Goran Ivanisevic & Conchita Martinez Elected into International Tennis Hall of Fame

Steffi-forever

Semi-Pro
From Tennis World USA

Wimbledon champions Goran Ivanisevic and Conchita Martinez have been elected to the International Tennis Hall of Fame. The Class of 2020 for the Hall of Fame was announced on Tuesday at the Australian Open and the induction ceremony will be held in July 18 in Newport, Rhode Island.

Stan Smith, president of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, commented, "We are thrilled to welcome Goran Ivanisevic and Conchita Martínez to the Hall of Fame. Between their accomplishments on court and the way they’ve represented themselves, their countries, and our sport, they are undoubtedly among the best of the best in tennis and are most deserving of tennis’ ultimate honour”.

Croatia's Ivanisevic won the 2001 title at the All England Club as a wild-card entry while Spain's Martinez was the 1994 champion at Wimbledon. Both also peaked at No. 2 in the rankings and won multiple Olympic medals.

Ivanisevic commented on the honour, “This is a huge honour. I am proud and humbled to become the first-ever Tennis Hall of Famer from Croatia. I am grateful to the committee for selecting me for this honour and so thankful to the fans who supported me in the Fan Vote and throughout my entire career, especially so many great fans in Croatia.
I am honoured and excited to become a Hall of Famer”. Ivanisevic is currently coaching 16-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic. He won 22 titles and 599 matches at tour-level. Martinez commented, "Becoming a Hall of Famer is such a great honor.
To be remembered as part of tennis history and among the greatest in our sport, so many of whom I have always admired, is really special and I’m grateful for this recognition. There is amazing names out there. To be there with them, it will be amazing.

I will feel complete and great for my accomplishments in my career”. Martinez also won 33 WTA singles titles in her career, was part of the Spanish team that won the Fed Cup event five times during the 1990s and was a finalist at the Australian Open in 1998 and Roland Garros in 2000.

She also earned 13 WTA doubles titles, and is a three-time Olympic medalist in doubles. The Spaniard is currently coaching former World No. 1 Garbine Muguruza. The duo are part of an elite group of just over 250 individuals from 27 nations who have been inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame since its inception.
 
I hate to say but without the Seles stabbing I can't imagine Conchita ever having a career that would be Hall of Fame worthy. Ironically in that sense she is probably the biggest beneficiary of anyone, even more than Graf and Sanchez.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I hate to say but without the Seles stabbing I can't imagine Conchita ever having a career that would be Hall of Fame worthy. Ironically in that sense she is probably the biggest beneficiary of anyone, even more than Graf and Sanchez.
But, the Seles stabbing happened and she had her HOF career. So what's the problem?
 
But, the Seles stabbing happened and she had her HOF career. So what's the problem?
I think even that is debateable. Her slam win came on her worst surface by far, which looks horrible in a way. It would be far better if she won the French for her only slam, or literally anywhere else. Plus with a super easy cakewalk draw (nearly 40 year old Navratilova in the final is not a tough finals draw, and don't even get me started on the rest). She only made 3 slam finals.

She never spent a week at #1 and barely anytime at #2.

Her records against the best of her era are abysmal (1-15 or something vs both Graf and Seles).

She is a very borderline entry at best, and a questionable one. So is Ivanisevic for that matter, but I am more comfortable with him than her since he regularly came up bigger and has much more of a legacy at Wimbledon than Martinez has anywhere, even if her overall career might seem better in many ways.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I think even that is debateable. Her slam win came on her worst surface by far, which looks horrible in a way. It would be far better if she won the French for her only slam, or literally anywhere else. Plus with a super easy cakewalk draw (nearly 40 year old Navratilova in the final is not a tough finals draw, and don't even get me started on the rest). She only made 3 slam finals.

She never spent a week at #1 and barely anytime at #2.

Her records against the best of her era are abysmal (1-15 or something vs both Graf and Seles).

She is a very borderline entry at best, and a questionable one. So is Ivanisevic for that matter, but I am more comfortable with him than her since he regularly came up bigger and has much more of a legacy at Wimbledon than Martinez has anywhere, even if her overall career might seem better in many ways.
Yes she reached 3 finals in majors losing to Hingis at the Aussie( she took out #2 Davenport in the semis) and Pierce in 2000 RG ( she took out #8 seed Sanchez Vicario in that semi). I see her era as particularly deep. There were a lot of players out there, especially on her best surface.

Tier I[edit]
Singles: 14 finals (9 titles, 5 runner-ups)[edit]

OutcomeYearChampionshipSurfaceOpponentScore
Runner-up1992Virginia Slims of FloridaHardSteffi Graf6–3, 2–6, 0–6
Runner-up1992Charleston OpenClayGabriela Sabatini1–6, 4–6
Winner1993Italian OpenClayGabriela Sabatini7–5, 6–1
Winner1993Virginia Slims of PhiladelphiaCarpet (i)Steffi Graf6–3, 6–3
Winner1994Charleston OpenClayNatasha Zvereva6–4, 6–0
Winner1994Italian Open (2)ClayMartina Navratilova7–6(7–4), 6–4
Winner1995Charleston Open (2)ClayMagdalena Maleeva6–1, 6–1
Winner1995Italian Open (3)ClayArantxa Sánchez Vicario6–1, 6–1
Runner-up1996Indian Wells MastersHardSteffi Graf6–7(5–7), 6–7(5–7)
Winner1996Italian Open (4)ClayMartina Hingis6–2, 6–3
Runner-up1997Italian OpenClayMary Pierce4–6, 0–6
Winner1998German OpenClayAmélie Mauresmo6–4, 6–4
Winner2000German Open (2)ClayAmanda Coetzer6–0, 6–3
Runner-up2004Charleston Open (2)ClayVenus Williams6–2, 2–6, 1–6






As for her Wimbledon, she was #3 seed meeting a lefty s/ver #4 seed on fast grass after having played a lot of s/vers beforehand including a Tauziat and Lori McNeil( losing 10-8 in the third set!) That is no easy task, even if that final opponent S/ver is not a 8 time former champion.

Lori McNeil must go down in WTA tennis as the most dangerous perennially unseeded player of all time. Not only is she the rarest of birds to take out Evert in a slam in a QF only the second time in Evert's entire career losing before the semi, and within a couple of points of taking out Martina on carpet in 1989 (7–6(7–3), 3–6, 6–7(5–7)), she had already beaten Graf twice in the first rounds of tournaments, one in 1992 at WTA tour championships7–5, 6–4 and that very Wimbledon 7-5,7-6 before she met Martinez at that Wimbledon.

I don't care how old Martina is, she is going to be a very difficult opponent for a confirmed baseliner with as little career experience playing s/ver's or playing grass, or playing in major finals as Martinez had. I credit her coach with getting Conchita as ready as she was for that match.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Yes she reached 3 finals in majors losing to Hingis at the Aussie( she took out #2 Davenport in the semis) and Pierce in 2000 RG ( she took out #8 seed Sanchez Vicario in that semi). I see her era as particularly deep. There were a lot of players out there, especially on her best surface.

Tier I[edit]
Singles: 14 finals (9 titles, 5 runner-ups)[edit]

OutcomeYearChampionshipSurfaceOpponentScore
Runner-up1992Virginia Slims of FloridaHardSteffi Graf6–3, 2–6, 0–6
Runner-up1992Charleston OpenClayGabriela Sabatini1–6, 4–6
Winner1993Italian OpenClayGabriela Sabatini7–5, 6–1
Winner1993Virginia Slims of PhiladelphiaCarpet (i)Steffi Graf6–3, 6–3
Winner1994Charleston OpenClayNatasha Zvereva6–4, 6–0
Winner1994Italian Open (2)ClayMartina Navratilova7–6(7–4), 6–4
Winner1995Charleston Open (2)ClayMagdalena Maleeva6–1, 6–1
Winner1995Italian Open (3)ClayArantxa Sánchez Vicario6–1, 6–1
Runner-up1996Indian Wells MastersHardSteffi Graf6–7(5–7), 6–7(5–7)
Winner1996Italian Open (4)ClayMartina Hingis6–2, 6–3
Runner-up1997Italian OpenClayMary Pierce4–6, 0–6
Winner1998German OpenClayAmélie Mauresmo6–4, 6–4
Winner2000German Open (2)ClayAmanda Coetzer6–0, 6–3
Runner-up2004Charleston Open (2)ClayVenus Williams6–2, 2–6, 1–6






As for her Wimbledon, she was #3 seed meeting a lefty s/ver #4 seed on fast grass after having played a lot of s/vers beforehand including a Tauziat and Lori McNeil( losing 10-8 in the third set!) That is no easy task, even if that final opponent S/ver is not a 8 time former champion.

Lori McNeil must go down in WTA tennis as the most dangerous perennially unseeded player of all time. Not only is she the rarest of birds to take out Evert in a slam in a QF only the second time in Evert's entire career losing before the semi, and within a couple of points of taking out Martina on carpet in 1989 (7–6(7–3), 3–6, 6–7(5–7)), she had already beaten Graf twice in the first rounds of tournaments, one in 1992 at WTA tour championships7–5, 6–4 and that very Wimbledon 7-5,7-6 before she met Martinez at that Wimbledon.

I don't care how old Martina is, she is going to be a very difficult opponent for a confirmed baseliner with as little career experience playing s/ver's or playing grass, or playing in major finals as Martinez had. I credit her coach with getting Conchita as ready as she was for that match.
Fair enough, and I do agree she had the misfortunate to peak in an overall deep era, especialy on clay where she had the misfortune to peak in the deepest clay era in history. If she peaked today she very well could have won a couple French Opens, although even that isn't certain with her propensity to fold in big matches, but very possible. Although that is balanced a little bit that she had the good fortune to peak in 94-95 when the period was a bit softer with all of Sabatini, Fernandez, Navratilova, Capriati, Seles, Maleevas, Garrison, Novotna, on decline/slumping/out/retiring, and before any new threats emerged.

Still for a great, even a marginal low end HOF 1 or 2 slam winning great, she should have made more impact against the top players than she did, and came through more often than she did. I saw her choke away some big opportunities, 95 RG semis vs Graf. I know it was Graf but there was no excuse for her to lose that. She was by far the hottest player on tour on clay, on a 25 match win streak. Graf had missed nearly all the clay season. In the final was a sick and out of form Sanchez, who she had destroyed in Rome, so she would have almost surely won that. She played BY FAR her worst match of the clay season (that isn't just my opinion, Tracy Austin and Chris Evert both heavily criticized her performance and said the same thing), still came from 6-3, 4-1 down to win the 2nd and had 3-3, 0-40 in the 3rd and completely blew it. There were some other times too. And her overall head to heads with Graf and Seles are miserable for even a 1/2 slam winning lower elite threat; compare them to Sabatini and Novotna who both have far more wins for instance. She is something like 1-15 vs both, which is practically the same as someone like Mary Joe Fernandez. Sabatini like Martinez had lots of trouble beating big names in slams, but unlike Martinez, she atleast did it often outside of slams. Novotna did it many times both in and outside of slams, despite the flak she gets as a choker.

And just overall she didn't feel as imposing to the top players as any of Pierce, Novotna, Sabatini, young Capriati.

Her overall draw to the Wimbledon title was still soft overall. Even conceding an old Navratilova a quality opponent, she got an unseeded opponent in the semis, Davenport in her way out of shape phase in the quarters as probably her best opponent before the final, and just generally an easy path. She avoided all of Graf, Novotna, Sanchez, who are each nightmarish opponents for her.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough, and I do agree she had the misfortunate to peak in an overall deep era, especialy on clay where she had the misfortune to peak in the deepest clay era in history. If she peaked today she very well could have won a couple French Opens, although even that isn't certain with her propensity to fold in big matches, but very possible. Although that is balanced a little bit that she had the good fortune to peak in 94-95 when the period was a bit softer with all of Sabatini, Fernandez, Navratilova, Capriati, Seles, Maleevas, Garrison, Novotna, on decline/slumping/out/retiring, and before any new threats emerged.

Still for a great, even a marginal low end HOF 1 or 2 slam winning great, she should have made more impact against the top players than she did, and came through more often than she did. I saw her choke away some big opportunities, 95 RG semis vs Graf. I know it was Graf but there was no excuse for her to lose that. She was by far the hottest player on tour on clay, on a 25 match win streak. Graf had missed nearly all the clay season. In the final was a sick and out of form Sanchez, who she had destroyed in Rome, so she would have almost surely won that. She played BY FAR her worst match of the clay season (that isn't just my opinion, Tracy Austin and Chris Evert both heavily criticized her performance and said the same thing), still came from 6-3, 4-1 down to win the 2nd and had 3-3, 0-40 in the 3rd and completely blew it. There were some other times too. And her overall head to heads with Graf and Seles are miserable for even a 1/2 slam winning lower elite threat; compare them to Sabatini and Novotna who both have far more wins for instance. She is something like 1-15 vs both, which is practically the same as someone like Mary Joe Fernandez. Sabatini like Martinez had lots of trouble beating big names in slams, but unlike Martinez, she atleast did it often outside of slams. Novotna did it many times both in and outside of slams, despite the flak she gets as a choker.

And just overall she didn't feel as imposing to the top players as any of Pierce, Novotna, Sabatini, young Capriati.

Her overall draw to the Wimbledon title was still soft overall. Even conceding an old Navratilova a quality opponent, she got an unseeded opponent in the semis, Davenport in her way out of shape phase in the quarters as probably her best opponent before the final, and just generally an easy path. She avoided all of Graf, Novotna, Sanchez, who are each nightmarish opponents for her.
Well, realistically, they have to find someone to put into the Hall. Just think ahead ten years....they will have huge trouble finding a Slam winner to anoint once

the Big Three and Murray get in....that will really be "scraping the bottom of the barrel" time.
 

ChrisG

Rookie
I believe th Hall of Fame is more than just statistics. Conchita has a wonderful career, in a very difficult era, her impact on the sport is real
 
I believe th Hall of Fame is more than just statistics. Conchita has a wonderful career, in a very difficult era, her impact on the sport is real
Conchita did not peak in a tough era at all. She peaked in 93-95 which was one of the weakest periods. It was while Seles was off with the stabbing, and while Sabatini, Fernandez, Capriati, Navratilova, and most people of note fell off.

As for impact, Conchita is the complete opposite of impactful. She only had her results, she was one of the most boring players and personalities and had absolutely no star power at all. Someone like Kournikova even had more "impact" than she had. Someone like Sabatini who achieved about the same had light years more impact.
 
I hate to say but without the Seles stabbing I can't imagine Conchita ever having a career that would be Hall of Fame worthy. Ironically in that sense she is probably the biggest beneficiary of anyone, even more than Graf and Sanchez.
Even if her playing career discounts her, she has more than given back to the game since retiring. She has served a coach (notably to Garbine Muguruza, who credits her for assisting her to win Wimbledon). She has also captained both Spains Fed and Davis Cup teams serving in coaching capacities to players during that time as well. As a contributor to the game for all she has done since retiring, that more than merits her inclusion in the HOF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Even if her playing career discounts her, she has more than given back to the game since retiring. She has served a coach (notably to Garbine Muguruza, who credits her for assisting her to win Wimbledon). She has also captained both Spains Fed and Davis Cup teams serving in coaching capacities to players during that time as well. As a contributor to the game for all she has done since retiring, that more than merits her inclusion in the HOF.
Yes her coaching and off court contributions post career is the reason I don't find her induction as bad as I would otherwise. That plus this is the period to get in the borderlines, and a whole bunch seem to be going in, not only her.
 

McLovin

Legend
There is going to be a lot of barrel-scraping in the next few years, at least on the Men's side.
I think you'll see a few doubles specialists getting in over the next 3-5 years. I honestly believe Bjorkman deserves to go in (54 doubles titles, including 9 majors, 2 WTFs, 3 Davis Cups, and a 'Career Grand Slam' in doubles, along w/ 6 singles titles). I also think Paes gets in (he's retiring this year, so eligible in 2025?) with his 8 mens & 10 mixed Major titles.

But yeah...not much on the singles side in the next few years.
 
I think you'll see a few doubles specialists getting in over the next 3-5 years. I honestly believe Bjorkman deserves to go in (54 doubles titles, including 9 majors, 2 WTFs, 3 Davis Cups, and a 'Career Grand Slam' in doubles, along w/ 6 singles titles). I also think Paes gets in (he's retiring this year, so eligible in 2025?) with his 8 mens & 10 mixed Major titles.

But yeah...not much on the singles side in the next few years.
They should induct Haarhuis & Eltingh too. They were a great team and equal to the Woodies during their prime, they just didn't have nearly as long a career, especialy together.
 

40L0VE

Rookie
It's the Hall of Fame not Hall of Legends. She has one slam and that's why I remember her. Without scratching my head the only other Spanish womens player I can name from about the same time is Sanchez-Vicario because she won a few slams. Apart from slams I couldn't name anything else those 2 have won.

Objectively she didn't change the game, she didn't dominate by winning several slams but 1 slam is still more than most and distinguishes her from all the other players who only appear in the history books on the rankings and tournament results/draw records. Plus she was the first Spanish Woman to win Wimbledon.
 
Muster might as well make it in one of the next couple years. Heck maybe Krajicek as well. Seems like they are inducting nearly everyone. Stosur should just retire ASAP so she can be sure to get in while this soft spell lasts, or she might miss her window. I would say if she comes up for induction sometime in the next 5 years she is virtually a lock when you add on her doubles as well to her singles, but if she waits things could change. And what the heck is she still playing tennis for, she is so OVER, just freaking retire already and ensure your HOF spot during this weak spell.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Muster might as well make it in one of the next couple years. Heck maybe Krajicek as well. Seems like they are inducting nearly everyone. Stosur should just retire ASAP so she can be sure to get in while this soft spell lasts, or she might miss her window. I would say if she comes up for induction sometime in the next 5 years she is virtually a lock when you add on her doubles as well to her singles, but if she waits things could change. And what the heck is she still playing tennis for, she is so OVER, just freaking retire already and ensure your HOF spot during this weak spell.
I have a vague memory that she's already beaten a top player this year and had a reasonable run in a tournament?
@Aussie Darcy will know better.
I think she's happy still playing, although if I were her I'd concentrate on doubles with a good partner. I'd write similar for Venus Williams.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Muster might as well make it in one of the next couple years. Heck maybe Krajicek as well. Seems like they are inducting nearly everyone. Stosur should just retire ASAP so she can be sure to get in while this soft spell lasts, or she might miss her window. I would say if she comes up for induction sometime in the next 5 years she is virtually a lock when you add on her doubles as well to her singles, but if she waits things could change. And what the heck is she still playing tennis for, she is so OVER, just freaking retire already and ensure your HOF spot during this weak spell.
I have a vague memory that she's already beaten a top player this year and had a reasonable run in a tournament?
@Aussie Darcy will know better.
I think she's happy still playing, although if I were her I'd concentrate on doubles with a good partner. I'd write similar for Venus Williams.
Stosur will likely get in on the back of her doubles success as well. Her singles resume might not be enough to get her in:
1 slam, 1 more slam final, 9 titles, Career high #4 but 0 Premier 5/Mandatory titles.

However, her doubles resume for sure will help get her in:
3 slams + 3 mixed doubles slams, 5 more slam finals, #1 for 61 weeks and 26 career titles.

Someone like Schiavone or Pennetta will be the on the border ones to being inducted since both have retired and therefore can't increase their stats in any category while Stosur won a doubles slam last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Stosur will likely get in on the back of her doubles success as well. Her singles resume might not be enough to get her in:
1 slam, 1 more slam final, 9 titles, Career high #4 but 0 Premier 5/Mandatory titles.

However, her doubles resume for sure will help get her in:
3 slams + 3 mixed doubles slams, 5 more slam finals, #1 for 61 weeks and 26 career titles.

Someone like Schiavone or Pennetta will be the on the border ones to being inducted since both have retired and therefore can't increase their stats in any category while Stosur won a doubles slam last year.
Thanks. I knew you'd know. Her career, thus far, is pretty good. But if she did a Hingis and focused on doubles I'm sure she'd add more titles. She'd do well with a touch player a la Hingis.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Stosur will likely get in on the back of her doubles success as well. Her singles resume might not be enough to get her in:
1 slam, 1 more slam final, 9 titles, Career high #4 but 0 Premier 5/Mandatory titles.

However, her doubles resume for sure will help get her in:
3 slams + 3 mixed doubles slams, 5 more slam finals, #1 for 61 weeks and 26 career titles.

Someone like Schiavone or Pennetta will be the on the border ones to being inducted since both have retired and therefore can't increase their stats in any category while Stosur won a doubles slam last year.
I think Pennetta also has a good doubles resume. I'll check.

Edit - Doubles

Team competitions
Other doubles tournaments
Grand Slam Doubles results
Career record393–243 (61.8%)
Career titles17 WTA, 9 ITF
Highest rankingNo. 1 (28 February 2011)
Australian OpenW (2011)
French OpenQF (2010, 2015)
WimbledonSF (2010, 2012)
US OpenF (2005, 2014)
Tour FinalsW (2010)
Olympic GamesQF (2008)
Fed CupW (2006, 2009, 2010, 2013)
Record 25–5
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
I think Pennetta also has a good doubles resume. I'll check.

Edit - Doubles

Grand Slam Doubles results
Other doubles tournaments
Team competitions
Career record393–243 (61.8%)
Career titles17 WTA, 9 ITF
Highest rankingNo. 1 (28 February 2011)
Australian OpenW (2011)
French OpenQF (2010, 2015)
WimbledonSF (2010, 2012)
US OpenF (2005, 2014)
Tour FinalsW (2010)
Olympic GamesQF (2008)
Fed CupW (2006, 2009, 2010, 2013)
Record 25–5
I mean it's alright but just 1 slam and 1 YEC. There's a lot of doubles players out there have accomplished that or way more and not gotten in.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I mean it's alright but just 1 slam and 1 YEC. There's a lot of doubles players out there have accomplished that or way more and not gotten in.
Probably better than, or at least comparable to Roddick who got in. Although he reached more finals. But does seem to favour Americans.
Her Fed Cup wins should count for something.
 
Stosur will likely get in on the back of her doubles success as well. Her singles resume might not be enough to get her in:
1 slam, 1 more slam final, 9 titles, Career high #4 but 0 Premier 5/Mandatory titles.

However, her doubles resume for sure will help get her in:
3 slams + 3 mixed doubles slams, 5 more slam finals, #1 for 61 weeks and 26 career titles.

Someone like Schiavone or Pennetta will be the on the border ones to being inducted since both have retired and therefore can't increase their stats in any category while Stosur won a doubles slam last year.
I agree but i do think her chances are far better if she retires soon. Since you have to wait atleast 4 years from retirement from singles to be eligible (so she could retire from singles but keep playing doubles, there is really nothing left for her in singles at this point). Since if she retires around when Big 4 or Big 5 mens members retires, when Serena retires, when Sharapova might retire if she waits that long, she will have to wait awhile as all those would come before then, and by then the standards might be tougher. That is why if I were I would stop playing singles, as it is increases her HOF induction chances, and what is the point of playing singles at this point. She is done as a singles player.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Well, realistically, they have to find someone to put into the Hall. Just think ahead ten years....they will have huge trouble finding a Slam winner to anoint once

the Big Three and Murray get in....that will really be "scraping the bottom of the barrel" time.
That should be interesting. Perhaps the ITHOF should add a "Just showing up" category, since that's the calling card of this "Next Generation" of male players.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Kinda like how your darling boy Milos "just showed up" time after time, amirite?
The poor guy had to play on hard rubber surfaces, which gave him innumerable leg/knee injuries and disrupted his career. I chalk that up to the current cost-cutting style of the tour. Well done, guys.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
The poor guy had to play on hard rubber surfaces, which gave him innumerable leg/knee injuries and disrupted his career. I chalk that up to the current cost-cutting style of the tour. Well done, guys.
Which of course is a problem faced by every other player on tour. Glad to see you admit your boy belongs to "the bottom of the barrel."
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Is there even doubt Cilic & Potro are getting in? Apparently some are not so sure but I think they're shoo ins.
I think the fact that they were both instrumental in winning the Davis Cup with their countries in 2016 and 2018 respectively, alongside reaching additional grand slam finals and winning plenty of tour titles including a masters series title apiece, will help them both get in.

More than 99% of players who ever turn professional could only dream about achieving what either of them did, so I would have no problem with them both getting inducted.
 
I think you'll see a few doubles specialists getting in over the next 3-5 years. I honestly believe Bjorkman deserves to go in (54 doubles titles, including 9 majors, 2 WTFs, 3 Davis Cups, and a 'Career Grand Slam' in doubles, along w/ 6 singles titles). I also think Paes gets in (he's retiring this year, so eligible in 2025?) with his 8 mens & 10 mixed Major titles.

But yeah...not much on the singles side in the next few years.
I'd put Lisa Raymond on the list to get in as well. 6 Womens Doubles titles, 5 mixed, 4 YEC titles, 79 career doubles titles overall, over 800 doubles wins. Her singles resume is non existent but her doubles resume should get her in.

Liezel Huber will probably make it in as well for her doubles, although she won't be eligible until 2022 I think.
 
Top