who reaches #1 in the world at something like tennis... an under-achiever.... is beyond me!

 

[halalula1234]

i think she could have got 1-2 more slams

 

[Bretto]

Slow, slugging, boring, grass herding sea lion. She makes a dead whale look athletic.

Hahahahhahahahah, I couldn't agree more, her second Wimbledon final against Venus was the only time I had a even a tiny bit of respect for her. She's more of a caravan than an athlete.

 

[HAPPYforTHEvictory]

She had poor mobility compared to the Williams sisters, so even if she nullified their power she was unable to cover the court well enough. I think she achieved as much as her talent allowed her to

 

[Bretto]

She had poor mobility compared to the Williams sisters, so even if she nullified their power she was unable to cover the court well enough. I think she achieved as much as her talent allowed her to

Here accolades suggest she was a lot better than she really was. She was too big, she would make Kuznetsova look starved.

 

[zoltanps]

I'm sorry, but I could not watch matches that she played in, as she was the most negative person I have ever seen on the court. Both physically and mentally, she would give up, make excuses, look at her racquet like it malfunctioned somehow (hint: ITS YOU), and generally carry herself with a very negative vibe. Just my opinion. I would rather watch someone who loved what they are doing than someone just going thru the motions. She had the talent, didn't have the heart.

 

[crystal_clear]

It is too late to talk about this issue.

 

[Bretto]

I'm sorry, but I could not watch matches that she played in, as she was the most negative person I have ever seen on the court. Both physically and mentally, she would give up, make excuses, look at her racquet like it malfunctioned somehow (hint: ITS YOU), and generally carry herself with a very negative vibe. Just my opinion. I would rather watch someone who loved what they are doing than someone just going thru the motions. She had the talent, didn't have the heart.

You're right. She was so bland and moody APART from when she served. She always had that stupid grin on her face after the ball toss.

 

[soyizgood]

I'm sorry, but I could not watch matches that she played in, as she was the most negative person I have ever seen on the court. Both physically and mentally, she would give up, make excuses, look at her racquet like it malfunctioned somehow (hint: ITS YOU), and generally carry herself with a very negative vibe. Just my opinion. I would rather watch someone who loved what they are doing than someone just going thru the motions. She had the talent, didn't have the heart.

Can you explain Davenport whipping Sharapova 6-0 6-0 then?

 

[Bretto]

Can you explain Davenport whipping Sharapova 6-0 6-0 then?

She sat on her?